ArenaNet talk:Skill bugs/A1

Shardisms

Shouldn't all the bugs be on the talk page so I can tell you none of those are bugs?

In any case, someone can move/format these if they want. I have to go somewhere right now so no time. ~Shard 19:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You'd have an easier time telling people that if the talk page isn't used for article stuff... Backsword 06:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The other bug report pages use the talk page for reports, for the reasons you've already discovered later down the page ~Shard 22:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

These bugs have been here for ages, is there any way we can send spam mail to the dev team with big flashy animated gifs to bring this to their attention? I mean honestly, this is silly. Why is Avatar of Grenth still broken? -- euphoracle | talk 19:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Same with Obelisk lightning, for that matter, hell, half of these bugs have been around for ages. -- euphoracle | talk 19:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Blinding Powder

It triggers the ferver/dark aura combo then has no recharge. Give it a recharge when it fails.

--The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Shard (talk).

Looks like a balance issue to me. (and not an important one. I mean, take 110 damage, cause 50 AoE?) Backsword 06:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's more of a balance issue than a bug in the skill, but I don't think a skill that fails should do free damage. This skill is broken. It's like MoR recharging skills that get interrupted. ~Shard 23:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I think this should be expanded to include all assassin skills that recharge instantly when they fail. It's a programming factor when you look at it that way, but a balance issue when you look at individual parts. (Twisting Fangs/Sand Shards anyone?) -- Armond Warblade 23:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that update changed the way chain skills work. When Gale fails because my air is less than 4, it has a recharge. Why don't these?

Now that sand shards only works with scythes, why not "undo" that update? Give failed skills their normal recharges. ~Shard 23:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Cause then I can't put my attack skills in random places before I go into FA and mash my keyboard until it works. (That was a fun day. I actually got a kill, eventually.) -- Armond Warblade 02:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that it's how all assassin skills work, itis hardly a bug. You may not like the mechanic, but this is not the page to suggest a change. Backsword 08:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Read what he said about Gale at 3 spec. -- Armond Warblade 13:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Gale is not an Assassin chain skill. Backsword 14:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The price of tea in china is five yen per bag. -- Armond Warblade 02:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm disapointed in you, Armond. Don't get the Yuan and Yen mixed up again. Backsword 14:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Spirit Bond

Only looks for preliminary damage instead of actual damage taken. Example: If you take 100 damage in frenzy (50 damage normally), spirit bond will not trigger.--The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Shard (talk).

Not sure about this one. Depends on how you read it. Backsword 06:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The description says "When target ally takes more than 60 damage from..." If I take 40 damage and trigger it, I clearly did not take more than 60. Likewise, if I take 100 damage and don't trigger it, 100 is, in most universes, more than 60. It's a mistake in the programming of the skill, which is the very definition of a bug. ~Shard 23:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm this bug, saw it loads when i was doing 600hp and using frenzy. However it seemed to heal sometimes but not always. --Treasure Boy Talk 09:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Dancing Daggers

This is incorrect. Skill works as it claims it should. You may want it to work differently, but such proposals should be made on the skill feedback pages. Backsword 14:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you read my edit summary? Skill doesn't claim either way, and it's a problem. -- Armond Warblade 02:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't claim to have such a mechanism, and it does not have one either. Hence not a bug. You thinking that the problem you have with it should be brought up here was one of the things I feared with setting up a skill bug page. I realise some people feel strongly about skill balancing, and would like to post it anywhere they think it may make it get seen. But if everyone does that, this page quickly becomes an useless duplicate of the skill feedback pages. Backsword 14:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

So, wait, simply because a skill omits something, along with omitting to mention it, makes it not a bug? There's no such thing as an oversight on the programmers' parts? -- Armond Warblade 03:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It just says this skill counts as a lead attack. With out any conditions, it's an unconditional thing. Halogod35 03:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Golden Fox Strike says it counts as a lead attack. Unsuspecting Strike says it counts as a lead attack. Jagged Strike says it counts as a lead attack. They omit that THEY DONT COUNT WHEN THEY MISS. Maybe we should /but report on every assassin attack skill in the game. I'll get right on it. ~Shard 07:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

