Talk:Game updates/20080313

Bug Fixes for FoW/UW

Why are they fixing bugs from a part of the game that has been around for almost three years? Shouldn't these have been fixed a long time ago... 122.104.160.66 21:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Better late than never amirite. Plus they have to have this game in good shape if they're gonna up and go to GW2.--Underwood 21:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

agreed i would rather see bug fixs for stuff then nothing at all its like we payed for the game the least they could do is fix bugs.75.165.127.160 21:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The problems with the Tower Mage in the Fissure of Woe just started recently. Its impossible to fix a bug three years ago that didn't exist then. Updates to Fow/Uw also help folks secure their Statues for their Hall of Monuments. It would be quite terrible for Anet to ignore the problems with both areas. I'm glad they fixed this. - Marisa 00:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Skill Descriptions

Should the consise descriptions be put into the skill pages here on wiki? Anyone have any thoughts on this? - FirstSunspear /// Talk 21:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

See Template talk:Skill infobox#Bad......Bad.....Update - discussion is currently going on. -- Brains12 \ Talk 21:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah my bad, I'll check there. FirstSunspear /// Talk 21:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm for the traditional method. Cooler. I'll be using the traditional method when I play too. People saw mention of concise descriptions in gw.dat for a while now, for once they speculated RIGHT on something! Oh and yay, February prediction points are in. Eldin 21:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow...Why arent they doing server maintenance anymore? They'd rather do useless Skill Descriptions? Toa Hahli 21:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

They are listening to what players want and as such they included concise skill descriptions. People have been asking for clearer descriptions for a long time.--Underwood 21:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea well id rather have a stable server, than 'Clearer Skill Descriptions' what kind of moron has trouble with the old ones? and They only listen to PvP'ers not everyone. Toa Hahli 21:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

But why don't they put effort into *gasp* gameplay changes instead of cosmetic changes? The new descriptions aren't any clearer, they just forego english grammer.72.188.3.126 22:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I only read the skills when I set up my bar, after that I don't care. Whats darkening out part of a description, it doesn't mean anything. My more used skills still has their same text, just bits darkened a faction. We have unbalanced skills and nerfing ripping gameplay in PvE a new one because of PvP, bugs in the AI, PvE skills that are in need of nerfing and this is what Anet focuses on? House Of Furyan 22:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me if people get confused with the short versions, especailly if they fail to read the faded text. House Of Furyan 22:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Fading out the text of the skill's drawback in the description is seriously a bad idea, IMO. It makes it very easy to overlook, especially bad for players that are new to the skill. If they're going to separate the skill's drawback like that, they could at least set the color to a muted red.--SavageX 13:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(Indent reset) You guys do realise that the people who did the concise skill descriptions may not even be qualified to do the other types of work you're complaining about, right? A little patience couldn't hurt. --Ari  (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Feast of Death

Any ideas as to what the real skill is supposed to be? -- Brains12 \ Talk 21:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's referring to Feast for the Dead...--Underwood 21:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Tournament Reward Points (Feb) - Still can't collect

Update states that the february tournament reward points are now available, but still can't collect. This whole process of it being ready/not being ready is beginning to become tiresome. I submitted a bug report on this a few weeks ago, saw that others were having the same problem, and noticed the chat on Gaile's talk page as to the effect that ANet is aware of the problem. So what now?--Xis10al 21:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I got the points on two out of my three accounts, so I thought something was wrong, but just now, around 30 minutes later, I got it on my third as well. give it an hour or a night so you could be sure something is wrong. Foo 22:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I only got the points on one of my 2 accounts. I checked again after I was done doing a dungeon, and still nothing. Same thing happened last month, never got them. Edit: Just checked with another char, and got them. --Doll 22:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, give it some time, mine just showed.--Xis10al 22:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Took a while but got mine ^-^ 68.151.27.108 23:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Got mine - and enough Creme Brulees to make God cry. Eldin 02:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I received mine today. 75 points W00t! Devi Talk 03:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Traditional and Concise Skill Descriptions

On the Traditional one, it said against Melee attacks etc., yet on the Concise ones, it does not say that. There could be a problem with people complaining that it doesn't give them that armour/% to block because it does not say against what kind of attack. This could lead to players sending in emails etc. complaining. I think it should still say against what kind of attacks etc.

