Talk:Dancing Daggers

Archive

---

• Archive one

Trivia

GWW:1RV

Trivia:

• This skill has the record for the longest accepted bug report before fixing, 352 days.

Discuss, don't revert war. I don't see any reason why this can't be on the page. The wiki exists to document facts about the game, does it not? Vili 22:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I support the notation of that record...It was a rather big deal in certain peoples eyes *cough*Shard*cough*, that was a nearly one year reported bug and it took 13 days short of a whole YEAR. In short keep it. Weaponmaster 08:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I also think this should stay on the page. King Neoterikos 09:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of real bugs have taken years to fix. 66.190.15.232 16:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

So why aren't those documented, too?

I think the note should stay. Raine - talk 17:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Banned users are not allowed to bypass their bans. That is covered.

The note may seem innocuous without context. Well, if you don't read edit summaries it might. But it is actually part of Shard and his fanbois campaign against Anet and only there to put down Anet.

Note that it is not actually true, so would have been removed even if it was an innocent note. Backsword 06:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So...correct a note if it's factually incorrect, instead of just reverting it? That seems logical to me. I'm hardly a "fanboi" either, if that's what you are insinuating. Vili 07:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Had the only error been that, it might have been a good idea. But since there is no useful information in a corrected note, it would sever no other purpose. Backsword 11:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So which one is it? You complain of "the Facts being Biased" and at the same time claim it's not a fact. In either case, anyone who appreciates the development process can take interest in an acknowledged bug that takes nearly a year to fix. Blaming everything on "shard fanbois" ignores a much larger Fact. --ilr 10:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make shit up. Backsword 11:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a fact that the bug that existed in this skill was reported to ArenaNet 352 days before it was fixed. Having that information does no harm imo, and is just trivia. Until this discussion reaches a consensus, it should remain as disputed. -- Wyn 12:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The reference is to the manufacture of a suposedly verbatim quote. (A violation of NPA btw, not that i really care) Backsword 14:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

How is it putting down ANet if it's true? --24.8.144.183 12:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It is when it isn't. 145.94.74.23 08:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Then please enlighten the rest of us? Vili 09:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So what's the second longest reported and unfixed bug? Were you keeping track of others, or just this skill? I don't know how anyone can say it holds the record at all. Misery 10:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it should stay, I'm not a fanboi of shard, well, okay maybe a little, but still, the fact is that it's trivia. I originally posted it in notes, but he fixed it into trivia. Trivia is harmless. @Misery: The longest bug in the game is Golden Gates' gate bug, but that still hasnt been accepted by anet after constant notices. I think it's at like 1300 days or something. However long it's been since launch cuz it's been bugged since release. --adrin 12:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There's been some mission bugs that were known about as early as 2004 but map-specific bugs are on a much lower priority so they really shouldn't even count. Meanwhile speaking in Anet's defense, I've had "skill" bugs in an old Quake mod that I hadn't fixed until a few weeks ago... That's how it generally goes when no one's actually paying you to Update your own content. You just want to focus on the feature creep b/c new ideas are so much more exciting and motivating while old bugs that were too hard to track down b/c they use too many variable flags... are just depressing. but if I had to guess on the second longest acknowledge running bug, it would easily be the exploitive interaction between Fragility, M.o.R, and Conflagration causing "retriggering liek WHOAH!", especially when you added in nec minions & pets to the Party... I didn't even bother to check if it still works or not tho'. --ilr 20:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to define "accepted" if we're going to get anywhere. Personally, I see "accepted" as having a dev or QA person acknowledging the bug or problem and saying that it's going to be fixed, whether it be in the wiki or not. We can show that Izzy acknowledged Shard's report February 19th 2008, and that Dancing Daggers was fixed 352 days later. --Riddle 04:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree the wording may not be perfect, it may not be a 'record' but it was, as Riddle points out accepted by Anet as needing to be fixed for that period of time. -- Wyn 05:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There is lot of random data that could be made like that. Could have hundreds of trivia items like that. But by making one special you are claiming that this one is relevant. And since it was originally there to mislead, one wouldn't be helping anyone. Backsword 17:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What, Mister Backsword, is the purpose of trivia?

In quite a few cases, it's in no way related to the game (read: irrelevant information). It's clearly there to inform, but to inform the reader of what? Does it inform the reader of something that's necessary to play the game, maybe? Or could it just be there to humor those who might be interested in whatever obscure facets of the documented features? (Hint: it's the second one.)

"But Raine! That's important trivia! People care about that show!" I don't. In fact, I'd wager that the majority of the wiki population doesn't. Let's take a poll! Do you listen to Metallica, and know them well enough to think this reference is important? [ ] Yes [x] No

"Okay, fine. But there are still some people that care. Trivia doesn't have to appeal to everyone, it's a niche thing." Well, there's a niche that finds this tidbit about Dancing Daggers significant, too (read: the rest of this section).

The thing is, you're not even pretending to uniformity. You don't like it, so you want it gone -- you do that a lot, and no one's really bothered to stop you, for whatever reasons. Unfortunately, that's not how wikis are supposed to work, Mister Backsword (read: people in general agreement). I'm sorry, but I don't think you're just going to be able to play your do-whatever-the-hell-I-want-and-get-away-with-it-because-no-one's-paying-attention card this time. <3 Raine - talk 18:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Amusingly, amongst all the persnal attacks you mangaged to accidently agrree with me. Backsword 15:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

/Signed, Backsword is clearly biased & out-#'rd. Trivia section should remain intact until Anet explicitly requests it removed for justifiable reasons... such as providing clear evidence that A) it took less time to fix, or B) a patch cycle on another skill took Longer. ...motion to Carry. --ilr 00:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact it was posted in the first place shows it has a relevance to someone. As Raine pointed out, Trivia is simply that, trivia, and imo does no harm. Also, This wiki is for collecting information regarding the game, so why are you objecting to it Backsword? What is the harm in having "hundreds of trivia items like that"? -- Wyn 01:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it has relevance to the crowd that showed up. Notice how they never show up when it comes to document the game. Additionally, they don't exactly need the note to be informed; they already know. Nots are for the benefit of the readers.

We dont havbe hundreds of trivia info like this, that's the point. Singling this out is claiming that it is special.

As for harm, I'm curious why you arguiong that using the wiki as a platform for attacking Anet does no harm here, whil at the same time arguing against it on the AN talk. Backsword 15:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been away for a while and this is still disputed, el oh el. Could we just get a reword to something like "After Arenanet staff acknowledged a bug with this skill it remained unfixed for 352 days.", just pulling out the "record holding" part as that is the part that gets gray and people start whining about definitions. No one can argue that the bug wasn't unfixed for 352 days after Izzy acknowledged it. Misery 18:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Or, until we can find a record-breaker, we could change it to this currently has the record. --Riddle 19:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Or mention that this is the longest known skill bug before it was fixed. Might make it clearer that way, since i'm sure there are 'bugs' that we take for granted now, like CoF level 3 hidden treasure doesn't always appear, etc. -- Kassey -- Talk \ Contribs 19:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Everyone knows it's not the record. Backsword 15:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

While that's better in that it's not abn outright lie, it is still ambigious and intontion misleading (from the original).