lol just got here to say that... This skill counts as a lead attack. --Cursed Angel 03:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no bug if it works as it should. You may feel this should be different, but unless there is some evidence that things are not working as they are meant to, it doesn't belong on this page. And in this, given that there is no code AFAIK to do what you want, I sort of find it hard to believe there could be any such evidence. Backsword 10:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Do any of you mind not ignoring my point about an oversight on the part of the programmers? At the very least, we could bring it up for them to review. -- Armond Warblade 06:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, if any other lead misses, it doesn't count as a lead attack. -- Armond Warblade 06:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What did you think I was commenting on? The weather? Also "other lead attack". Well, there's your problem. DD is not a lead attack, it's a spell. I suspect you knew that. Backsword 11:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We can do it Backsword's way, where we pretend to be ignorant and have to post every discrepancy in every skill in the game, or we could do it my way, the way that actually solves problems and fixes actual bugged skills. ~Shard 07:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, silly me. I forgot to list every offhand and dual attack in the game. They fail when they miss too. I'll post all of them tomorrow morning if you'd still like to waste everyone's time. ~Shard 07:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You are being childish and disruptive, Shard. And wrong to boot, as there is no discrepancy. Attacks fail if they miss. Backsword 11:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Then why isn't dancing daggers a bug? It DOESN'T fail when it misses, and it's an attack. If you want to argue "but it doesn't say it's not true", then take it to the text bugs page. In any normal person's mind, as you've already said, attacks that miss fail, and this one doesn't. ~Shard 01:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"Golden Fox Strike says it counts as a lead attack.", no it doesn't and neither does any other lead attacks. "it's an attack" no it isn't, it's a spell. I'm with backsword... --Cursed Angel 02:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Something that counts as an attack is an attack, that's why it says "this counts as a whatever attack." I know what you're getitng at, but backsword is trying to play lawyer about what constitutes a bug, when instead, he should let people post skills that don't work how they should. I don't think a skill that fails should succeed, do you? ~Shard 21:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"should" is just the problem. Everyone has opinions. And that's why we have the skill feedback pages. Please, just use them. This skill works as it says it does. Backsword 17:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(technical addition) The skill doesn't count if it fails. Backsword 17:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If dancing daggers works the way it says it does, then all the real assassin attack skills don't. Make up your mind. No other lead attacks count as you use them, they all have to hit the target. This deviates from that, it's a bug. ~Shard 19:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

AGF only goes so far. Even if you were ignorant before, you are well aware that DD is not an attack by now. Backsword 17:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do, but here's my beef:

Dancing Daggers, not actually a lead attack, but counts as one even if it "doesn't hit" (in this case obstructed). EVERY other assassin attack and pseudoattack DOES NOT COUNT if it "doesn't hit." For both balance reasons and logical reasons, this makes no sense. There are two solutions:

1. Make assassins broken as hell by allowing every missed or blocked attack skill as still counting as part of the chain.
2. or Nerf the currently overpowered and quite homosexual assassacaster builds by fixing Danging Daggers.

I hope now you see where I'm coming from.

Side rant - it's bad enough that assassins can teleport, but having teleporting attacks makes them just stupid. ~Shard 08:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, DD is not a lead attack. It is a spell. It counts as a lead attack (e.g. you can follow it with an off-hand attack). Though I agree that it is bugged that it counts as a lead attack even though they all miss/are obstructed or whatever, the fact is that it is not in its description that it only counts as a lead attack if one of the projectile actually hit. This is like it doesn't say in any exhaustion skills that the exhaustion still occurs if they spell fails (not just interrupted or cancel casted, but fails by Spell Breaker etc). It is probably something A-net didn't think about, but right now it functions according to its wording. Also, I do believe Assassacasters should be nerfed, but it really isn't "fixing" the skill, but changing it to work like it should originally have functionedCrimmastermind 08:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I do understand, perhaps even sympathise. Maybe Assacasters need nerfing. It's just that this is not the page for it. The spell is complete when it creates the projectiles, and the description is clear. (it would be in plural form if it refered to the projectiles, which would be an oddity)

I recomend you start a page on assacasters on the skill balance pages, if there isn't already one. Tho' given that they'd need new code to do what you suggest it may not be the most likely 'fix'. Backsword 15:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Chilling Victory

Um... I could have sworn this skill was in Scythe Mastery yesterday... but I logged on to day and it was in Wind Prayers..... --Shadowphoenix 20:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This was due to a PvP/PvE split update: the first one, I believe. Regardless, it IS intentional. -- Wandering Traveler 20:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Here is the link to when this was changed. -- Wandering Traveler 20:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I just realized that, thanks though :) --Shadowphoenix 01:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Power Block