Thanks.

Lacky 07:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The GW community always complains. The skills haven't changed. They do what they say in the lengthy descritions and in the concise. BlazeRick 08:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

>.> that is exactly why u can keep the old descriptions. --66.45.173.98 02:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

DoA

At least i can go to the Domain of Anguish again top collect a few nice gemstones without that annoying bug. I have been waiting for this bug to be fixed for a looong time. Thanks Anet! demonic barb 10:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Developers priorities

→ moved from User talk:Gaile Gray

Gaile, I have a question regarding what the few developers who are still working on Guild Wars feel should have priority for their time and talents. There are soooo many things either broken, or that could be made soooo much better with a little attention, and yet we get stupid things like concise skill descriptions. I can't imagine the amount of time that was put into rewriting these, though I do know how much time it's taking to get them all added to this wiki. Wouldn't that time have been better spent addressing any one of the plethora of issues that people who play this game have either reported, or requested? I don't mean to be rude, but silly text changes like this seem like a total waste of time to someone who has experienced any number of bugs, glitches, etc. in her 8500 hours of play time. As a PvE player, I am insulted with every single skill update, as they are so clearly directed only at PvP play, and then I get further insulted with things like this. I'm beginning to wonder why I continue to play. -- Wynthyst 14:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

have to admit i was somewhat taken aback by this update myself. Seems like a direct insult to the players honestly, to say they cant fix clipping issues and the like due to resources but they can change perfectly serviceable skill descriptions to badly written shorter versions of themselves. Seems very odd to me. -- Salome 15:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I point you to User_talk:Isaiah_Cartwright#Concise_skill_descriptions for examples of users who did not feel insulted by this update. Clipping issues might sound like a big deal to some, but to others (like me) they are about the most unimportant issue ever. Anet has to try to keep everyone happy and I feel it is quite unfair to say they only care about PvP, when a lot of the latest updates have been concerned with or fixed bugs in PvE (new pve weapons skins anyone?). --Xeeron 16:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree that this was a poor use of dev time. The bugs in the update were, in my opinion, the only worthwhile thing accomplished. I agree with Salome that its a direct insult to the players, not only for the reasons Salome gave but also because it implies that most players can't read/understand the skill descriptions accordingly. So instead of trying to match skill descriptions with functionality, they decide to re-write them all and give an option to which set to use. Brilliant. Now the problem isn't solved, time was wasted, and something more meaningful that could have been fixed isn't. Nbajammer 16:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see the concise descriptions as an insult to the ability to read or understand the skill desciption - I saw it as a simpler way to read it without the kerfuffleness that sometimes comes with skills. Yes, some concise descriptions were almost the same, but I liked the update nevertheless. I may think there are other things that could be more useful, but that still doesn't take away the fact that I liked it. -- Brains12 \ Talk 16:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Xeeron the bugs fixed in the recent update were from FoW and UW.... from almost THREE years ago. That's how long it took these bugs to be fixed. New PvE skins? HAHAHAHA what 5 new skins? Omg stop the presses. 122.104.160.66 16:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I do think this update was a major waste of time. I see bugs being reported almost everyday and I think that you guys are focusing a little to much on PvP. The time spent re-writing these skills, could have been spent do something much more important. --Shadowphoenix 16:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The current PvE weapon skins are in no way 'new' as they are all things that Anet has had for many many months from the 2007 contest and other user submissions that they have just chosen to implement now.... I consider it a bone being thrown to a dog that's been left tied out in the rain. I agree that clipping issues are not something I personally see as seriously important, but there are many other bugs that have been identified that could be fixed, or other aspects of PvE play that could be improved. The idea that the new descriptions are 'concise' is somewhat misleading as some of them are actually LONGER than the originals, and there is seemingly no standardization as to how they were written. As for them not caring about PvE... well, they make that evident in the fact that there has been very little effort expended to add even new items to special events, (one Anet generated hat for Wintersday and the two minipets and firework crates for Canthan New Year) they simply recycle the old ones over and over; 98% of all skill updates happen due to current trends in PvP play; they have totally killed all Elite area play with their EoTN marketing tool, Ursan Blessing, and no matter how many people complain, it remains unchanged. How hard do you need to be hit over the head before you understand that PvE means virtually nothing to Anet?-- Wynthyst 16:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That was brutal, but I kind of have to agree. --Shadowphoenix 17:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The Ice Crown was just the bottom of the scare crow mask with the top of the Dread Mask (Diessa Chalice item) recoloured. If they are going to do lame minimal effort things like this at leas they could do it more than every 3 months. Look at the new weapons long enough and they look remarkably similair just like the "new" armour from Gwen". Not to mention not even a new crap hat for Canthan New Year. 122.104.160.66 17:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with this. -DominatorMatrix- 20:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I find the new shortened skill descriptions funny, for the most part descriptions are un-impacted by this unnecessary add-on and it seems a waste of developer resource. It just grays out some text and will probably lead to more misunderstanding than we have no, because people will most likely only read the white, brighter text. I've already had to explain certain skills to guildies (newer members) because they use that "stupid" (in my opinion) feature and they didn't get its working right. Might have seemed like a good idea at the time, but eh, not so much. House Of Furyan 21:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) There are a few reasons for the update that added the precise skill description option. The first is that word: option. Players like having a choice, and for some, this is a very good choice. Secondly, this is a response to player suggestions. You may not choose to use it, but it's nice that others can, and quite frankly it's good for us to listen to players, and for players to know that we are listening to their suggestions. Thirdly, the precise skill description changes were not made by those who would address various "other issues" that some are asking us to amend. Nobody working on this text change would be fixing a bit of clipping, or amending a bug in a mission, or handling a skill imbalance. There are a lot of team members, and having some of them working on this doesn't mean there is a shortage of attention to other elements of the game, both existing and new. And lastly, the creation of these skill descriptions is, in a way, tied to development of Guild Wars 2. This is a way for us to experiment with how we present skills, to look at possible issues with the format, and to receive player feedback about this option.