How about "352 days passed between Izzy making a side comment on an issue with this skill seeming wrong and, for unrealted reasons, it was changed. This does not represent a pattern." ? Backsword 15:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

How is that ambiguous? Which part of "It took 352 days to fix, which is longer than any other rectified skill bug to date" is unclear or intentionally (which I'm only assuming you meant to write) misleading?

If it's not the record, then why haven't you (or anyone else, for that matter) shown us what is? "Please don't make shit up", if I may say so myself, especially when you've done nothing to even try to substantiate that claim.

If by "Izzy making a side comment" you mean "The skill balancer acknowledging this bug on its feedback page", by "seeming wrong" you mean "having the exact bug that was fixed almost a year later documented", and by "unrealted reasons" you mean "the exact same reasons, but 352 days later", then yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

No, this doesn't represent a pattern. If it represented a pattern, it wouldn't be trivia, would it? Strong red herring there.

If you'd like to argue the validity of the statement, I'd strongly recommend finding something that shows that the statement isn't true. Otherwise, you're just belaboring an empty claim. And, no, saying that everyone knows is an outright lie; we need a true counterargument. Raine - talk 17:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

hi people, what point does the trivia have? who do you think cares if it has been a bug? in which way is that relevant? this discussion is so great and useful that i made a

Quote Section, enjoy.

"So why aren't those documented, too?" - because no one cares and shard didn't bring them up.

"anyone who appreciates the development process can take interest in an acknowledged bug that takes nearly a year to fix." - no

"I'm not a fanboi of shard, well, okay maybe a little" - hi, im a fanboi of shard.

"You complain of "the Facts being Biased" and at the same time claim it's not a fact." - the "longest bug" part isn't fact since that's the Golden Gates, the "352 days" part is fact, the whole part of it is biased. get it?

"Backsword is clearly biased & out-#'rd." - you are clearly biased & out-#'rd.

"until Anet explicitly requests it removed for justifiable reasons..." - why would arenanet even care or defend themselves?

"this currently has the record." - no it doesn't.

"This skill has the record for the longest accepted bug report before fixing, 352 days." - hi, i searched for dancing daggers on a wiki and find this information interesting and relevant.

"This note is required so that Shard can masturbate over this page." - <3

sry had to re-write, hang me. --Cursed Angel 20:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This note is required so that Shard can masturbate over this page. Misery 19:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Oooh look a meh! I can use CTRL+C and then CTRL+V, so I win!" - Hurrrr --ilr 23:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Obaby. Bulleted lists r srs bsns.

"So why aren't those documented, too?" - because no one cares and shard didn't bring them up. Right, you got it straight: those aren't documented because no one cares. However, since people clearly do about the matter at hand, much like people care about That '70s Show, Bobby Stein, and Metallica, the trivia should remain intact, as it is on those pages. If someone were to start caring about that undocumented information, they would be equally as free to document it as Adrin is to document it on this page.

"anyone who appreciates the development process can take interest in an acknowledged bug that takes nearly a year to fix." - no This one I'm going to have to agree with you on. Poor justification is poor.

"I'm not a fanboi of shard, well, okay maybe a little" - hi, im a fanboi of shard. "Hi, I'm a friend of Bob. Therefore, my statements regarding bob Should be disregarded." No. Irrelevant information is irrelevant.

"You complain of "the Facts being Biased" and at the same time claim it's not a fact." - the "longest bug" part isn't fact since that's the Golden Gates, the "352 days" part is fact, the whole part of it is biased. get it? Golden Gates hasn't been fixed. Until it is fixed, it cannot hold the record for the longest period between accepted bug report and fix.

"Backsword is clearly biased & out-#'rd." - you are clearly biased & out-#'rd. I recommend counting; two people on opposing sides of an argument can't both be outnumbered, and judging from the number of pro/against posts at this point, I'd say the "against" side is looking a little shabby.

"until Anet explicitly requests it removed for justifiable reasons..." - why would arenanet even care or defend themselves? Because if this documentation of a bug fix is "omgwtf putting anet down!!!", then I'd imagine that they wouldn't want it on their wiki. On a side note, why do you care and defend them, especially with the knowledge that Anet doesn't care and it not willing to defend itself?

"this currently has the record." - no it doesn't. Kindly tell us what does, then.

"This skill has the record for the longest accepted bug report before fixing, 352 days." - hi, i searched for dancing daggers on a wiki and find this information interesting and relevant. Wiki is geared solely toward anons, tru story. Owait.

"This note is required so that Shard can masturbate over this page." - <3 No comment.

C/V makes me win, too! :D Raine - talk 00:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

im not gonna quote you quoting my quotes, so you won this round, also, i dislike walls of text, also, you are clearly biased & out-#'rd. (I'm so gonna use that). but owell,

• first quote; no one have cared about this kind of information until now, looking at this talk page it's less than 10 people, wow? the ride the lightning trivia is at least not biased and confirmed by arenanet, not that people actually cares or think it's relevant but at least it doesn't look stupid and biased.
• third quote; was added for the lameness in it, and no it doesnt matter, i dont care, it's just that shard is the guy who loves to make a big deal out of flaws like these and randomly attack people who's not responsible for them.
• fourth quote; sry i don't read discussions and don't really care what im arguing about.
• fifth quote; the amount of people arguing for something stupid doesn't make it not stupid.
• sixth quote; arenanet is a company, why would they care? why would they have to defend themselves or give us some excuse for something as lame as an unimportant bug like this? in 99% of any situation at least one dagger would hit u anyway regardless of how good u are at kiting 3 fast half ranged projectiles.
• seventh quote; again, i suck.
• eight quote; most of the people who would search for dancing daggers are new to the game, or new to the assassin, and new to the skill. they don't care if it's been bugged if its not bugged anymore.
• ninth quote; no, misery, u didn't cross the line.

bias doesn't work on a wiki; hi, u just looked up a worthless elite on the wiki, u'd be better or with mend body and soul, put spirits on your heroes. --Cursed Angel 02:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• 1. How many other skill bugs have taken (almost) a year to fix? There is no precedent, so you can't compare like that. Who's to say that no one would've been interested in a previous similar case, when there hasn't been a previous similar case? Looking at the "Blobby" trivia discussion, I count no more than half a dozen participants. Therefore, it's clearly not important in the least, and serves no purpose. Owait. The reason the RtL trivia had to be confirmed by Anet is that there wasn't any definite way to say that that was the proper reference. However, there is a definite way to validate this bit of trivia: counting. Please accuse me of biased counting now so I can laugh at you.
• 3. If it wasn't added for any particular relevance, I'll ignore it.
• 4. kthx
• 5. No, but if there are ten people arguing for/against something stupid, both the "for" party and the "against" party cannot be outnumbered. On a side note, I agree that this discussion is mostly unnecessary: just leave the trivia, since there's no substantial argument against it.
• 6. "Arenanet is a company, and shouldn't care if people are posting libelous claims on their official wiki." Owait. No, I don't expect them to care or defend themselves, just like they didn't care or defend themselves against the flames regarding [rawr]'s "punishment" (which was, agreeably, a much larger issue). However, to agree with the OP, if Anet were to ask that the trivia be removed, it would be end of discussion. Also, the issue wasn't dodging them so much as it was that they guaranteed a lead marker through any obstructions.
• 7. kthx
• 8. Most of the people who would search for [Tease] [don't watch "That '70s Show"]. They don't care if [the icon looks like a performer]. Irrelevance is a strong reason to argue against trivia.
• 9. No comment.

