Feedback talk:Skill update previews

This is the central feedback page for Skill update previews. This page and its subpages are the only place to provide feedback on update previews that the Live Team can use. If your feedback is about a specific preview, please use one of the subpages.

Skill update previews

• Tuesday 17^th of May preview
• Thursday 17^th of March preview
• Thursday 10^th of February preview
• Friday 23^rd of April preview
• Friday 19^th of February preview
• Preview archive

Better late than never

This page is a fulfillment of a promise made to the community by Linsey back in August. While it is late in coming, it is here now. I hope the community utilizes the talk pages to discuss the proposed changes. -- Wyn talk 01:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I just want to know if we should bother even speaking here, they have the test krewe. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 21:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's up to you to judge. I'm not sure why Regina would be posting this not only here but also on Guru if they didn't want community input outside of the Test Krewe. -- Wyn talk 21:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps to mollify the ravening hordes of disgruntled users?--TahiriVeila 21:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I know this skill update is mainly meant to address some GvG skills, but man oh man, would be a godsend to have the August dagger buffs fixed too. The last six months of sway metas in HA with R/A's have been a slow poison killing what little life was left in the format. Zen` 21:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

So not only have we been given the gift of a new little battle field for people to insult each other on, we have a caste system for feedback. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 22:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

← moved to Feedback talk:Skill update previews/20100219#Moved

Blood Spike Ideas:

← moved to Feedback talk:Skill update previews/20100121#Blood Spike Ideas:

Blinding Surge [regarding 4v4 PvP]:

← moved to Feedback talk:Skill update previews/20100121

Ranged Spiking in GVG

← moved to Feedback talk:Skill update previews/20100121#Ranged Spiking in GVG

Wikifiying the update previews

Should we bring these update previews more inline with the game updates in how they look on the wiki? I have created an example User:Wynthyst/Sandbox/preview. -- Wyn talk 04:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a version to show what you modified? I don't see where you got that information from. Maybe I'm just stupid right now, it is rather late. Your version looks good, but I'd like to see the alternative for comparison. --Kyoshi (Talk) 05:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Feedback:Skill update previews/20100125 Mine is minus the first sentence, which of course would be left in it just didn't really need any wikifying..... -- Wyn talk 05:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Definitely prefer your wikified version, much easier/clearer to read and looks more organized. --Kyoshi (Talk) 05:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikified version. Easier to read and faster to find what you look for. --Sharkinu 05:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Do it! Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 21:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Our tests showed the damage-increasing skills to still be viable in general"

← moved to Feedback talk:Skill update previews/20100125#"Our tests showed the damage-increasing skills to still be viable in general"

i dont see even 1 assasin skill...

← moved to Feedback talk:Skill update previews/20100125#i dont see even 1 assasin skill...

Dulled weapon

← moved to Feedback talk:Skill update previews/20100219#Dulled weapon

None shall pass.

← moved to Feedback talk:Skill update previews/20100219#None shall pass.

Interupt and Knockdown in pvp

← moved to Feedback talk:Skill update previews/20100423

this page could be confusing

Although I think this is an important page and it's a good thing it's linked on the main page, It's a bit confusing cause here is talk about possible future changes, but the updates discused here are already done at the moment. The update can off-course be seen in the update-page, but cause that being a regular page bout all the updates (not only skillupdates) people could miss that point when they go directly to this page form the mainpage. My proposal is to add a line to each section stating something like" This preview has completly or partially implemented, see (link to update-page)" Akela Rumi 23:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I think anyone looking at the dates of the previews would be able to recognize they are old. -- Wyn talk 00:00, 18

April 2010 (UTC)

The Mesmer updates, April 23, 2010

← moved to Feedback talk:Skill update previews/20100423

Yasmin QQ about Mesmers thread.

← moved to Feedback talk:Skill update previews/20100423

I'm sorry

← moved to Feedback talk:Skill update previews/20100423

Don't Buff Hexways:

← moved to Feedback talk:Skill update previews/20100423

Thx for all, but one...

← moved to Feedback talk:Skill update previews/20100423

Mantra of recovery needs buff

← moved to Feedback talk:Skill update previews/20100423

Time-frame

I think it would be better if Anet didn't release "expected time frames" for these updates. It's easier to just forget about the preview and be happy when it comes when we don't have projected due dates to look at. It gets pretty miserable sitting around and watching the fuse slowly get shorter and shorter, and of course there's the good chance that the time-frame is completely wrong and it's going to be delayed, which makes it even worse. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 19:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep...October 2010 now...dts720666 20:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait...