Hope that explains the update, and thanks for reading. -- Gaile 21:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, there is a sense of entitlement here that would almost disgust me if I didn't live in the same culture or understand the reasoning behind it. I don't know where everyone that has posted resides, but a lot of the above posts sound like the typical North American or Western culture that thinks it's entitled to everything it wants. I'm not just talking about GW, I'm talking about the widespread attitude of this culture towards everything. People think that they should (or deserve, more appropriately) get what they want, when they want it. I'm not saying I'm completely free of such thinking, but the fact that this "disease" exists in our culture is undeniable.

Now, I understand how it comes about in the case of GW, and I can understand both sides of the coin. ANet set a precedent for giving players "what they want" and "new and shiny things" when they introduced new content and holiday festivals for the first time. This set the entitlement ball in motion, prompting players to think, "Oh, what do we get next?" This worked for a while, but when players began not receiving enough "new" things or fixes that, in their opinion (yes, that the recent concise updates were a "waste of time" is nothing but an opinion), were a waste of time, they began to become more vocal in their complaining, even though no one here save the devs are aware of the actual effort or processes that went into fixing or creating such things.

How do you all know that the concise skill descriptions weren't split up between many different people, who did one or two skills in their free time over a course of several months? How do you know that fixing a clipping issue is a simple task? How do you know that everyone in the GW community wants "this" bug or "that" bug fixed? You don't.

In my opinion, ANet does a fantastic job, because you know what? They don't *have* to do anything. They are one of the only companies that gives players new content and does regular bug fixes without charging fees to players.

Sometimes people post things that feel like they believe that ANet does things just to spite its customer base; it's just silly. It's one thing to give feedback about new things or fixes, but to slam them and tell them that their priorities aren't in line just sounds like another symptom of entitlement to me.