Bias doesn't work isn't supposed to on a wiki, but I think math and logic are pretty global. Raine - talk 17:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, how about we just neutralize the statement?

• This skill was reported to ArenaNet as bugged 352 days before it was fixed.

Then there is no argument regarding if it is a record or not, just a statement of the facts. And please, can we stay on topic, and avoid the bulleted comments that are really extraneous to the point being discussed? -- Wyn 17:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

shard never brought up lively was naomei and restoration from the same update, being a bug for just as long, also "accepted"? should we add this kind of trivia to similar anet mistakes or wait until shard does it? im not gonna look through older bug fixes and count how many months they took to fix, no one is even interested. and i can asure u many of them is about 10-11 months or bugged from the start and fixed 1-2 years after.

spirit leech aura, retreat, its just a flesh wound, spirit channeling, avatar of grenth, conflagration and dwarven battle stance should probably also have similar notes, maybe put a note on all the still bugged quests/skills/items about how long time they've been bugged? no? but it's trivia amarite?

it should be neutralized, but i dont see the point in having it at all. i thought u had more sense than this. --Cursed Angel 18:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Lively was Naomi and Restoration weren't changed, their descriptions were. DD was functionally changed.

But, tbfh, if you wanted to post notes for those other bugs, I'd support you for the exact same reasons. However, you don't, so it's a non-issue. Raine - talk 19:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

OMG, if shard jumped off a cliff and lived, you'd try to attack Gravity next --ilr 23:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

there never were a description change, stop making shit up. both lively and dancing have been bugged since factions... dwarven battle stance in the same update have been bugged since the release of prophecies, but no one ever brought that up until i did so now. where the hell do u want to go with this? no one is attacking shard, more than 99% of the wiki thinks that everything he does is retarded and pointless. im not one of them, but at least im not making an ass of myself defending him for something like this. there's about 1000 other pages i could put the same fucking kind of trivia on if u want. --Cursed Angel 00:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You should do that, it's called being disruptive to make a point and it's highly effective. Use socks if you are worried someone will ban you. Misery 00:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

wow, that's a pretty high level of sarcasm. --Cursed Angel 00:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It really wasn't sarcasm at all =/ Misery 00:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Being disruptive to make a point is the only way to get anything done on this miserable site. --75.71.67.5 00:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

*gives the sockpuppet a Cigar* --lolololololol

Oh, my mistake; I was thinking about Frozen Soil's rewording to explain indirect res (like LwN and Restoration). However, I still can't confirm or deny that they were accepted as being bugged for the same period of time (I have no idea when those two bugs were reported or acknowledged). Dwarven Battle stance is in the same boat. WTB dated bug report and confirmation. Okay, we know how long it was bugged for, but was it reported at release? I'm not saying that I don't believe that they are, but holding the record for "longest period between bug report and fix" gets kind of sketchy when there's no documentation of said report.

I'm not defending Shard (he didn't put it on the page in the first place). If you'd posted it, I wouldn't be defending you. Yes, I'll defend the validity of valid trivia, but that's not at all tied to who posts it. You can't play the "Fanboi" card when no one's talking about Shard except you.

Once again, if you want to put 1000 notes on 1000 pages, you're perfectly free to! Y'know, "document the game" and all that. I apologize if I haven't made that clear enough by this point. The only issue I see would be that you probably don't, in fact, want to, and so it's a non-issue. Raine - talk 07:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• "I have no idea when those two bugs were reported or acknowledged"
• ""longest period between bug report and fix" gets kind of sketchy when there's no documentation of said report."

Two most relevant points on the page in my opinion. We don't know squat about any other examples, we only know anything about this example because Shard cared so damned much about it. I'll note that the bug listed on this page is still not fixed, I don't know if Arenanet has acknowledged that bug yet. I'd also like to add that the note at the moment while less biased, doesn't even mention what bug was fixed and as such is pretty useless and misleading. Misery 07:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think this subject has about run it's course. The note has been placed, the dispute resolved. If you wish to continue this conversation take it to a user talk page. Thanks! -- Wyn 13:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If the trivia note is to be discussed, it should be discussed here :/ -- Brains12 \ talk 20:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of of which, is there still a dispute on whether the bug was Accepted (acknowledged) by Anet staff or was everyone clear on that? Cursed didn't seem to be very clear on that as he/she removed that part of the note and based every argument on a Tangential point of Bugs that are reported but not acknowledged. --ilr 20:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As you know, 'Anet acknowledged' intentionally vauge so to be misleading. But reducing it to reported could also be so, given that does not provide any info on Izzy's response. Backsword 17:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand the last part about the fix being unrelated or not representing a pattern at all =/ Personally I actually expect it had something to do with Shard planning a birthday celebration for the bug, but I can't confirm that, so I don't add it to the note. Misery 14:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the harassment too. But that happened a week or so before the change. Which directly counters the claim that it was the report to Izzy that did it, and it took them a year to change. Backsword 14:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Currently, the note has been "complexified" to the point of retardation. I think Wyn's version was best. If we must keep the information of the bug, then perhaps:

"Previously, this skill was bugged in that it always counted as a Lead Attack, regardless if the daggers hit. This skill was reported to ArenaNet and fixed 352 days later."

--Riddle 14:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really mind if we have the note or not, however I am leaning towards the "not having it" category. Mainly for the simple fact that if broadened in aspect, that would mean that EVERY skill which was ever bugged or changed or in any way been adapted should then be noted too, which just clutters up the skill pages with rather pointless information that is not pertinent to how the game operates at its present state. We don't document skills past functions, so why are we documenting the skills past bugs? Also if we do wish to keep the note, then I agree with Riddle, that the note needs changed so that it reads more smoothly as it makes very little sense at the moment. -- Salome 17:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

We document past skill functions if they are noteworthy, the fact that DD used to give a mark even if obstructed etc. was abused, it could be noteworthy, blah blah blah Vili 00:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing remotely unique or interesting about a bug that is reported and takes forever to get fixed unless there's proof that the Dev team was aware of it in which case "reported" becomes "accepted". IE: the Note should reflect that until Anet themselves step in with evidence that they didn't know about it very long. ...also this section is approaching 32k. --ilr 20:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ilr; no one fucking cares, least of all arenanet, izzy probably never wrote it down and forgot about it, doesn't equal accepted. @raine, 4 ppl above me named shard, no? tell me the note would be there without him. even if we discard the idea of pointing out all the other thousands of fixed bugs, what the hell makes this one so special? --Cursed Angel 21:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"izzy probably never wrote it down and forgot about it" I find that sort of care for the game noteworthy.

