Feedback:Bug reports/Text bugs/Non-issues (final archive)

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search


No Skill: Ebon Battle Standard of Wisdom

Error: The long description says it "halves skill recharge" - in other words, a 50% reduction in recharge time. The concise description says it causes spells to recharge 50% faster. These are not equivalent.
Should be: If the long description is correct, the concise desc should say "100% faster". If the concise description is correct, the long desc should say "reduces recharge time by 33%" (equivalent to 50% faster).
Additional info: None
Kirbett 14:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If you say say the long description is correct, concise description can't say 100% in any way. It's the same as instant recharge. This is totally correct as it is now. - J.P.User J.P. sigicon.pngTalk 16:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
You've fallen into the common misunderstanding that many people make here. It's the difference between speed and time, and is a reciprocal relationship (v=s/t). Think of it this way. 100% faster is the same as twice as fast, which is the same as taking half the time, which is the same as taking 50% of the time. Ergo, 100% faster = taking 50% of the time. 100% faster would not be instant - you can even have 200%, 300% or even faster - see Air of Disenchantment, for example. Kirbett 17:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Ahh, i see. - J.P.User J.P. sigicon.pngTalk 19:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I just reraise this issue, please? Although strictly just a text bug, it does affect game-play slightly, in that it is a factor in calculations for setting up a sustainable skill set. It would be useful to know which way this skill actually works. Any chance of a response at least? Thanks, Kirbett 09:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No Skill: Serpent's Quickness

Error: The long description says it reduces recharge times by 33%. The concise description says it increases recharge speed by 33%. These are not equivalent.
Should be: If the long description is correct, the concise desc should say "50% faster". If the concise description is correct, the long desc should say "reduces recharge times by 25%" (equivalent to 33% faster).
Additional info: None
Kirbett 14:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If you say say the long description is correct, concise description can't say 50%. It's the same as recharge time halved. There's nothing wrong with the skill. - J.P.User J.P. sigicon.pngTalk 16:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

See comment on Serpent's Quickness above. 50% faster is not the same as recharge time halved. Kirbett 17:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Kirbett is right. (recharge_time = 1/recharge_rate) Since a long mathematical demonstration doesn't convince people that are bad at it :
Let's use their common sense (oh, no !) with easier numbers. Imagine recharge time is reduced by 90%. Skill recharges 9 times (900%) faster, and not 90% faster.
Elephant 19:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I see it now :) - J.P.User J.P. sigicon.pngTalk 19:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Glad I convinced you, because skill recharges 10 times faster actually. ;) Elephant 20:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Come to think of it, is the description of Mark of Insecurity wrong as well? Does it infact mean that enchantments and stances expire 20% later? Actually i get it already it's wrong :) God <beep> damn it! I finally get this whole thing XD - J.P.User J.P. sigicon.pngTalk 21:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

As for Feedback:Bug_reports/Text_bugs#Skill:_Ebon_Battle_Standard_of_Wisdom, this error affects game play slightly, and it would be useful to know which way this skill actually works. Any chance of a response, please? Thanks, Kirbett 09:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No Quest: Zaishen Elite (mission)

Error: Mesmer health bar for the Illusionary Weaponry Team is Me20, Obsidian Spike Elementalists is E20, and "Victory Is Mine" Trappers is R20.
Should be: Me/W20, E/Mo20, and R/W20 respectively.
Additional info: None

No Quest: Cleansing the Steel

Error: In the reward dialogue: "He is one of the few humans in this land who deals[sic] with the Tengu honorably..."
Should be: "He is one of the few humans in this land who deal with the Tengu honorably..."
Additional info: None.

Actually, "deals" is correct. Ignore the prepositional phrases "of the humans in this land" and you are left with "He is one who deals..." —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 21:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
But letting "of the few humans in this land" stand on its own means that there are few humans on Shing Jea Island, which is not the case. --Irgendwer 21:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
It depends where you break up the preposition-referent relation. If you break it up so that the few humans is the referent, it yields the pronoun "He is one [of those] who deals... ", which is obviously proper grammar.
If you break it up so that the few humans in this land who deal[s] with Tengu honorably is the referent of of, it yields the pronoun "He is one [of them]", which as you can see is also proper grammar; and, when you define them so that it stands on its own, you will get "the humans in this land who deal[s] with Tengu honorably" -- and you'll see that it has to be deal.
In other words, both versions are proper grammar. The question is which one makes sense. Irgendwer is correct, because in this case it's nonsensical semantically to say "the few humans in this land" (because the humans in this land are not few, and using the definite article leaves only that one qualifier for humans). | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 21:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No Dialogue: Wanted by the Shining Blade

Error: When you have 3 Wanted bounties already, the Wanted by the Shining Blade NPC says "Zaishen bounties are limited to 3 at one time."
Should be: "Shining Blade" instead of "Zaishen"
Additional info: None

No Quest: War Preparations (Wind and Water)

Error: "Otherwise, the passage to Kourna will be a slow and difficult one, if nigh impossible."
Should be: "...if not impossible" or something similar.
Additional info: None.

Nigh is correctly used here - adverb-nearly/almost -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 06:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The usage is correct, but completely redundant. The passage to Kourna will be slow and difficult if it is nigh impossible (i.e. if it is slow and difficult)? That's a tautology. People don't talk like that. --Irgendwer 07:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, you might not talk like that.... But regardless, there is no need to "correct" this, as it isn't incorrect to begin with. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 09:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, it should be "if not nigh impossible" (think about it), but it seems that common usage frequently drops the negation when used with nigh, or at least that's what a quick google search would suggest. Kirbett 09:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Kirbett, you're right. I never noticed that before. Another one for the pile of linguistic constructions that make no sense. Delightful. --Irgendwer 20:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Kirbett is quite right; that use of "if" signifies a contradiction, but "nigh impossible" agrees with the previous clause. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 22:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
True enough Kirbett, but it's still proper English. I don't personally know why the phrase "if nigh impossible" means "it is nearly impossible," but it's how the language works. I think a different way to reconstruct the sentence would be "...the passage will be a slow and difficult one--nearly impossible." While this does eliminate the word "nigh," I think it's the way it's intended to be thought about by the readers. --User Timeoffire45 sig.jpg Timeoffire45 rawr 03:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it's not proper English.
The construction is "It's x, if not stronger-version-of-x. But here we have "It's x, if stronger-version-of-x". The 2nd part is set up as a contradiction to the 1st, but then agrees with it.
The solution could even include "nigh" ("if not nigh impossible"). The problem is that right now the 2nd half lacks the necessary contradiction. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 03:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, what do you mean by Proper English? If you mean grammatically correct, then do not forget that spoken English is full of figures of speech and colloquialisms that defy grammatical analysis. Those figures of speech are established through common usage. If you do a google search on "if nigh impossible" you will find 12000+ hits, nearly all with an implied "not" - 6 times more than the number of hits on "if not nigh impossible" - making the contraction 6 times more common in usage.
As far as what meaning the phrase is intended to convey, it would be along the lines of "Otherwise, if the passage to Kourna is not nigh/nearly impossible, it will at best be a slow and difficult one". Kirbett 09:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
By "proper English" I probably meant whatever you meant when you used it first. Although I see it's more common an error than I thought... I guess the nearness of the sound makes it popular (like the ever popular "hone in on"). At any rate, I agree with Kirbett | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 14:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)