(This post isn't directed towards the OP per se, but to the complainers of the GW community in general.) Kokuou 21:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't start this out of any feeling of 'entitlement', simply that we have been told over and over and over that various fixes or new items based on suggestions are simply not possible due to a lack of resources, and then they come up with something as inane as this, it just amazes me. I have to say that Gaile's response "...the creation of these skill descriptions is, in a way, tied to development of Guild Wars 2." surprises me not at all, as we all know (or should know by now) that they really don't care about GW any longer, and we will be receiving less and less attention from them. As far as feeling entitled, well, Anet created that expectation when they first released Guild Wars with the promise of new campaigns every 6 months. Well, after 3 campaigns, they completely bailed on that promise to those of us who have already spent hundreds of dollars purchasing their product, to move on to something else.-- Wynthyst 21:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you miss the part where she said that the people that worked on the new skill descriptions have nothing to do with fixing or improving issues such as clipping, mission bugs, or skill balance? And, if you read my post, I did in fact state that ArenaNet set the precedent for such player expectations. I agree with that.

As for them bailing on their "promise," as far as I know, the very first additional campaign (Factions) came out a year after the first, so by then it was fairly obvious that they weren't going to be able to pump out chapters every six months (they are only human, after all), so you should have either left GW for something else or learned to live with it. And of course they're spending their time on GW2, it's a new game with new content. It's not like they are able to hire a whole new team to take care of on or the other. The beta has been announced for sometime this year, so why not have some patience and give them a break? Instead of saying, "This is a stupid waste of time, ANet, GG!" why not offer constructive criticism? Kokuou 22:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I do find an overall "air" of entitlement from posters on this wiki, as well as the more popular Guild Wars forums. I'm not saying ANet is perfect by any means, but I've been playing an overall terrific, mostly bug-free game for three years, with no monthly fee, and I appreciate it. I think they do a pretty good job overall, and I think they genuinely care about their product and their player base. I don't know about everyone else, but I've paid monthly fees for games that were horribly managed. In fact, one was so bug-ridden to the point that it was almost unplayable, and had alienated their player base so much that it made national news. I'll take my no monthly fee Guild Wars anyday. Mirkwood 22:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Kokuou, I completely agree. Also, consider this: Would you rather have a decent Guild Wars and a decent Guild Wars 2, or a meh/bad Guild Wars and an amazing Guild Wars 2? I would rather have the latter, because frankly Guild Wars isn't such an enormous and active game that you can even spend so much time on anymore (that you managed to reach 8,500 hours, Wynthyst, is unbelievable). Besides, this update isn't bad at all, and clipping issues are the least of Guild Wars' problems. It's my opinion that Anet can't really do any meaningful or practical thing to change anything that needs fixing the most. (Take PvP for example, or making PUGs good again; these things lie mostly but not completely in the community) This isn't because of their incapability, but rather the problem doesn't involve content being bad, but in players being bored with what Guild Wars can offer. This is why Guild Wars 2 is such a good idea. Guild Wars 1 is getting stale. Even a new campaign couldn't change that entirely. ArenaNet knows that it made some mistakes, and the best way to fix those mistakes are to start with a clean slate. I do understand where you're coming from Wynthyst, but realize that Guild Wars can't be great all the time, and it's certainly not the only good game out there. --Alreajk 22:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

wynthyst needz to QQ less, it just fails so painful. --78.82.75.121 23:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, she has a valid point, I would say more so than yours, yet you are also too entitled to your opinion. House Of Furyan 23:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

his point is kind of "ive wasted 8000 hours of my life on a videogaem and i feal insulted and therefore QQ some even if i know they dont bother", this have been brought up alot of times, ppl who say liek "anet dont care as ive already wasted all money on their gaems so i cant quit and get back at them for maeking a baed gaem cuz they alrdy got the money." its just so sad, it hurt my eyes --78.82.75.121 23:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"in her 8500 hours of play time" please re-read the opening argument. Actually random user with no profile, you give me an idea. I wouldn't mind seeing Anet's justifications for their updates especially with the skills, what the purpose or intent of each update is. I mean we see it with non-skill updates but with skills we just get what it is now, not why? Understanding (Anet's point of view) would go a long way to bridging apparent hostilities between the community and the developers. More 'open' communication between developers and players would go a very long way  :) House Of Furyan