"4 ppl above me named shard, no?" Which one of them was me? Where have I said anything in Shard's defense? I must've done so unconsciously, because I don't seem to recall. Raine - talk 21:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

that was to Ilr. --Cursed Angel 21:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL keep digging, don't let me stop you now that you're almost to China... --ilr 01:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

why does nothing u say have a point or even make sense..? --Cursed Angel 02:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

^ second. --75.71.67.5 02:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Izzy clearly didn't care much about the issue. So.. from this we learn that Shard and Izzy is, in fact, not the same person? Backsword 14:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Acknowledged

Was this ever acknowledged by QA? Misery 18:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"acknowledged" would refer to Izzy's comment. QA was aware but didn't consider it an issue. Or care. Or something. Reported OTOH is trivbisally true. It was presumaby reported on a bunch of other dates, too. Backsword 18:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of Izzy's comment, but that would be like Regina saying "I think Wounding Strike is a bit over the top" and then adding "ARENANET ADMITS THIS SKILL IS OVERPOWERED BUT ISN'T FIXING IT!" to Wounding Strike's trivia. Misery 19:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

imo the whole trivia is very negative towards anet, and a wiki is meant to be neutral. ---Chaos- 19:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

27 january 2009. if shard had put it on the page meant for bug reports it'd been done a year ago. izzy isnt a part of the QA, and they weren't aware as no one had reported it to them. --Cursed Angel 19:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

osnap? Should the note read "The community mistakenly thought that the bug had been accepted by Arenanet due to statements made by the skill balancer rather than a member of the QA team"? Misery 19:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Which community? Backsword 19:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes they had, but QA idn't consider it a bug at the time. Backsword 19:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the entire point of the note is to give the impression that Anet was working on it for a year. Backsword 19:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats how long anet takes for most things anyway, are you surprised? --adrin 19:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

btw, it was acknowledged areananet, izzy said it didn't seem right, and he works for anet, noone's talking about the QA team, but anet as a whole. so my revision should be right. this trivia revision makes it sound like nobody reported it until almost a year later, when shard did report it to izzy. --adrin 19:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's all go and report some bots to Lewis Mohr, he works at arenanet! Misery 19:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

@adrin. the bug was fixed 8 days after shard reported it to the person who's actually working with bugs. --Cursed Angel 19:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe you're actually saying that Izzy isn't part of ANET. B/c that's exactly what you're saying by Undo'ing. ...undoing your undoing --ilr 20:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm saying he isn't part of QA and saying that "Anet acknowledged the bug" is like saying that if a policeman says "Yeah, it's a bit harsh that I have to give you a ticket for an expired registry when you only got stopped for a broken tail light" saying "THE GOVERNMENT ADMITS IT IS UNFAIR THAT I GOT THIS TICKET!" Misery 21:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Except that Izzy's response wasn't an Opinion, and it definitely wasn't an "off the record opinion". So you basically just started this section to try and redefine the definition of what "is" is. ...and then to Revert accordingly, breaking procedure. Well it's not working, You're only prolonging the revert war instead of solving it. Acknowledged by ANET was most accurate, since the original question was whether it was a bug or working-as-designed when it was pointed out. Then ANET failed to act after defining it as a Bug. A fact is a fact and you can't obfuscate that nomatter how little credibility the questioner or the "fact maker" (Izzy) has, or had at the time. --ilr 06:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Except Arenanet never acknowledged it, Izzy did. Please make more sense. Misery 07:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, you are edit warring, I simply reverted something changed after the placement of a disputed tag, I also thought the previous reversion was bad, but I am discussing it because that is what you do during an edit war instead of being retarded, would you prefer admins locked the page because we can't play nice? Misery 07:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"that seems wrong" Seems like an opinion to me. So let's include just the facts then, eh? I'll try a version like that and see if it is acceptable. Backsword 22:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That's an adjective phrase. Way to manipulate the language.

"I'm going to go to the hardware store that actually seems like a rather shady place". Yes, that it seems like a rather shady place is subjective, but that doesn't change the fact (1) that it is, in fact, a hardware store and (2) that I am, in fact, going there.

"I'll throw this into my que of fixes and see if I can get someone to fix the always applying thing that seems wrong." Accordingly, it seeming wrong is subjective, but that doesn't change the fact (1) that the always-applying thing was to be fixed and (2) that Izzy did, in fact, put that fix into some queue of fixes to be handled.

No one's debating the "that seems wrong" part; the issue is that it was to be fixed, and yet was not. Strong red herring. Raine - talk 22:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously he either didn't care enough to get someone to change it, or he changed his mind about it being wrong. I'd guess the former. So? Backsword 22:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

And him not caring makes the statement more of an opinion because...? Are you even trying to make any sort of relevant point, or are you just throwing darts in the dark hoping that you'll hit some target? Raine - talk 22:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm just playing devil's advocate to draw this all out as long as possible <3 Misery 23:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"ACCEPTED" was the disputed tag all along. The majority that found the trivia note applicable had already established that this whole thing started with Izzy & Shard both being unprofessional exactly a year ago, but that it was pertinent to this skill's history and current state all the same. Then you started this section to try and "move the goalpost" into "accepted" bug-report and away from "acknowledged" bug-report. The difference is, if you email someone a bug report and it is ignored without comment, it's merely accepted. Izzy replied publicly.

Then you unfortunately went on to bring a very poor analogy into the argument, one of a "Cop". If Izzy was the Cop (and he WAS, because it was his JOB to rein-in skills that were giving unfair advantages in the metagame) ...then he basically stood around and did nothing as Shard reported a robbery down the street. That is to say: "the Cop" just stood there and said: "That's currently not Legal" instead of picking up his radio or getting in his car and doing something about it. It WAS in his jurisdiction, and he did nothing about it. And if you persist in trying to rewrite history, then you become an accomplice in that crime. ...And keep in mind, this was Your analogy, Not Mine. :D --ilr 23:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

stop being stupid. --Cursed Angel 01:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Firstly, people have been debating whether or not to have the note at all from the start, not whether it was "accepted or acknowledged", secondly analogies are analagous, not exact, a better comparison would be something like herbal party pills, where a police officer said "They are drugs and you shouldn't be taking them", but they aren't illegal so they can't do anything about it. In any case, you twisted the analogy into something dumb that doesn't even apply. This is like the most minor bug that has ever been reported and did not have a huge effect on gameplay, no one was abusing it. It's not the big deal Shard would have you believe. Misery 08:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Solution

Since this is still going on, trying to actually produce a version that will end it may just be an idea. So.

• Dancing Daggers previously counted as a lead attack regardless of whether or not any of the projectiles hit.

This we keep. Simple statement of fact, and I could see how someone interested in the skill, and thus reading the skills page, may want to know about it. I'd prefer to stop there, but if we must have some thing to make a certain group of people happy, then we add two factual subpoints so readers can for an opinion on their own:

• • When the Live Team decided to change this, it took at most eight days before it went live.
  • Almost a year earlier, Izzy commented that it "seems wrong" and stated his intention of putting in on a list of things to change.