I tested this skill to see if it could be fully countered by using Mantra of Concentration or Mantra of Resolve. Powerblock clearly states that it disables ON interrupt. But when i tested it with those 2 stances, the skill i used (Aegis) wasn't interrupted but the effects of the Powerblock occurred anyway. So its either a bug with the mantras or its in powerblock. --Treasure Boy Talk 09:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This is true. It say "interupt effect". Backsword 17:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Happens with Glyph of Concentration aswell. Conclusion would be that the problem is with Power Block and not the prevention stances. But its also weird because i know i have been using Mantra of Resolve on my 600 monk in PvE, for example CoF. The Charr Dominators there use Power Block but i have never been disabled when i have used MoR to counter PB. Although that was a while back now. --Treasure Boy Talk 15:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Happens with everything. Power Block disables the skill whether it was actually interrupted or not. Then, when the spell is about to cast it detects that the spell is diabled on your bar and fails. Mr J 15:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it also happen with PD? Because in that case I have to think it's a problem with the defenses - that they're coded to simply prevent the interrupt but not the interrupt effects. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 16:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you refering to Power Drain? Do you mean that in this case, you get the energy even if the skill wasn't interrupted due to a defense skill? Btw, this really needs a fix. PB is present in almost every GvG I see, and as a monk i know how frustrating it is to be PB:ed when you are casting Aegis for example and would love to be able to defend myself against this skill. --Treasure Boy Talk 21:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Looking at PBs Talk Page on this wiki it seems this problem has been around since mid-late 2007... How come it hasn't been fixed yet? A skill that interrupts even if the interrupt is prevented is a broken skill.--Treasure Boy Talk 05:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the problem appears to be even older than that. I was reading on the original GuildWiki and saw that it was first reported in june 2006.... This skill is broken and OP in PvP since the only protection against it is a spellbreaker effect which in most cases means sacrificing your elite slot. --Treasure Boy Talk 06:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Spellbreaker is bad and build wars. I was referring to Psychic Distraction. This sounds like an inherent problem in the code, much like Amulet of Protection. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 06:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I know, SB is nothing for GvG. Psychic Distraction's description doesn't state that the skill needs to interrupted to be disavled, however PB's description does. --Treasure Boy Talk 15:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The concise description is comparable to Power Block, actually. (e.g. Interruption effect: disables interrupted skill (5...11...12 seconds).) You are correct that the original description, however, implies that so long as they are simply using a skill it will be disabled. Mr J 15:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You are indeed correct about the Concise description. --Treasure Boy Talk 21:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The bug would be in the code for PB. Rather than 'if activating skilltype X, then interrupt. If interrupt, then Y' it would just check the condition twice, eg. 'if activating skilltype X, then interrupt. if activating skilltype X, then Y' Backsword 01:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Development Team Negligence

How long has it been since any change has been made to any of those skills?--ShadowFog 19:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol, nothing is going to be fixed. It humours me. -- euphoracle | talk 04:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem with this page is that until very recently, Kim didn't know it existed. As you can see, she does now. -- Wyn 05:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that this particular page was created as part of the ArenaNet namespace on September 21, 2008, so it's not like Kim has been unaware of it for months. Prior to that all skill bug reports were going to Mike Z's userspace, which is where Kim had been monitoring them. -- Wyn 21:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Destructive was Glaive

"Creates an item but is not classified as an Item Spell. Furthermore, will not automatically drop when its duration is over, it must be manually dropped to produce the damage." I was under the impression that no item spells automatically triggered their drop effect when the duration ended - you have to drop them manually or recast or they just kinda disappear. So I went and did some testing, and here's what I found:

• The following skills do trigger their drop effect when the duration ends without manually dropping them:
  1. Protective Was Kaolai
  2. Energetic Was Lee Sa
• The following skills do NOT trigger the drop effect upon ending:
  1. Grasping Was Kuurong
  2. Cruel Was Daoshen
  3. Generous Was Tsungrai
  4. Anguished Was Lingwah
  5. Blind Was Mingson

I didn't test others, but it seems more don't trigger it than do. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 18:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That is some serious ambiguity right there, look likes the drop effect ain't suppose to happen. We should ask Izzy what was their real intentions.--ShadowFog 19:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Restoration and Lively