Doesn't Gaile post dev updates with the skill balances, to justify the "why" of a skill change?--Pyron Sy 00:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Guild Wars 2 will be sold on the PR and Marketing "Buzz" they can fabricate out of Guild Wars 1. They are relying on the players to think "Oh gee GW 1 was a good game and A-Net did a good job releasing good or fixing bad content." This is not the case, their dedication to the existing player base is waning unlike most other MMORPGS as soon as GW became a dead product with no future releases planned their interest in maintaining a good standard with the community plummeted. All they are interested in is shoving out some marketing figures to say "the sequel to the 5 mil copies selling game" which btw they don't release - even when asked - how many of those copies are alts or the same person buying the second campaign etc, which is another dirty marketing ploy like the BMP. Updates which fix bugs almost 3 years after release shouldn't happen - they should have been fixed at least 2 years ago. Look at the lame ass effort put into armour for Eye of the North - that's the standard A-Net is putting out now, barely different reskins. No-one here owns GW 2, everyone here likely owns GW 1. When I was buying the GW campaigns I was told there would be several expansions - a long lifespan for the GW 1 product, not the 2 and 1/2 years we got before they ditched it and went for GW2. Bug fixes SHOULD BE free - if I sold you a toaster that didn't work you are entitled to return it. Look at the new free content over the last 6 months: 5 new skins, 2 festival hats - one looked like crap the other was a lame reskin of 2 older models and looked nothing like the artists entry - did you guys just choose an entry you figured you could lame ass effort your way to pull off? The first festival without a hat (even though most hats last year sucked something chronic) marks an omen for the future of GW 1. I doubt they will add anything new to the game in the coming year unless it's something minor like a few weapon skins or something they were developing for GW2. Skill Balances are a joke - nothing has been balanced since Prophecy - the number of balance attempts are a testament to their failure not dedication. Concise descriptions in the grand scheme of things does seem like a bit of a waste of time. 122.104.160.66 00:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Pyron, very nice. I am surprised though I have to check two pages to find out one set of information that could be managed better, once again, communication could be better, perhaps a link provided at the top or bottom of the update section on the update page to the fore mentioned link would help with confusion? Thank you for pointing that out :D House Of Furyan 01:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Resetting indent. There's plenty of feedback from fan forums taken by Andrew Patrick and Izzy's own talk pages about skill changes etc. that might offer some insight in what will be addressed in the next or future updates. There has already been an increased direct relationship between players and the Anet developers as time has gone on (the involvement of Anet has been really refreshing on all ends). Unfortunately, most of the hostilities still come from the multitude of opinions of how to address issues and the division between the PvP and PvE player camps. As for the IP address above, man, pretty jaded aren't we? PlacidBlueAlien 01:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

My response to 78.82.75.121 is this... I don't consider anything I have said 'QQ' whatever that is, I'm just very frustrated with the direction Anet has gone with this game since they decided to ditch it for GW2 and have chosen to voice my frustrations. Their actions pretty much speak for themselves, and I'm one among the many editors here who have spent virtually the entire day getting these new concise, or as Gaile puts it 'precise' skill descriptions posted here on the wiki, so I have probably seen more of them than some others, and the changes that were made are, imo completely inane, and a waste of developer time and effort given the number of other reported bugs, and other general improvements that could be made. Yes, I have invested a large amount of time in this game, and a relatively large amount of money as well, and yes, I do still actively play. I just often feel that Anet has really lost sight of the needs of a large portion of the player base. -- Wynthyst 01:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The player base isn't the payer base.... they have your money already. 122.104.160.66 01:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