Pointless nonsesne in my eyes, but not factually wrong or misleading. Said group could even link to the second subppoint when they want to hate on Izzy. Fun, huh? Backsword 05:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that at least the first bullet ought to be kept regardless. Vili 06:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be kept because.... Who gives a fuck? →[ »Halogod (talk)« ]← 07:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the most-discussed previously bugged skills, if not the most (regardless of Shard or not). It's helpful to have some documentation on the wiki in case a newcomer wants to know wtf people are talking about. Besides, notes have been made for far less interesting things. Vili 10:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Holy shit, I actually have no objection to a suggestion from Backsword. Something is wrong with the universe. Not sure the first subpoint is correct, but I stopped caring :D Misery 13:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

wow, this is the second discussion I missed. The first was that apostrophe argument... Do you think people are getting edgy waiting for GW2? I think that's what it is. (Terra Xin 06:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC))

oh, and if the argument is still on, I'd remove the whole lot of notes, we don't actually record what skills used to do... or, um... do we? (Terra Xin 06:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC))

yes, we do, see Hundred Blades, Signet of Ghostly Might, some others... Vili 09:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

imo it should only be done if it's noteworthy ---Chaos- 15:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This skill was only bugged by the bug it still has, I don't see why people still don't get this. The description states this skill counts as a lead-attack.No conditions. So why would this been bugged? Why would any projectile HAVE to hit when the description doesn't state so? There is no reason, people like Shard just wanted to flame Izzy and Anet. Dark Morphon(contribs) 07:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Tyvm. Finally no ignorance in Onis sightOni 14:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It was bugged because other lead attacks don't count if they miss. Duh. This has already been thoroughly discussed on the skill bugs page.

Izzy said "I'll throw this in my queue of fixes" which means "We will fix this." A year later it was fixed. Nice joke. Do your research next time, scroll up, click on links, etc. ~Shard 02:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously this isn't a real solution yet. There's still rogue editing taking place and words being twisted while even sysops take obviously bias stances that are obviously bias (such as Attrition) when it suits them. Is there any way this can be settled that compromises around the fact that A) it DOES reflect poorly on Anet, and B) everyone just DEALS with that fact? ...Or is the compromise only going to be reached if it in no way offends the politically correct and Pro-Anet crowd? ...because if that's the case, then "revision war" takes on a whole new wiki-wide connotation from now on :p --ilr 05:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if it reflects badly on Anet, I only care if it's factually accurate. It seems this is an issue of poor internal communication rather than laziness/ineptitude. I think people have already brought questions about Arenanet employees doing their job in the past, but it really seems to me like it got fixed within a week or two when it was reported to the correct person. Misery 08:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It was reported to the correct person (izzy) in the first place. ~Shard 20:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think fixing things is Izzy job at all. Misery 21:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixing skills is/was. ~Shard 23:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

OMG...you can't be serious. Yet you and Blacksword are the ones setting terminology here? Comedy GOLD! --ilr 02:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

lolumissedthejoke Misery 06:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that you fundamentaly fails to understand the wiki. It's purpose is not to press for any specific end, whether those are proAnet or antiAnet. The wiki is here to document the game. Including attqacks on Anet is just not on the table. Backsword 03:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

@vili; "This is one of the most-discussed previously bugged skills" - the discussion is about the trivia, not the bug, no? "yes, we do, see Hundred Blades, Signet of Ghostly Might," - maybe cuz ghostly might caused a ladder reset and hundred blades used to be non-elite, are they comparable to dancing at all?

@shard; "It was reported to the correct person (izzy) in the first place." - izzy doesn't do bug reports, izzy doesn't do bug reports, izzy doesn't do bug reports, you should know. when you reported it to kim it got fixed after 8 days.

@Ilr; you're retarded beyond retardation.

--Cursed Angel 09:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

We can do without the NPA violations CA. -- Wyn 09:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Gee, I would have put it on the skills bugs page (and I did), but Someone said it was a balance issue. I guess it's my fault that other people are wrong. ~Shard 09:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

tbh, backsword is not arenanet. and tbh it was more of a balance issue than it ever was a bug, nowhere in the skill description did it say that any of the projectiles had to hit. --Cursed Angel 10:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A little overpowered

This skill needs a slight nerf in the damage department, considering you can dish out 111 dmg every 3ish seconds in combination with Deadly arts and counts as a lead attack. Well if you are a ranger it kinda tickles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justgetmein (talk • contribs) at 11:10, March 31, 2009 (UTC).

This skill is fine, deadly paradox just shouldn't exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 96.233.10.68 (talk • contribs) at 12:15, March 31, 2009 (UTC).

Since when is a 100+ damage 5 energy skill with low recharge fine? ~Shard 02:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

half range & projectile tho. ---Chaos- 10:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Not much of a drawback when your target can't move. ~Shard 10:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I know, I just had to list them, because they count. ---Chaos- 19:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to add to trivia that this skill has the longest discussion over a trivial note. - Artisan Archer

The only 100+ dmg 5 1 5 spammable spell, 0.6 second under D.Paradox, so balanced. Oh, I forget it also count as a lead attack. Learn this game please , izzy the leecher.--RedTeaCat 10:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is fucking imbalanced. Assacasters dominate the lesser forms of PvP for a reason and this is part of it. Just make it do 100 damage once so I can at least fucking Prot Spirit this shit. 68.51.95.206 02:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not that overpowered. Deadly Arts has very few damage spells. If Dancing Daggers is nerfed, then assacasters will be even worse than they already are. Also, anyone with a decently high AL or damage reduction can just shrug it off. <>Sparky, the Tainted 20:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

lol shielding hands Vili 点 07:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol No: Because it gets followed by a knockdown poisoning skill, and a signet which magically deals you 100 damage, and you get a deep wound, get knocked down and you just die from degen. Boro 12:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

So true. It's damn annoying. - J.P.Talk 03:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

lol i think we found the reasoning for Aegis (PvP) -- euphoracle | talk 14:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not that overpowered.

It does almost as much damage as Lightning Hammer on a lower recharge for 1/5 the energy and 1/3 the casting time. Oh, and it counts as a lead attack. Balanced?

Deadly Arts has very few damage spells.

Irrelevant; it only takes a few to make a solid bar.

If Dancing Daggers is nerfed, then assacasters will be even worse than they already are.

That's the point; they're currently imba. Remember all the rit nerfs?

Also, anyone with a decently high AL or damage reduction can just shrug it off. <>Sparky, the Tainted 20:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Monks don't have decently high AL. They get hit by it over and over and die. Then the team collapses. Monks in 4v4 don't carry damage reduction because they need every single skill slot for something more useful against everything else in Guild Wars. At the very best, they'll be a ZB prot monk and have RoF.

I'm sorry, but please don't make stuff up or name irrelevant "drawbacks" to justify this skill. Raine - talk 16:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, I'm personally more concerned about other skills than I am about a spell that you can out-kite with relative ease. Assacasters wouldn't be nearly as dangerous if it wasn't for some things which ANet can't be bothered to fix. When was the last time you saw either of those skills used outside of an Assacaster, or some terrible gimmick? ··· cedave 18:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Lyssa's Aura is used on some other builds than assacaster, for example an Illusion/Inspiration mesmer who spams Clumsiness and Wandering Eye on recharge. I don't think anyone but bads use Signet of Judgment ever since it was nerfed, although there is one Paragon build which uses it pretty effectively.

