Talk:Game updates/Archive9

/Archive

FUTURE Updates
Should we add a section about FUTURE updates here? I don't mean to start a rumor mill (although on second thought we might even do that). I'm thinking about collecting everything that has been officially confirmed by ANet in press releases, on official websites or in interviews. I'm thinking short term future updates, for example this one and this one about the changes to come next weekend. Mid term we might cover the Summer 2005 Update (the summer is almost over, right?) and long term the Expansion. --Tetris L 15:58, 25 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Opposed. My defintion of Game Updates is: a list of "updates" done to the "game." :) Has nothing to do with speculation/expectation. Now, I think what you are suggesting is valuable and it could fall under the "Category:Game Updates" but is should be in a separate place, like "Articles" or "Previews" or something. --Karlos 16:46, 25 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Not really opposed. :) Sure, this is the updates page, but that doesn't imply they have to be already done.. the page is about game updates, so if we know there's gonna be a future one, may as well collect info on that here, too, right? --Midk 19:35, 25 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * MY definition of Update doesn't say anything about whether they are past or future updates. And I don't have a problem with writing about future updates as long as we refrain from speculation and stick to the things that are confirmed by ANet. Oh ... and we could include what the Frog said. --Tetris L 18:53, 26 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Totally opposed to the Frog bit. How would we know? Some guy posts an article in the updates promising that ANet will remove the monk profession altogher. You ask him his source and he says: A frog told me! :) Are you supposed to believe him? :) If we will be putting future updates, then it will certainly be links to interviews and press releases by ANet, not conversations with a FROG. :) --Karlos 19:19, 26 Aug 2005 (EST)

This old discussion is particularly relevant now that we've been given a future update directly from ANet (in a form that might actually be exactly what the patch notes will be). Koyashi has gone through the skills and changed them to reflect the future changes. I think that shouldn't have been done since our articles intentionally don't match the actual game for those skills at this moment. I don't know if it's worth noting in the skill articles what future changes may be (in this case, such a section would have a lifetime of maybe a week). I think something like Game updates/Future]] might be good. --68.142.14.76 21:41, 31 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Agree. - 23:07, 31 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Don't revert Koyashi's changes though. Just institute a "policy" for future updates. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 23:13, 31 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm not going to revert Koyashi's changes. However, if anyone else does revert, I ask everyone to NOT re-revert.  Please, instead, to just add a note to the article saying "within 10 days from blah, this skill will be changed in this manner". - 23:21, 31 May 2006 (CDT)


 * The reversions will happen. It's just a matter of when Karlos logs on. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 23:22, 31 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I will not object to reverting my changes, but in my defence, the planned updates page clearly state that these changes "will be incorporated into the game in the next 10 days". I read it as the skill updates have been finalized, but not yet rolled out. When the updates happen in 10 days, I will definitely compare to the actual update and correct any discrepancies there might be. Koyashi 10:41, 1 June 2006 (CDT)
 * In defense against your defense, no matter how certain, how set in stone the changes are, even if you use a time machine travel to 10 days later and verify that all the changes will in fact take place, they nonetheless are not the way the current game works. Whether the changes *might* take place vs *will certainly* take place has no bearing on the criticisms directed at this particular incident.  I think it's ok to add a note on the skill articles saying it will be changed to blah, but we should not, for future reference, change the skill's stats to blah before it is actually implemented.  Even if Anet say they are for sure implementing it in the next hour. - 10:46, 1 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Yes, I will not repeat this pre-emptive change for any update in the future. However, the question is what to do about this instance. I am recusing myself from any further edits on these skill articles until the planned update has happened. Koyashi 10:54, 1 June 2006 (CDT)


 * The update has now happened and I have verified the skill pages. The only change required was to Enduring Toxin which received an additional buff to the degen. Koyashi 00:04, 2 June 2006 (CDT)


 * You just beat me to it PanSola, last minute changes can happen, or new bugs can crop up in the changes, then you'll be stuck editing the skills again to reflect whats actually in the game. I think notes saying that the skill is supposed to be changed is good, then changing the template when it is actually implemented is by far the best way to do it.--Chrono traveller 10:51, 1 June 2006 (CDT)

Calling out corpses
The feature of being able to call out that you're moving to someones corpse was added at the same time the one with items was added. This isnt as new as it says. Dont have proof but me and a guildie figured it out a while ago.--63.228.96.1 19:33, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
 * this was part of the new art style added in with the nightfall PvP preview event. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 11:13, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