"Psychic Distraction – now interrupts any skill, not just spells..."

Shoot me if I'm wrong but didn't PD always interrupt any skill?

Next Preview

So any word on the next set of previews? with the warrior/rit being the 19th of feb and the mesmer the 23rd of april thats two months difference. Two months on is around the 20th this month are we gonna see another preview maybe? o: though tbh have not really been enough so far to judge timescale. Dinsy 13:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This page is dead :/ is it still worth having a link on the main page for this?--189.135.211.144 07:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Mesmers

I guess somebody decided to archive my conversation, I am reposting it because I do not feel it has been dealt with to my satisfaction. I believe they are over powered and need to be further tested at by anet. Rogueonion 04:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be posted on the specific preview page, not here. -- Wyn talk 04:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I never wanted a wiki account I leave it to the people who run this mess to fix that. I am just here to add my voice, if they dont make the wiki functional for the average user that is their problem. Rogueonion 04:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? It's posted quite clearly at the top of this page, as well as the links to the specific update talk pages. I'm just asking you to read what's in front of your nose, and follow basic instructions. I'm sorry if that is too difficult for you. Just don't expect anyone to respond to "your voice" if you aren't placing it properly. -- Wyn talk 06:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

and this is why I hate people like you. Excuse me, I don't really care. I will keep posting this until it is noticed by anets devs. Rogueonion 07:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you continue posting it here, it won't be. If you have suggestions please go to Feedback:Getting started and create a Feedback:User page, and then you can submit any suggestion you wish. If you are posting about a specific skill update preview, use the specific page. Since the most recent update preview was implemented on May 21st, the most appropriate place for your "feedback" would be Feedback talk:Game updates/20100521. -- Wyn talk 07:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Rogueonion, while I happen to agree with your sentiment about Mesmers, there is a right way and the I'm a vandal way. Wynthyst is trying to bring Order to Chaos. Since I have been talking about OP mesmers in my Alliance, people already feed back my comments whenever I get started :D. Do the right thing. — Mar Master 23:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

and the point I am trying to make is, quite simply, I never wanted a wiki account, and I never wanted to have to figure this stupid website out. therefore since the only way I will be heard is here I will post where is most efficient for me, you move it where it needs to be, but if it gets archived ill just repost. Rogueonion 00:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This page has not been archived, nor does it seem you have posted here beore this section. Backsword 00:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Feedback_talk:Skill_update_previews/20100423 Rogueonion 00:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Anet devs DO NOT read the wiki. you're wasting your time. and coming here and being rude to wyn is not the correct way to "voice" your opinion. 24.34.231.13 00:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a different page. it was archived while being nearly 400k large, when 32k is the comfor limit, and some browsers may break down at 100k, not to mention the strain on our servers. Archieving was the right thing to do, and not directed at any induvidual. Backsword 00:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

read following emails from guildwars,

Thanks for taking the time to write to us. We welcome feedback and thank you for sharing it with us. We will take this on board and pass it on to the design team for consideration, however, if you have specific ideas of what the exact changes you would like to see in order to balance the game to your own individual taste, please post it on the official wiki: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Feedback:Main

All the best,

The Guild Wars Team

ello,

Please understand that we are not the programmers, the designers, or the guys that decide how much Energy a skill uses. We are the Guild Wars Support Team. We are here to support the game as is it designed. If you feel more discussion should be made regarding skill updates and changes, I encourage you to post your ideas on the Guild Wars Wiki at: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Feedback:Main

You can post feedback, bug reports and suggestions, and the information is reviewed frequently by our Development Team. More information about how to set up a Wiki account can be located at:: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Feedback:Getting_started

We will be unable to assist you with any discussion about skill balancing. Rogueonion 00:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

@backsword yes Thank you for explaining that, however my post wouldnt be archived if 50 people had not been telling me hex removal hex removal its fine blah blah, it is NOT fine, guildwars DOES need to do further testing regarding the indirect nerf of melee classes, and if people were not so spiteful and rude about it, I would not have to keep posting. Rogueonion 00:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of "feedback" that is improperly placed on the wiki. I believe there is lack of clarity that causes this in no small part. I've been playing since the beginning, and on this wiki (or it's predicessor) for most of that time...I still don't know how to "correctly" post feedback, and with my background, education, professional experience, and intelligence, that says a lot about a deficiency in clarity on the matter. Since the beginning, documentation has not been a strong point for the game, and that was the founding principle of this wiki. Players look here to; figure out what they are doing wrong, not doing right, get unlost, etc. MANY couldn't care less about the wiki, it's format, nor anything else that does not directly resolve the reason they are here. Nothing wrong with that, so long as they are respectful. Players want to play, not read the wiki and learn all the associated formatting and proceedures of wiki-ing. I stopped posting on the wiki for a long time following an encounter with an extremely rude, self-important and ignorant wiki admin who shall remain nameless...there's clearly a difference between a player and a wiki-er that is often overlooked in designing something so useful and potentially game-impacting, as this wiki. It is a truly powerful tool with undeniable potential. Players don't understand (and sometimes don't appreciate) the amount of voluntary work admins perform, admins go ape when something is posted contrary to format (or in my aforementioned case, contrary to their opinion). We all play a big part in making the wiki as useful as it is, and if we want to include the player's contributions, we need to make it simpler to accept those contributiions. Organized feedback can assist developers in making the game more enjoyable for all.