on the one hand, it's great to know that anet is still constantly making updates for gw1 despite actually focusing on gw2, but well, c-78.82.75.121-d, you can't deny that the activity in regard to pve features...how could i describe it...has not turned out extensive in the last periods of time. —ZerphaThe Improver 01:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest this whole attitude of "dissing" Anet in this topic, here on Gaile's talk page disgusts me. It's just really tiresome to see. I KNOW it is a fact that in every game community there are a lot more whiners and complainers that stick to every little unimportant issue instead of seeing the bigger picture because people who do like things make less noise. Not to mention the attitude in this thread would make anyone liking the update turn away on the spot. I don't understand why it is so morally wrong for a game company to start on a new game installement project. How the heck do you guys think game companies survive? By fixing clipping errors? You have got to be kidding me. There, finally said it. The general negative attitude of the game communities sickens me. I don't know why it is so the tip of the iceberg here in the GW community. I also don't understand why everyone thinks the game devs are omnipotent creatures. Making games is HARD WORK and you have to really love what you do to be able to stick to it. It should have been common sense that the best coders and graphics artists are now working on GW2 so they cannot be fixing bugs in GW1. From reading this it just seems Anet should not do ANY updates or hold ANY festivals because it just makes people unhappy and leaves them feeling insulted(as ridiculous as that is). This is just sad. I guess this is just one other big GW community online that I'm going to have to leave because I just can't take this load of crap attitude. I feel really insulted that some of you guys actually brought this issue up here. I know I'm being blunt but this is my honest opinion. Koukou said it much nicer than I ever could. Except I really can not understand the reasoning behind bringing this up. Get real, games come and go. I would be more mad if Anet didn't take all that unbeliveable talent of theirs and create many new games to come because NOT doing so would be a waste of great talent. Writing this here might've been a bad call but I really needed to let all that out. My apologies, I will propably just head out to enjoy the game and forget the web based communities after this. (This is also directed at the complainers of the GW community in general) - nian 02:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, Nian, thanks for expressing yours. Yes, games are hard work, but its what Anet has to realise that confidence in their new project isn't going to be very high if Anet can't fix issues that have existed in Guild Wars for some time, or if the fixes or add-ons leave a lot of the community going "WTF?". People have the right to complain or question "Why", its part of the game process. Its unrealistic to dismiss complaints or trivialise them, it may be tiresome to you, but at least you know that people are watching, and Anet knows people are actively looking at what they are doing. Yes, games come and go, but you've also got to put it into the frame that Anet is a games company, and wouldn't exist if not for the community. I put a lot of the issues and lack of fixing down to Anet's inexperience as a games company, I mean, Guild Wars is Anet's first baby, for the most part a good game but lacking in many areas as many, many people voice, but still a good game. I am interested in seeing how Anet handles Guild Wars 2, its a sequel never-the-less, a completely new game. Will they learn from the mistakes they haven't fixed/or have fixed, in Guild Wars, or are they destined to repeat them? Its exciting. :D House Of Furyan 02:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think ultimately its a question of bang-for-your buck. If you've got over 8000 hours playing time out of the game, you got your money's worth. I've played less than a tenth of that and I mine, even if Anet shut GW tomorrow.Cassie 09:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

My main issue with this is the fact that Anet, put all of this time and money into something so udderly stupid. Look at the concise of Firebomb the only difference is the bold text. Many of the concises are exactly like this, no change what so ever. I don't really see the point in putting all that effort into soemthing as petty as this. The time, money, and energy put into making these "concise" skill descriptions, could have went into something much more important; even if the people who makes these descriptions do not fix bugs or things like that, there were more important things they could have been doing for Guild Wars. This whole update is making me question what is going on with Anet at the moment. I just do not see why this was done when there are more important things going on at the moment. --Shadowphoenix 22:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Gaile herself, in a part, suggests/hints/says its a move towards Guild Wars 2, as if this is some sort of preview of how the skills will be displayed in Guild Wars 2. For Guild Wars it seem to be a complete waste of time given the fact that ArenaNet is moving away from Guild Wars and spending greater amounts of time and resources on Guild Wars 2 (Gaile has said this time and time again so it must be true). Should this update have come a year or two ago then perhaps yes, it might have been seen as more of a good thing, but no, it comes at the developmental end of Guild Wars. Is this another Hall of Monuments, another bridging element towards Guild Wars 2? We will be seeing even more inane changes coming soon as a preview, or even, a test of things for Guild Wars 2? It would be a logical thing to use the community to test out things for the upcoming title without fully disclosing it to the community. House Of Furyan 01:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The overall negative an abusive attitude so many people take towards ArenaNet on the wiki and forums should surprise me. Have people forgotten that they have got many hours (8500 in some cases) of play for the same price you would expect to pay for 3-4 solo games (with 10-100 hours gaming potential each) - you have already got tremendous value for money, yet so many still demand free updates. You only get the right to demand constant updates when you are paying a subscription fee, if this bothers you go and play (and pay for) 'World of Warcraft', 'City of Heros' etc. Concise skill descriptions were a requested feature, part of a trial for GW2, and easy to implement (a bit of programming, and a week of text writers rewording the descriptions. Contrast with fixing graphical glitches (requiring expensive graphic-artist-time better spent on GW2, for NO alteration in gameplay) or skill updates (requiring many hours of research and testing for changes that will always upset some people). Let the experts decide how to allocate their time and money, they're obviously doing a good job as some players are racking up many thousands of hours playing their game. Jbuk 11:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think that this is a waste of money? How many interns do you think it takes to type some skill descriptions? You people actually think this was a waste of time? It probably took all of 15 minutes. Kypp Duron 16:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering the fact that there is well over 800 skills, I would say it took more than 15 mins. --Shadowphoenix 16:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And out of that over 800 skills how many do you think actually have any of their text changed, and how many of them just have part of their text grayed out slightly? ArenaNet's main success was its zero-fee service, do you really think it would have sold so many if it was fee-based? House Of Furyan 04:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly took them few days to a week or two, localization and all. What do you accomplish at work every week? Being super-effective all the time during office hours? Human's aren't robots. The fanbase's opinions are important but not every minor detail needs to be brought up. For example, this topic was pettiness in itself and totally unnessecary to bring it up on Gaile's talk page. It is well known to the fans that GW2 is now a priority for Anet but a surprisingly large amount of fan community people continue to protest against it and refuse to accept it but for what gain? It isn't about to change. The online communities are possibly only a 0,01% 10% fraction of the entire GW playerbase at best. While everyone's opinions here count there are a whole lot more people to consider as a whole. - nian 08:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Concise Skill Descriptions