I've never been able to "kite" Dancing Daggers, whether it is by trying to strafe or Dashing away. At least one always hits me. Of course, now you can just hide behind a wall which is nice. But that option isn't always available. Vili 点 19:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd really love to see what builds you're talking about. I'm an active PvX shitter, and I've yet to see the SoJ Paragon, and Clums/Eye only really works in PvE. As for kiting, I was talking about staying out of half range. It's not terribly difficult. ··· cedave 19:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Clums/Eye works in PvP too, though enchant stripping is always a bitch...Illusion has something to hamper any build. (Then again, that's the same if you took it off an assacaster...) Staying out of half-range is fine if you're like 1v1 and can match or beat their IMS (who doesn't carry an IMS in PvP these days?), but in the heat of a 4v4 or whatever you won't always have that opportunity, especially if you're a melee character. (Let alone in CMs...) Vili 点 19:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of being able to kite it with relative ease. The issue is, "Can you DO YOUR JOB while kiting it?" If you're a monk, your job is to keep your party alive, and you can't effectively do that if you're running around trying to keep out of half-range of the sin while in casting range of everyone else on your team. If one of them hits you, you get knocked down and take a hundred damage, so you really can't half-ass it, either.

You clearly don't play monk very often. I'm sorry, but that's the only way I can explain your stance on the issue. Raine - talk 20:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, monk is my tertiary pvp. ;o That being so, I tend to run ZB in small arenas, which is innately better at prot. Beyond that - generally, if you're kiting around a large damage dealer, they aren't dealing damage, and you don't have much of a job to do. If you've got more than one damage dealer on you (let's face it, you probably do), put up SoA and take a 7 second break. You'll have a much harder job facing off against a Mind Blast elementalist who has full range KDs and huge fire damage + burning or a Lingering Curse necro who simply hexstacks your team to death. My point is, there are much, much more broken things currently in the game. Dancing Daggers is far from the game's biggest imbalance. ··· cedave 20:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Another point that is often forgotten in debates about PvP: don't forget that you have a minimum of 3 teammates whose aims are to assist you in removing battlefield threats. It's not like it's solely you versus the assacaster. (Of course, it's not solely him versus you, as well). ··· cedave 20:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Another point that is often shrugged off is the other team probably has a monk, and if it doesn't you should have steam rolled them already. The teammates "aims" are to kill stuff, and drop anything that might frustrate a monk or make their job more difficult. Look, if there's a monk you can't drop an assassa caster. Btw, how do you cast SoA on three allies at once? even with a 40/40 and enchanting 20% hacks, you can't. People aren't stupid. They see they do "0"'s, and they change targets to something a little less protected. Anyway, so your said 3 allies are after the monk, so they're wayyy in the backline being kitted (probably, even though it's a fricking terrible idea half of the time), and you're trying to kite... Well, anything tbh. Makes you go out of range, makes your allies die. Oh, -btw-, how int he world do you let a Mind Blast elementalist kill you? Seriously, I've never had problems with those at all with my WoH bar. Anyway, my point is you clearly don't understand the procedures of "small arenas", or really luck out and always get teams with 0 monks where you can kite effectively and your teammates can kill what you're kiting. Btw, who forgets 3 allies? It's assumed they know what the hell they're doing. Problem is- this is rarely the case. If you're really a tertiary pvp monk, you must not do it very often. ~ Ryuu[ Talk|Contributions ] 21:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) tl;dr. You wiki guys type way too much. Just for kicks, when you get a chance, compare Immolate + Fire Attunement with Dancing Daggers + Deadly Paradox, assuming you approve of those as standard skill combinations. The resulsts are srsly flabbergasting! ··· cedave 21:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Immolate isn't followed up by a knockdown, poison, and 100 damage, it's quite easily healed in a matter of seconds with little to no stress on my part as a monk. ~ Ryuu[ Talk|Contributions ] 21:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey now, we're not comparing full attack chains. (If we were, I'd bring up Meteor, which is 100 damage plus knockdown.) ups? ··· cedave 21:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, you can easily dodge Meteor with any sort of IMS. Vili 点 21:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Very Easily, and to be honest any time I seen an ele wasting forever to try and hit me with a Meteor I just lawl and pre-patient incase they fluke hit me. ~ Ryuu[ Talk|Contributions ] 21:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

But your assassin is out of attacks now! And my elementalist still has LF! Oh! Look! It's MB, too! I'm pretty sure all that your assassin has left is DD. Correct me if I'm wrong. ;o ··· cedave 21:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Also - hopefully I misunderstood you. I seem to have the impression that you meant you bring an IAS on your monk? I srsly hope you're kidding. ··· cedave 21:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Dark Escape says "Sup?" ~ Ryuu[ Talk|Contributions ] 21:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No one use deadly paradox. --Cursed Angel 21:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right! I forgot! I'm supposed to use that as an IAS, not when I'm getting heavy pressure. Silly me! I'm just so bad at gw. ··· cedave 21:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) A challenger approaches! It's a ranger! He looks unhappy. He seems to be carrying two interrupts and poison that he can spread across the team! Surely the Assacaster can't be more of a problem than he is! Discuss: ··· cedave 21:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) (Edit conflict) (Edit conflict) If you run ZB, you should have no problem with MB eles because you have Spirit Bond on your bar, right? Conversely, DD sees spirit bond and says "Fuck you!". It says the same thing to RoF. And PS. And every other commonly used prot.

But that's beside the point. Even though it's not the single most broken thing in the game, it's still pretty fucking OP.

Also, Dash/Heart of Shadow/Return are all viable on monks. Raine - talk 21:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh no! Another challenger! It looks like an axe warrior! With Whirling Axe nonetheless! Who knows how much damage he can pump out in short, Frenzied bursts! ··· cedave 21:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Rangers and warriors are prottable and can't kill you in four seconds. Raine - talk 21:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Assacasters can't kill you in 4 seconds either, tbh. ··· cedave 21:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

How is it anywhere near OP, need to be in half-range, it is kitable/can be avoided/obstructed, it's in a pretty terrible attribute line (Deadly Arts sins aren't that good), <- of which there aren't many other supporting damage skills that would make deadly arts viable, etc.
The fact that this has even been put on the same page is a Mind Blast ele is very laughable. Frosty 21:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Learn to fucking kite idiots.--99.153.226.11 21:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) (Edit conflict) 0.66 + 0.75 + 0.66 + 0.75 + 0.50 + 0.75 + 0.66 = number of seconds it takes for you to die. Raine - talk 21:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

100 + (KD + Poison) + 100 + 100 = 300. Maybe you'll have deepwound on you. Are you wearing 3 sups tbh? ··· cedave 21:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC)I see about 300~ damage there (I am assuming DD-> Asp -> SoTS -> DD. Also, woop da woop now you can run around using a crapp DD while that MB ele is still pumping out Mind Blast -> Immolate and Rodgort's on recharge. Also, Metoer requires a 33% IMS to be dodged, only chars who carry that are Rangers, some warriors, and sins (if they dash well). DD is not where near OP. Frosty 21:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Learn to fucking kite idiots.--99.153.226.11 21:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The anon speaks wise words. Also, I'm not sure if you're all too busy riding Shard's cock to notice how bad you are at the game, or if you're just autistic, but, either way, it's not like anything's getting done here besides a bit of trolling. I'm about to get off work, so I'll let you all get back to debating who gets to swallow the load this time. Enjoy! ··· cedave 22:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"I'm being out-argued, so I'll just resort to personal attacks!"