2006 Weekend of Fun
Sorry but i dont know the date of the update, so i hope this title is correct enough for people to know what it concerns. Does anyone have any clue if the access for PvP guys to be able to fight in the luxon and kuzick fort and jade quarry is a peramant change, or if its just part of the weekend of fun? I know the double faction will stop on sunday night, but the way the patch message was written makes me wonder how long term this maybe. As i see it, its been a wonderful weekend being able to get fights at the fort almost constantly due to the higher number of players around, and also it will make people concider running a pve char. --Djsmiley2k 10:25, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Visited to fort today @ 1:35pm (GMT) and the Priest and Faction Scribe are still there, also someone claiming to be a PvP player reported they still had access. So hopefully thats lot more running the fort, from both sides --Woonack [[Image:Warrior-icon-small.png]] 07:35, 21 August 2006 (CDT)
 * removed from the "Competitive Weekend of Fun" news: "... with the PvP character access remaining open even after the event ends. ..." --duckman 09:27, 21 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Kool, is there still no offical word on this yet then? --Woonack [[Image:Warrior-icon-small.png]] 10:22, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

Feathered Longbow
Can anyone confirm this? Is it a Core thing or specific to Tyria/Cantha?

Ive just found a Longbow (Mountain Troll Farming) with the Feathered Skin and the name hasnt changed. Not sure whats happening with this. Stone Mort 05:17, 8 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Check out the Longbow article and look at the top picture. Is that the bow skin that dropped for you? -Gares 07:46, 8 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Yeah thats the one I got (I actually had 2 but now sold). I could farm more and get a screenshot if proof is required Stone Mort 10:56, 8 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Proof that feathered longbow has not changed name http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/8247/featheredlongbowpi2.jpg notice the time in the bottom right hand corner and this time signature for authenticity Stone Mort 19:04, 8 September 2006 (CDT)
 * You do know one could type the signature with a completly different date then when it was put in. For example : << -Sefre 20:49, 31 August 1990 (CDT)  >> Cant realy prove much with signing alone. ANd theres always photoshop-Sefre 19:11, 8 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Ok then, lets just assume on good faith that he's telling the truth (what is there to be gained by lying?), then we have an update thats not in effect. I know the update didnt update retrospectively as my longbow with the feathered skin is still just called a Longbow. And what would be the point of faking the sig lol? yours was right after it and they were made in order and appeared in the Recent Changes (or history... it'll only be a couple down)... of which I'm not aware of a way to fake. arual 05:58, 9 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Im not calling him a liar, it just seemed a but funny pointing out things to proove himself.-Sefre 17:24, 9 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Yeah fair point. Although now its up to someone to find a Feather Longbow. Im pretty sure that if it did exist then someone would have created the page by now Stone Mort 05:55, 10 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I just found a Longbow but with the feathered skin... so why do we have a note (therefore not even confirmed by anet) that's clearly wrong?... I'll try find who put it in. -arual 08:55, 10 September 2006 (CDT)
 * That's what this is about, a note on an update page? O.o I can assure that if ANet changed a name, it would be on a much grander scale. Not just changing one skin on one type of bow. Here I was thinking Stone Mort thought he found a new skin not listed on wiki.
 * Furthermore, there is no reason this "feathered fiasco" should continue and especially no reason to suspect someone is lying or altering photoshop. People upload proof all the time. Even I still upload proof on occasion. What he was showing was the name hadn't been changed. Would you believe a person who reconstitutes what the game has always show us, or someone just passing by and decided to throw a note on an update page? -Gares 10:06, 10 September 2006 (CDT)

lol
so how often do they get the date/day of week wrong? ive seen it twice in 2-3 months now... Weds the 14th?--Midnight08 09:47, 14 September 2006 (CDT)

Attribute-Based Skill Stats Differences
I was confused by the patch notes use of the x...y notation for when a skill stat is based on an attribute. For example "Ritual Lord: decreased Spirit recharge to 15..60%". In GuildWiki skill entries (and I think elsewhere) that top attribute (60% in example) would be the stat for 12 of the linked attributes, however in the patch notes this is the value of the skill stat for 15 of the linked attribute. Looking at a previous set of patch notes it seems this was probably always the case for patch notes.

Is this difference in style noted anywhere in GuildWiki? Could a warning about this be added to the top of the patch notes on GuildWiki? Surreality 10:11, 14 September 2006 (CDT)

I have now found this difference mentioned at Style_and_formatting/Skills, but I think a warning about this would still be a useful thing to have on the patch notes. Surreality 10:17, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
 * The game updates pages are just a copy+paste from the game updates page on guildwars.com, and Anet use 0..15 but guildwiki uses 0..12 --[[Image:Kitty1.jpg|24px|]] (Talk) (Cont) (Cool) [[Image:Soft2.jpg|24px|]] 10:19, 14 September 2006 (CDT)


 * It's strange that ArenaNet use 15 as the max attribute, since with runes + headgear you can get 16. So 12 or 16 would be the sensible options for me... Oh well.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 10:29, 14 September 2006 (CDT)