Well, nohing against it, it's a nice idea, but...

1. On average the skills are about five letters shorter.
2. The description in note form is ok.
3. It's also good that redundant parts are left out - in most cases (see Heal Party - where was the reason of the word "entire" in the _concise_ description?)
4. But why are therse redundant words still on the old descripions:
   1. Defensive Stance says that you can block melee and projectile attacks. Are there more attack types than melee and projectile? And did you ever see someone blocking a Spell?
   2. Where is the reason of Gash explaining Deep Wound "...lowering that foe's maximum Health by 20%...",
   3. or Sever Artery explaining bleeding "...losing Health over time....".
5. Talking about Sever Artery - where was the reason of _lengthen_ the description by explaining that Bleeding is a condition?
6. The description system is not consistent:
   1. Blood Ritual for example has the concise description: Touch skills. That's good.
   2. But why does Flare instead say "Spell Projectile:" and not "Projectile Spell."? It should be adopted to the description of touch skills
7. Finally, the normal skill descriptions could also use the description to display projetile and touch skills on their typeline.
8. Another thing: "50% failure chance skills" are in the normal description noted with "(50% failure chance with Blood Magic of 4 or less.)", the concise descriptions say "50% failure chance unless Blood Magic 5 or more" instead. (See Dark Fury for example). The concise description is better and less confusing, i'd also suggest to adapt the normal description to that
   
9. Several skills have additional notes on the description on the concise description normal skills don't have. Rampage as One for example has "No effect unless your pet is alive." This should also be noted on the normal description, and rather be removed from the concise one.

—ZerphaThe Improver 14:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sever artery and Dash are some of the core and basic skills to the warrior profession. I think most new players probably try the warrior and so when given these skills as their one of the first skills the warrior will ever be given it is likely the first introduction to conditions a lot of players will see. Explaining these things is pretty important for new players. 122.104.160.66 14:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think these skill descriptions are that stranges as they are one of the first skills from prophecies. The descriptions contain there more often some redundant words that could be left out. It may be right that these are one of the very first skills a PvE char will get, but that's no reason for explaining conditions on skills at all. Players can learn that many other ways, and "losing health over time" isn't very helpful anyways. —ZerphaThe Improver 15:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point of the new descriptions. Newcomers to the game are better off with the full descriptions, and experienced players don't need them: they just need to see the numbers that the skill offers at certain attribute investments. Experienced players don't even need to know half of the total skill pool, since that bunch of skills is just worthless or subpar, compared to the useful skills, which, as I said, are known by heart, except for the numbers.

