Karlos, I don't see how your argument, "to avoid does not mean to resist", is relevant. All of our given definitions use "avoid" and none use "resist". Also, with the definition you reverted to, there is still the issue that it encompasses things like blocking. --Rezyk 11:51, 28 Sep 2005 (EST)
- I agree with Rezyk. Saying "evasion means to use a skill..." seems plain wrong, even though you do have to use a skill in order to evade. I think I even prefer this even older version of Rezyk's over any of the more recent ones, though the note about the "evade" text is good. --Fyren 12:14, 28 Sep 2005 (EST) then said that i hate gays
i
- We are defining Evasion in Guild Wars, not evasion in the English language. Evasion in Guild Wars is to use a skill of evasion. It is not an ambiguous black-box mechanism that shall remain undefined. It is important to note what the game means by it (despite not sounding right) first and foremost. When Irresistible Blow says that it cannot be "evaded" it means specifically that characters invoking an "evasion" skill will not benefit against it. It does not mean that those trying to evade the skill (in the English sense) shall fail. You can in fact run from the Warrior and if he invokes the skill he will have to run and catch up to you before he can land the blow, so you did "evade" it in that sense. But in the game's lingo, that skill is un-evadable. --Karlos 23:06, 28 Sep 2005 (EST)
- The difference is you say "use a skill" as if that was part of evading, but the person evading doesn't have to use the skill that 'enabled' the evasion. Someone else can. Evasion is passive in that your character can be standing there naked and you can have your keyboard unplugged but still evade. We're not using the English definition and ignoring GW. If you use a ward against melee and no one ever takes a swing at you, you didn't evade. Using the skill isn't the evasion even though it makes it possible.
- Rezyk didn't imply it was some mysterious game mechanic that's opaque to us. The only word in the version I linked is "mechanic" and his last version says "passive reaction" and "effect." --Fyren 23:38, 28 Sep 2005 (EST)
- So, you are worrying about the fringe case of someone invoking a skill other than you and instead wnat to call it a reaction/passive skill? Some arcane term that is not used anywhere else in the wiki? It is a skill, whether invoked by you or by others around you, someone has to click something on the skill bar. I am specifically opposed to "passive skill" or "passive mechanism" because it implies that it happens passively without the user "invoking" it. (like armor penetration with strength). This is wrong. There is no attribute to raise or pump to be able to evade "passively" more frequently. In fact, someone (not necessarily you) has to "actively" invoke a skill for you to evade an attack. The definition says to "use a skill that allows A character" not "your cahracter" and if we want to make it more explicit that others can help you evade too, that's fine. But to call it a passive mechanism is both ambiguous and misleading. --Karlos 23:55, 28 Sep 2005 (EST)
- "Passive" was meant to imply that the player doesn't have to do something for each single time a character evades. As long as you're not talking about "passive skill" (which I wasn't) I think that is the popular connotation. But whatever, let's drop "passive" altogether -- I only used it in trying to find a common ground after your first change. --Rezyk 05:16, 30 Sep 2005 (EST)
- Example problems with the current definition ("means to use a skill that allows a character to avoid being struck by certain attacks"):
- includes activation of Magnetic Aura
- ambiguously includes activation of Sprint (running faster helps me avoid/dodge..)
- means that Rigor Mortis prevents someone from using Lightning Reflexes
- I propose Evasion allows characters to avoid being struck by some attacks. It is only accessible through certain skills. --Rezyk 05:16, 30 Sep 2005 (EST)
- That's Okay with me. --Karlos 09:06, 30 Sep 2005 (EST)
Spirit Attacks[]
Can spirit attacks be blocked or evaded? 213.84.52.71 09:08, 17 January 2007 (CST)
I believe so. I remember when I used to play a Touch Ranger in FA, I'd use Whirling Defense by the spirits to cause large AoE damage. --NYC Elite 19:56, 19 January 2007 (CST)
K, ty 213.84.52.71 05:58, 20 January 2007 (CST)
Removed[]
Why is it removed from the game?? I'm conufed =| --Sigm@ 
(talk|contribs) 10:57, 21 January 2007 (CST)
so they dont have to write block and evade in skills.since they are both basically the same, you wont get hit with projectiles with either of them. BMW 12:41, 21 January 2007 (CST)
Ah, well that sounds rational --" --Sigm@ (talk|contribs) 12:48, 21 January 2007 (CST)
- Isn't this supposed to be temporary? — Rapta
(talk|contribs) 12:49, 21 January 2007 (CST)
- Nope, its staying. See below. --NYC Elite 16:40, 21 January 2007 (CST)
General[]
Permanent Change:
- The "evade" mechanic has been removed from the game. All skills that used this mechanic have been changed to use "block" instead.
Temporary Change for this Weekend's Testing Event:
- Weakness now causes -1 to all attributes.
Well.. no --Sigm@ (talk|contribs) 12:51, 21 January 2007 (CST)
I think this is stupid like some of the running skills SHOULD have evade it only makes sense. In game mechanics they are basically the same thing but if u think about it they should have both. Say for instance ur using Escape how and ur running forward if a guy shoots an arrow at u what are u supposed to do turn around and block it? i think having evade and block is better
- They're just words. Maybe they should've replaced "block" with "evade" rather than vice versa, but who cares (and the distinction in reality isn't as clear-cut as it may seem, really)? It's much more important that the mechanical basis of the change is sound: the skills that only affected one but not the other (like Seeking Blade) were gimptastic, because when your enemy did use abilities you were trying to counter, your skill would still be useless half the time. — 130.58 (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2007 (CST)
- Yes, but what about Irresistible Blow, and you're using Distortion to cover some spell your casting? —Silk Weaker 06:40, 22 January 2007 (CST)
- What about it? — 130.58 (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2007 (CST)
- I evade his blow, it does not touch me, how come I am knocked down? As opposed to blocking it, the force of which would knock me down. Now IB is an interrupt if I am using distortion to protect myself. They are different mechanics. --Heurist 16:21, 23 January 2007 (CST)
- What about it? — 130.58 (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2007 (CST)
- Yes, but what about Irresistible Blow, and you're using Distortion to cover some spell your casting? —Silk Weaker 06:40, 22 January 2007 (CST)
As stated here by Martin Kerstein, the remove of "evade" was also a temporary change. It was reverted for evaluation. 
Poke 05:27, 23 January 2007 (CST)
Seems they deleted it from the game tho --SigmA 
05:59, 3 February 2007 (CST)
- kinda frustrating, the block/evade thing could have been very nice. Sun and Moon Slash is a totally different skill now. evade could avoid Irresistible Blow's bad connotations, to which seeking blade was an excellent counter. it just seems like the skills have lost a bit of the magic that was once there --Honorable Sarah
00:39, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
- Now skills like Sun and Moon Slash don't make sense.--64.178.154.131 05:32, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