We've already gone over how these aren't bugs at all ad infintum times. Already on this page even, see the Frozen Soil entry on why. Not a bug. DarkNecrid 05:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify (not angry just annoyed that this gets reported about 10+ times every month.), Frozen Soil says that only non-Spirit creatures in the area can't resurrect other creatures, it says nothing against Spirits, items, or enchantments. When you cast a rez skill like Resurrect or Light of Dwayna, it is you, the person, and the skill, directly reviving someone. Restoration and LwN and UA are a spirit, an item, and the enchantment indirectly reviving someone, so it voids the description of Frozen Soil. DarkNecrid 05:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You're joking right? That's the lamest excuse for leaving something broken I've ever heard, and I read anet's half-baked garbage A LOT.

I'll play lawyer too. Characters never resurrect anybody. Skills do. Unyielding Aura is a skill. Resurrect is a skill. One of them is broken. Maybe frozen soil should say "Non-ritualist skills cannot resurrect dead allies." That would be more accurate. ~Shard 08:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Skills are rings attached to a character's finger that they activate by expending energy resources from within their body, so it's the person activating the skill of Resurrect that rezzes, however the spirit Restoration revives all the dead party members when it dies, not the skill itself, its the item that revives people (just like Resurrection Orbs, items that revive get around Frozen Soil), and UA is the enchantment reviving someone. The character never directly revives anyone at all, it's the spirit/item/enchantment, not them casting a spell to directly revive. If you wanted the functionality you want (which your description is wrong because direct skill caused rezzes in the Ritualist line like Death Pact Signet fail too), the description of Frozen Soil would read: "Nature Ritual. Create a level 1...8...10 Spirit. Creatures within its range can't be resurrected. This Spirit dies after 30...78...90 seconds.", but it doesn't, it says that only non-spirit creatures in its range can't resurrect dead allies, it says nothing about various other things that aren't just the skill activation itself doing it. I'd try to come up with a good in real life analogy, but I just woke up so maybe later. DarkNecrid 13:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Also just so you know I completely agree with you on that they should be disallowed (at least in PvP), but it isn't Anet half baked idea, its just the way the descriptions work. :/ I don't think they say "Creatures within its range can't be resurrected" because Spirits dont effect dead people and that could potentially be even more broken since technically people wouldn't rez to the resurrection shrines anymore (which currently void FS by not being a creature.), so their only other option would to be disable the use of all resurrection skills and items (which is just plain weird now you'd drop a Resurrection Orb and it'd do nothing) while in its range which is weird. DarkNecrid 13:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No, skills are lines of code that look like garbled mess. For example:

s.match("Frenzy")

{

Effect e1=new Effect("ias",1.33f);

Effect e2=new Effect("dmgred%",-100f);

EffectNode temp=new EffectNode(e1,e2);

temp.setDuration(8f);

temp.setType(SKILL_STANCE);

actor.attachEffect(temp);

}

and it doesn't make sense from any perspective that frozen soil only works some of the time. ~Shard 03:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does. Read the description of Frozen Soil, and then please realize that when the Spirit dies it is the Spirit that revives everyone, that when you drop the item it is the item that revives everyone, and when you unmaintain the enchantment it is the enchantment that revives someone and all of those things aren't non-Spirit creatures so they can revive people. There is an obvious difference between a resurrection spell you directly cast on someone, and a resurrection effect that occurs when a buff is ended and another effect occurs at the end of the triggering (an indirect rez). At no point does Frozen Soil say that resurrects can't happen at all, it just says that non-Spirit creatures can't revive anyone, but a Spirit/Item/Enchantment aren't a creature. DarkNecrid 04:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You're silly. What I think you're getting at is that Frozen Soil is obeying itself via "ownership" of effects. When it says, "Non-Spirit creatures within its range cannot resurrect dead allies," the game is following it's own rules. If you cast UA, and then end it, UA resurrects someone, not you. You are not the activator of the resurrection, UA is. Even if you activated UA, you activated it's +HEAL effect, not it's resurrect effect. When you cast Resurrect, you are activating the resurrection effect. When Restoration resurrects someone, you activated the spirit, spawned it, and whatnot, but you have nothing to do with it resurrecting people. When it dies, it resurrects, using itself as ownership of the effect. By FS's rules, spirit allies are allowed to resurrect dead allies. If you go with Shard's impression of the code behind Frenzy, you would have to assume that Frozen Soil is checking the activator of the resurrection. I'll play pseudocode too Shard ;o

if ( CREATURE( rez -> getActivator () ) && !SPIRIT ( res -> getActivator () ) {

rez -> fail (); // This should only occur if the activator of the skill a non-spirit creature :o