What's practically left, is a handful of useful skills, that everybody already know anyways because nearly everyone uses it.

Not saying the new descriptions were a bad idea (using them and I like the fact that it isn't a wall of text at times anymore), I just think they could've actually focussed on changing some skills around, since they were going over every single one of them already, and could've gotten a few slight fixes in. Saphatorael 16:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I like this new feature. Although I will still use the normal skill descriptions (I like the bit of flavour in them ;P ) It's good to have the option of turning Drunken Blow into a slightly smaller wall of text. --Srakin 00:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the new concise form too, being a horrible game rules/language lawyer - and there are some issues with it - but it's new, it's just been implemented; expect them to go through several phases of improvement and/or clarification (and everyone can help with that, just report issues as they crop up or as you become aware of them!!) - overall I like them, much more "rules style" descriptions wityh a unified description style how everything works. Clan Yumemiru 12:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely terrible, IMHO. Not the concept, mind you, just the fact that some aren't even concise at all, and others actually say something other than what the skill actually does, in a feeble attempt to make it read more easily.. Ironically, new players would be ill-advised to use Concise, lest they miss an important detail somewhere about how the game actually works. --SoraMitsukai 23:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Not in offical website?

I have noticed that this update is not in offical web...so should we state that? Mr tim 16:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it'll be important - the wiki often gets the update notes first direct from Emily Diehl, who also updates the website, so you can be sure they are genuine and that it should get up onto the website eventually. -- Brains12 \ Talk 16:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Very odd. My RSS reader got me a new feed from the official website yesterday with the new update notes, but it can't be found on the actual page. - anja 17:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Its there now Mr tim 21:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Where do we report English bugs?

Winter's Embrace incorrectly says 66% in concise mode. --Macros 18:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the place for that is User talk:Bobby Stein/Text bugs. -- Brains12 \ Talk 18:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I keep forgetting that this wiki is way more formal than GuildWiki and that every talk page seems to have a template for adding new comments >.< --Macros 18:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It just makes it slightly easier for the Anet guys to show resolved, current, and rejected images. But yeah, I agree slightly, there are quite a few templates here, but they just make the little stuff a bit littler :P -- Brains12 \ Talk 18:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Real quick comment

→ moved from User Talk:Gaile Gray

CHeck the concise description of Infuse Health.. its kinda redundant User 24.141.45.72 20:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And? House Of Furyan 20:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Stein, our Writing Team lead, has a useful page for feedback on any sort of in-game text. Could you please share what you have noticed on his Text Bugs page? Bobby and team are great at assessing the input and refining the text where it's needed. Thanks so much. -- Gaile 06:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

All concise descriptions are redundant. They're meant to be an alternative to the longer descriptions, not as a complement or for additional info. -- ab.er.rant 13:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

it says lose half your current health in gray text.. User 24.141.45.72 16:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Preferences bug?

The preferences option for traditional/concise skill descriptions does not appear to be working. I try enabling concise descriptions just now to help with adding them in, but found that I can't see it. I'm still looking at traditional descriptions despite checking, unchecking, and checking it again, then logging out, then restarting the client. I'm stuck with traditional descriptions. Anyone else getting this bug? -- ab.er.rant 13:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Concise Descriptions

Just out of curiosity, what the hell is the purpose of this. For the most part, they shrink descriptions by a few words and still contain some of the anomolies that the oroginals have. Why not acts as though you have some competence and just fix the descriptions with the skills that dont make sense instead of rewording them all. To add in some mega fail, some concise descriptions(rend enchantments of the top of my head) are actually LONGER than the original. Such a huge waste of time. I dont even get anet anymore, izzy cant balance for shit and whoever thought of this actually thought it was a good idea. Sigh, we have skill anamolies for years and instead of fixing it they do this. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:72.78.29.35 (talk).

Got QQ? — Skadiddly[슴Mc슴]Diddles 03:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

and maybe a side of NPA breach? Calling izzy's balencing sh*t seems like a viable candidate. though I may be wrong. I was once before. Wandering Traveler 03:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you're still up-to-date with this game shows they're still doing something right. Regardless, please read GWW:NPA. -- ab.er.rant 03:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)