Rogueonion seems frustrated about not being able to reach the developers, and is apparently trying to make their point the only way they can find, without spending a few days reading to figure out where they should be posting. I don't think they are trying to be a "vandal", they just do not see where to post, and frankly they are not alone. This page bears "feedback" in it's title, yet it apparently ins't a feedback page. The feedback section of the wiki is a rather confusing area as well, and having tried to use it myself, I can see where a player might resort to "vandalism", tantrums, and the occassional urge to bite one's keyboard in frustration. Perhaps the beaurocrats should look into the clarity issue without assuming ANY wiki experience, and see if there is a way to clarify and/or simplify feedback. Possibly make a feedback tab for players to add comment/feedback/suggestion in a forum-like manner (with a definite set of rules) attached to the page directly (like the discussion, edit, history...tabs), a linked feeback page, or more concise directions and a more prominent, accessible method of allowing feedback to be posted without having as many "flames" or improperly placed feedback posts. Certainly there can be a solution to what is apparently a large portion of improperly placed feedback. Gwynna Vive 12:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think mesmers are currenly spot on. Without their current skill set then Eles would be overkill. Rangers are still in desperate need of help. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.27.10.10 (talk) at 17:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC).

Typical GW scrub player "i can beat it so nerf it", well guess what Mesmer's have always been OP now there just so blatantly easy even scrubs can play them now, back when i first started mesmer, we had very little AoE, we were a single target shut down mainly, but the ones of use who knew how to use mesmer, we'd use them better then what they are now, i mean seriously, apply panic or key stone signet u got urself a AoE of interupts so easy u dont need timing, same as mistrust, back in the Day our AoE shut down was "any hex, Echo(copy CoP), CoP, Cry of Frustration and until the night falls release, we didnt even have CoP(cry of pain for the non-learned), now were in spot's up there on the map we couldnt get before, and cus of people who didnt know how to play mesmer, for interupts/daze pug's would take rangers for interupts'daze over us...now look at us, we have a place in PvE....wanna talk about balance, look at all of PvE, theres nothing balanced about it, also ur not gonna get much of a response on wiki, all these people repeat everything they hear from some1 else, so when some1 says a skill's bad, there gonna do the lemming and believe what they were told by ALOT of idiots--144.131.193.14 08:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

time to

← moved to Talk:Main Page/editcopy#skill update previews

Dervishes

← moved to Feedback talk:Skill update previews/20110210#Dervishes

Have you considered adding some of the other utilites [i.e.: knock-downs]?

← moved to User talk:Ulterion

Remove?

out of date much.. :/ 18:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah this is pretty out of date now...71.194.87.164 00:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

These are really freaking old skill previews. Rikk Panda 00:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are aware of a more recent skill preview published by ANet, let's add it to the list. As far as I can find, this is the most recent... so it's exactly as up-to-date as it's supposed to be. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I would just archive this one (and all others when the update they preview is realized), and put a notice in its place: "There are no known upcoming skill updates." | 72 | 13:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. MrDark 12:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Archiving would be better than deleting it but skill update previews should be removed once the skill update has been done. Da Mystic Reaper 13:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, I think we should add the dates to the header so that people know how old these are.–alistic 17:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

@Reaper: documenting the game etc. I agee with archiving, and I think we should also link the update which was previewed. -- Armond Warblade 18:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a loss if we just delete previews of updates that have already happened, but if you want to archive go for it. Either way, its been 4 months since people started complaining that this page is outdated and I think something should be done about it. -- Kirbman 17:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I prefer that we maintain the old previews (they are useful insight to ANet's thinking). I think the only thing that we need to do is to include the date of the most recent preview, so that it's easy for people to know the last time ANet published. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the edit, i clicked on a GW2W link and didn't mean to get involved in the GW1W, i removed the edit. --Ee 06:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)