That was rather uncalled for. Vili 点 22:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

99% true Frosty 22:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm enjoying the show. Keep QQing!-- anguard 22:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) x4 Ranged 300 damage, KD, DW, and poison in 4 seconds is balanced, right? I mean, who in their right mind would think there's anything wrong with that? Raine - talk 22:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Because you can't do it over and over again (as in what mind blast does). And it costs you at least 40 energy on a class not based around spending a shit ton of energy without using crit strikes. And because of the fact it's 100% one dimensional and that if you get part of than "chain" interrupted your a sitting sin who can spam DD until it runs out of energy, which is quick if you are maintaining Deadly Paradox. And if you are using Lyssa's Aura, and it gets stipped, your energy management is dead. Frosty 22:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

So wait.

It's not imba... because it's weaker than MB eles?

Are you serious? Raine - talk 22:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Far from being out-argued. Just getting off of work and cba to argue against people who wouldn't know logic if it sat on their face and called them "Daddy" for $20. ··· cedave 22:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's logic. It's a ranged chain that does the same thing as Poison Tip Signet (lol) -> Executioner's -> Shock -> Evisc -> Body Blow (in that order) (if they all crit) at 15/14 Axe/Strength.

The sin chain doesn't use an elite skill. It can't be blocked. Most of the damage ignores big prots. It doesn't take 15 seconds to be built. It doesn't cause exhaustion. It's not affected by blind. The recharge time can't be mitigated with blocks, blinds, or snares. They don't take double damage for the duration of the spike.

But, by your logic, it's balanced.

Please explain that to me, because I'm not grasping what's so obvious to you. Raine - talk 22:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's overpowered, why is nobody sinsplitting? Why is everybody MB splitting? One dimensional DA Sins are one dimensional. Bad attributes, nerfed spike (back before the Deadly Paradox nerf I would have agreed with you 100%), but atm, compared to what is being used right now, DA sins and Dancing Daggers is not overpowered. Frosty 22:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

So wait.

It's not imba... because it's weaker than MB eles?

Are you serious? Raine - talk 22:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Because it's not a GvG bar? Vili 点 22:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You all never played before DA sins got nerfed so I am at no level ground to comment really. If you ever played the old DA sins, you would know they are no where near over powered. Frosty 22:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

So wait.

It's not imba... because it's weaker than prenerf DA sins?

Are you serious? Raine - talk 22:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea pretty much, DA sins aren't that good now, if it was OP, wouldn't it be abused more? Frosty 22:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Frosty, baby. Just because something was nerfed doesn't mean that it's bad. If signet of instakill got nerfed into signet of instakill if target foe is below 90% health, would that make it balanced?

DA sins are broken, love. They're not as broken as they used to be, nor are they as broken as some other things (like Mind Blast). That's why they're not as popular as they could be: there's far more broken shit like VoR and LC that bad players can run to win. Raine - talk 22:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think a Deadly Arts assassin is broke. Well then the whole assassin premise is broken (as in every good assassin is a spike sin, all of which deal up towards 500 damage in around 5 seconds). Frosty 22:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean, like the old Shadow Prison spike, BB sins, Palm Strike, and Wastrel's Collapse? Raine - talk 23:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

BB Sins, Coward Sins, YAA sins, WC is a possibility (current meta stuff basically)... Frosty 23:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're a monk, you can't kite forever. You're going to have to stop and cast eventually. You're going to have to chase your allies all over the map. All it takes is one 1 second spell and you're in casting range of Dancing Daggers. Stop being stupid; you've clearly never played monk against this in TA or RA. Don't comment on things you don't know about. 68.58.91.59 03:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This is why I run Dshot on my monk. The idiots that run assacasters get their Dancing Daggers disabled and QQ at the fact that they have no real pressure outside of KD's they can no longer use which makes them even more useless (as if being a 70 AL with no blocks relying on getting a monk for any form of survivability was good). And I agree, any prot/armor and this skill bounces off. By itself, or even with buffs, it's pretty useless. It's that annoying ass Entangling Asp that's the real "pressure" behind the build. Certainly not some signet with a 15 second recharge (lolasbadassmitealmost). Most monks just complain because they can't remove the Deep Wound so they can't do their linear strategy of making the red bar go up. The only time this build pressures is when a superior pressure build is already doing all the work and they're just adding that little bit to tip the balance. PowerGamer 02:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol if you cant avoid this corny spike then your just bad. There are plenty of ways to get around this spike. Btw if it is SOOO unbalanced then why don't more people use it? Last I check people loved unbalanced stuff.69.107.66.40 23:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to the person above, this skill is good against noobs and noobs alone. Spotina Talk 22:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Disputed tag

Wut? ~Shard 21:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually wut indeed, I thought that there was some form of the note. To explain, people were still fighting for the whole "this bug took 342637 days to fix" note. Considering how long Golden Gates and a million other things are broken, it seems a little redundant to me. Do people still want a note to that effect and how would they like it worded? Misery 22:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Haha, Brains just laughed at me and told me to fuck off when I brought this up before. But it IS still funny because "we" went from having a real note stating how long it was bugged (passed through walls or was blocked), to making that note a piece of Trivia, to bargaining down whether Anet(IZZY) was even RESPONSIBLE for fixing that problem, and now finally to a level of revisionism where the fact that it was even bugged in the first place is now disputed ...and will also be removed by "Anet's personal Spin Squad" as soon as no one's looking ...and by We, I don't mean any of us who actually hold any sysop positions (yet)... --ilr 23:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The note that's there now isn't about how long it was bugged or reported or whatever. It just says it used to count when it missed, which is true. ~Shard 23:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, ans since that's the only note in that "section", the disputed tag is indicating that that information is now "disputed" as well... --ilr 00:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh...the tag was supposed to indicate that the necessity of the information to be there was disputed, read a few sections up. Considering there is a Skill History project somewhere, I'd suggest removing that note and putting it under DD's skill history. Well, at least when the page become unprotted. --Riddle 00:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"1RR; some people still don't get it ([edit=sysop] (indefinite)))" -said sysop --ilr 01:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Notice how the tag was added in the heat of "It was bugged for X days" phase? Notice how it hasn't been formally removed? --Riddle 01:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The disputed tag is there for the information that is not there, not the information that is there. I personally only object to the addition of notes that are untrue, or at least questionable. Misery 06:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If anyone knows when the bug was officially reported, as well as the documentation of such actions, it'd be great if you could present that. Funny how going about things journalisitically has a habit of actually accomplishing things. ··· cedave 17:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The main disagrement is when exactly the bug was "accepted" by Arenanet, when Izzy, the skill balancer said he would chuck it on to his to-do list to take a look at, or when Kim Chase, from QA, said "Thank you for the bug report". If we take the first one, it took them about a year to fix it, if we take the second one, it took them about a week. Thing is, we have no idea what happened in between the two events. It's possible Izzy decided it wasn't a bug after looking at it (He only said it looked strange at the time) or simply forgot about it. I don't have the diffs for both events handy and can't be assed to dig them up, I'm pretty sure they are either further up the page or in archive. Misery 17:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I stumbled across the Kim link when I was looking for something else. Someone else can find the Izzy one. Misery 17:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is important why? I thought the only important thing was when the bug was fixed. Unless of course certain factions might be here to sneakily make ANet look bad, but I can't imagine anyone would want to do that. ··· cedave 17:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Anet didn't need any help lookin bad on this one. So the only sneaky factions at work on this Trivial note were all working to remove it from history, and they've succeeded even though ANET itself couldn't have given a rat's ass either way. Gratz to them I guess? But's let's not keep rehashing it since Shard could get Perma banned now JUST FOR TALKING ABOUT IT --ilr 20:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice drama ilr, you are really almost convincing people. Misery 21:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I had a good size response typed up, but Misery's just does it better. ··· cedave 21:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ilr, you just don't fucking get it, it was never a bug and no other pages have trivia like this, because no one fucking cares how a skill have worked before. but continue to look stupid, it amuse everyone. And please reply with some butthurt comment on how we're defending arenanet and how they're trying to hide this terribly big mistake. --Cursed Angel 22:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"it was never a bug" ...And you guys all agree with him too, right? In which case, /Thread --ilr 22:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think it's a bug, it probably was an intended function. →[ »Halogod (talk)« ]← 22:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't care whether it is a bug or not. It's been acknowledged as one now, maybe Izzy decided it wasn't at the time. Misery 22:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Spell. Send out three Dancing Daggers at target foe, each striking for 5...29...35 earth damage if they hit. Dancing Daggers has half the normal range. This skill counts as a lead attack. just read it, and tell me where it says that the daggers has to hit for it counting as a lead attack. dig yourself down one meter at a time. --Cursed Angel 23:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Then why isn't there a similar trivia to all these skills: Game updates:June 2009? You're not seeing how redundant the trivia is atm? And please can anyone get Raine here to defend valid trivia by comparing it to the RtL or Tease trivia, or Vili to compare it to Signet of Ghostly Might or Hundred Blades. And Ilr, I'm the leader of "Anet's personal Spin Squad", how did you find us out? --Cursed Angel 11:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"it was never a bug"? No other lead/offhand/dual attacks/spells count as lead/offhand/dual attacks if they don't hit, tbh. What you're suggesting is that the devs intentionally introduced a completely uncounterable non-elite "lead attack" with a five-second recharge into the game, and that it's not the product of some coding oversight? k.