} -- euphoracle | talk 21:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, Resurrect is a Skill. I wonder why it doesn't res people under FS. Resurrect isn't a "non spirit creature." Maybe we should take Frozen Soil out of the game, since according to your retarded logic, it should never do anything except give necros infinite energy. ~Shard 03:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

One option would be changing Frozen Soil's description to state that "creatures within range cannot target other allies with resurrection skills" and letting Light of Dwayna and the PvE version of Unyielding Aura bypass its' effects for consistancy. Players can currently cast Unyielding Aura outside of range and then go in and end it to res, and I don't think Light of Dwayna has seen any use since they nerfed EoE bombs over two years ago. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Shattering Assault

→ moved from ArenaNet:Skill bugs#Assassin

It's not supposed to deal + damage, and it doesn't in-game at all. This isn't a bug at all man. o_O DarkNecrid 16:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Have been tested before and in fact it deals +damage. +X damage indicates that's not armor ignoring, X damage indicates armor ignoring damage.--ShadowFog 14:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It is NOT plus damage. +X damage is always armor ignoring bonus damage on top of the weapon's damage, X damage may or may not be armor ignoring but isn't added bonus damage. (example: Mirror of Ice is armor ignoring, lightning bolt is not.). Here, I even tested it out just now to make sure since you said it was "tested before" and I know better having used it often: http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/7066/gw115ks2.jpg. If it was plus damage it would deal way more damage than -46 but no, it always deal -46 damage to that target :P. It is not plus damage because plus damage would deal at minimum 7 (minimum dagger damage)+44 (Shattering Assault)=51 to 61 damage, but it only deals 46 constantly on that target. DarkNecrid 15:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't supposed to be armor ignoring. It is not +X damage. +X damage is always armor ignoring, non-+X damage is only armor ignoring in certain cases. This is not a +X damage attack skill, it is not armor ignoring at all. That is the entire trade off of the skill. The only thing that effects it is +damage inscriptions (just tested further, it does -46 because of my +15% damage inscription.) because it is a weapon hit, customization doesn't affect it, armor does. I'm not trying to be rude (please don't take it that way), but you really should research these things before you report these things as bugs because they waste people's time (I've wasted a good 5 minutes of mine now thinking maybe the functionality had been accidentally broken!) DarkNecrid 15:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

But again I'm not mad or anything, I just woke up a bit ago so I'm a bit cranky. <.< Please forgive me if I came off a bit strong, it's just a tad frustrating to have stuff like this reported when it isn't a bug at all! :-( DarkNecrid 15:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of how this skill works is that it changes the base damage of your daggers from 7-17 to whatever value it shows for its attacks. It's not +damage, it just sets your dagger base damage - it's not armor-ignoring because base weapon damage isn't supposed to be armor-ignoring. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 18:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

BackSword edits

Can someone reverts his edits. Too much to view and delete it a bunch of non discuss skills.--ShadowFog 03:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Searing Flames

Contrary to what players experience and use , Searin Flames is not an AoE spell. This can easily be seen by the AI's reaction - even in Hardmode they will not scatter. Thus a bug tag is inappropiate. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 18:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Searing Flames: Target foe and all nearby foes are struck...

Rodgort's Invocation: Target foe and all nearby foes are struck...

They have the same wording, but different behavior (if the target dies while casting rodgort's the spell will still finish and hit nearby foes, whereas searing flames will not). ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 20:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that wording is not duressingly bound to effect unlike in formal programming languages. Searing Flames might say "Target foes becomes a pink pig with white wings." and still struck burning foes for fire damage. Note: Behaviour is not wording. So a wording bug might be a hint. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 21:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No, if searing flames said the foe becomes a pink pig with white wings, that would most definitely be a problem. When skills that are worded the same way have different behaviors, it's considered a bug. It could be either a behavior bug or a simple text bug, but it's still a bug. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 22:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Though Searing Flames entered the gray zone of wording inconsistancy. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 22:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Take tips from every other game known to man, where "rules text" means exactly what it says. If SF says "taregt and nearby foes" then it should affect "target and nearby foes." This isn't fucking rocket science, it's reading comprehension. ~Shard 03:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Snow Storm

