Talk:Unstable Pulse

Unstable Pulse Error?
I think there's possibly an error with this skill in it's description. It says 175 seconds, but it ends rather quickly for some reason. Nor does it say it ends if it is hit with elemental damage. Nor is it 175 damage. I tried this with two monks as a Critical Defenses assassin and I was one-hit with a 350.
 * Boss-like creature so it does double damage from pretty much everything. --Blue.rellik 03:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer the other parts of the question though. --Shadowcrest 04:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Never said it did --Blue.rellik 04:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * =P --Shadowcrest  04:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In the Italian description is stated that when the golem is struck for elemental damage the Unstable Pulse ends. --:-) GlennThePaladin (Talk,Contrib) 14:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The description template in gw.dat references the parameter "%str1%" both for the duration and for the damage amount. Every other description references "%str3%" for effect durations, so probably whoever wrote this one made a typo and no one ever caught it. &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 03:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And now I take a second look and see that the full description has been updated to say this ends when it takes damage. The concise description still doesn't say that, though. &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 03:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Stacking
I'm not so sure about that note. I think it's just a player who doesn't realize that EotN bosses deal double damage, thus they get hit by 350 damage instead of the 175 stated in the description. (It appears to be direct damage, i.e. not affected by armor.) If we can see screenshots where a character is hit by something other than 350 damage, then I would concede. &mdash;Dr Ishmael 18:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Eh, I'm good with removing it; I haven't carefully looked at the damage indicators from TPS, but I can tell you my teams almost always include elemental damage; I don't recall ever suffering enough of a spike to 1-shot any party member. It was a plausible enough statement that I wasn't ready to remove it entirely on my own.


 * Sometimes, in my opinion, AGF ought to mean considering whether the older information ought to remain (good faith on the part of prior contributors) vs. accepting without evidence a change to a longstanding piece of data, explanation of a game mechanic. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 20:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)