But that's arguable, and I don't feel like arguing it. The fact is, the skill's functionality change was classified as a "bug fix" by the development staff at the time of the update.

That's my two cents; I'm done with this page. Raine - talk 15:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Go ask the devs. The wording is done in such a way that it could be read that the skill counts as a lead attack regardless of a "hit" or "miss". I'd think it's safe to assume that the lead-offhand-dual combo was created to avoid the abuse of dual attacks, and when's the last time you followed up any Dancing Daggers chain with a dual attack? ··· danny 17:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't even see how whether it is a bug or not is that relevant D: Misery 17:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

as it wasn't a bug, the "disputed" [1] version of the trivia is wrong, and the current version is redundant when about 90% of every skill has had different functionalities and been buffed/nerfed/changed since release. and raine, since when was coding oversight the same thing as a bug? I'd call it an unexploitable balance issue that never was an issue and no one gave a fuck about before shard started spamming it around dev pages. --Cursed Angel 17:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Umm, a coding oversight is a bug because... that's its definition?

And if by "unexploitable" you mean "single-handedly caused victory against bad AI in FA" then yeah I agree with you. ~Shard 04:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

lol shard so running around dealing 21-63 earth damage on half-range Single-handedly caused victory against low-health npcs in FA? ZOMG the lead attack mark is unavoidable!!!!11!!12!one let's exploit this to the max.... Too bad the rest of your chain isn't? --Cursed Angel 12:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

to be fair, they fixed RoJ. other than that, arguing this point really isn't worth it. if dancing daggers was so overpowered, it'd be showing up in the GvG meta, not relegated solely to HB and RA on historically bad skill bars. I've only found one instance so far where Dancing Daggers can be abused even somewhat to the level which Shard seems to think it has been, and even that instance is rather impractical for any level of play above RA and possibly TA. ··· Danny Pew Pew 15:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's stupid to think anyone would use an assacaster in GvG; know the difference between GvG/HA and RA/TA please. HINT: It has something to do with having only 1 monk. 68.58.91.59 04:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And worse players, too. --Riddle 05:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a stance that causes interrupts? As far as I know, you can't use interrupts when you're knocked down, and I'm pretty sure you can't use them when you're dead.

Back to the main point, that note isn't disputed, but like many, I don't think it needs to be there. ~Shard 05:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You know Shard, you are kind of like God. I don't really have a big beef with you, but I detest your fan club. Misery 06:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't compare me to that asshole. Also, so do I. The anons anyway. ~Shard 07:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

lolwat. God's an asshole? I don't believe in him myself, but I must say that you, sir, are a fantastic troll. You manage to piss off over 50% of the population at any given time. And you wonder why people, besides your fan club, don't take you seriously? ··· Danny Pew Pew 16:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Minor quibble but only folks who aren't his fans, take what he says at face value. Everyone else uses some method of diffusion --ilr 20:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

He tried to make a loyal follower kill his son, then he said "lol jk bro jk." That's an asshole. Also, he's married to a few thousand women at the same time. ~Shard 20:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Categories

I know Half ranged shouldn't be there,but not sure about the others. WTB removal.--Underwood 05:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, only the second "Half-ranged spell" category shouldn't be there. The rest are all correct. ··· Danny Pew Pew 18:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Nerf?

i think it needs PVE+PVP versions,its too strong in PVP and to weak in PVE--Neil2250 15:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the PvE idea, but in PvP this skill sucks if you know how to move. Spotina Talk 22:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Disputed tag.

It's been like a year. Can we remove the tag now? is for Raine, etc. 20:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Do we want a note and what will it say? Misery 20:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That note doesn't even need to be there, especially if this skill ands up getting a skill history. ~Shard 08:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, get rid of the tag and note. Aevar talk contribs 22:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, can someone clean up the skill description (i.e., unbolding the skill name, linking half-range in regular description, and removing the links from the concise description), please? -~=Sparky (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Try doing it yourself? I know it's really, really hard to edit wiki pages, but I bet if you try you can figure it out. ··· Danny Pew Pew 23:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It's protected. Figure that. -~=Sparky (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Meh. Wait for it to be unprotected in that case. ··· Danny Pew Pew 02:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sound effects issue - the original argument - old builds revived for fun

When I use dancing daggers, I don't hear the sound effect. When it is used against me, I hear 3 distinct special effects sounds. I know a lot of people don't use this spell, but I like it- I just would like to know if I'm hearing things correctly or not. Maybe the spell isn't supposed to make that special sound upon cast - or maybe it's an error in the mechanic? Just wanted to verify if I'm hearing things or not.

I read the entire text in the discussion, I still cannot figure out what the original problem was about why dancing daggers was broken, taking such a long time to fix.

BTW: Sometimes for fun, I will pull up an outdated (but balanced) build that catches folks on the opposing side off guard- and especially fun if they don't remember the dynamics of how to counter it. That said, there are always those blessed with the memory like an iron trap. :) cecil 09:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(Seventeen days later) The original bug was that DD would count as a lead attack even if it missed, I believe. If anyone else knows for certain, feel free to pipe up. -- Timeoffire45 rawr 23:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)