It is still bugged. Please test things ingame before removing bugs from the list. (The animation bug was fixed, but not the targeting glitch.) I am putting it back onto the page. ~Seef II <◈|۞> 10:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Burning Shield

Where is the bug? Aftercast is never displayed, on any skill, so not displaying that is no bug. Backsword 21:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

But it's inconsistant wiith the behaviour of most typeless, instant-activation skills. I made a list at ArenaNet talk:Skill bugs#Instant activation skills ArenaNet talk:Miscellaneous bugs#Instant activation skills. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Umn, no you didn't? Anyway, most skills in the game are "inconsistent" like that. Some have aftercast, others don't. It's never displayed. So what reason to believe this skill in particular is in error? Backsword 17:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Skills without casting time can be cast like stances but this one in particular has different behavior, can't be cast like a stance and has a slight aftercast.--ShadowFog 19:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That is factually incorrect. I'll assume the report was a mistake, then. Backsword 20:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to break it to you there Backsword, if you remove that skill without the proper procedure determine that is a bug or not, you will have an edit war. Let Kim Chase and Anet decide.--ShadowFog 03:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh, sorry to break it to you, but this is it. Anet do not have special editing oversight duties or anything like that. You can read GWW:ABOUT for more. So again: do you have any reason to believe this skill in particular is bugged? Backsword 19:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but the explanation is done towards Kim Chase and Anet. If you can't grasp the detailed information, it's obvious that explaining it you is a waste of time.--ShadowFog 00:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with the right foot. The information on why it's bugged it's already explained so I don't think a redundant question on "why it's bugged" is even viable besides, Kim Chase already took matters on the situation and we are waiting for it's results.--ShadowFog 00:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've corrected the link. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting table, shows well thatthere is not much consistency, which is sort of the point with the skill skilltype, it can have whatever traits. I presume no opposition then? Backsword 21:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

IMO although it's not definitive proof of a bug, this type of inconsistancy is a good reason to suspect a bug, and Kim seems to agree. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Moved your talk to this page, so I can comment there. Also, it doesn't explaim why burning shield in particular would be a bug, but none of the others. Backsword 23:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: divide the page into "description / behaviour conflicts" and "other suspected bugs" sections

IMO we should split the page into a "description / behaviour conflicts" section for skills which do not behave as their descriptions indicate and a "other suspected bugs" section for other oddities such as Burning Shield's aftercast and Snow Storm doing nothing if the target dies before casting completes. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy against using different formating if that would suit an issue better, but the page should remain for bugs only. Other reasons should be directed to skill feedback, or we'll be swarmed with reports on how Wounding Strike has a 3 sec recharge. Backsword 17:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but I still think that suspected bugs should be kept separate from the more straightforward description / behaviour conflicts, preferably with a note saying something along the lines of "the template is designed specifically for description / behaviour conflicts, if it's not a description / behaviour conflict, don't try to shoehorn it into the template". -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if you think that'll help just go ahead and edit the page. Backsword 19:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Signing

IMO skill bug entries should be signed to avoid attribution issues. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments can be signed if needed. Most don't, so just using {{unsigned}} when needed should od. The basic template is designed such as it's not needed. However, if people add thier own formating, as you suggested above, it may become so. Or we could just reedit it if the need arrises. Backsword 20:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Pulverizing Smash

Wasn't sure if this one should be added. This skill is similar to Crushing Blow and Belly Smash in that it applies some extra effect when hitting a knocked-down foe. However, Pulverizing Smash simply fails when trying to hit someone not knocked-down rather than hit and not apply the extra effect. If the functionality is correct, then the description needs to be changed.

• Non-concise: Must strike a knocked-down foe. If it hits, target foe suffers from Weakness and Deep Wound for # seconds.
• Concise: Inflicts Weakness and Deep Wound conditions (# seconds). No effect unless target foe is knocked-down.

On the other hand, if the description is fine, then the functionality needs to be changed to still hit a foe not knocked-down, but doesn't apply the extra effect, like Crushing Blow and Belly Smash. Tedium 04:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If the function doesn't match the description or if the description doesn't match it's function(in these case both are present), there is an ambiguous approach to the skill. Yes, please feel free to post the skill in the bug page, just follow the easy instructions.--ShadowFog 13:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)