Talk:Illusion of Haste

This skill can be used in combination with illusion of weakness for anyone that wishes to be a mesmer runner. The anti-cripple feature allows you to run past areas when foes tend to use skills that cause cripple (pin down for example), and as long as it is recast close to when it is about to go off the runner will not become crippled. 68.104.205.160 14:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Go race with Ulfarr Leadfoot Lightblade 19:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

iluaaion of hast at a low atribute + plague sending + virulence = fun fun fun... the enemy should be to faraway and too cripled to resist the asualt --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:68.240.49.163 .

Cripple

Does it remove Cripple or make you immune to it for the duration? 84.87.168.39 18:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It removes it. So you can be crippled again while you are under this enchantment. (Terra Xin 14:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

Which is lame. @_@ RitualDoll 06:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

But its recharge time is lower than most skill that cause cripple from afar. If not, their recharge time are equal.--ShadowFog 12:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

UPDATED!->Except Palm Strike.--ShadowFog 13:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Needs Buff

Make it a stance, nuf said.--JORLZ36181 20:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That would make it so op, lol. Mason717 00:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it got buffed. Not in stance but It's cripple time is so friendly(unfriendly to throwing conditions necro) to secondaries. I think I might be willing to take these instead of the usual running skills. Removes Cripple which is good and if I cant get to cast it again, do a skill to protect your for only 3 secs. Bar compression... give me a martini on the rocks.--ShadowFog 13:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I never liked the whole "have to stop and cast a spell + aftercast" part, and so even if I was playing Illusion Magic I took Dash or something. Meh. Combine it with Distortion or something... Vili 14:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I so agree. They should make this a faster spell or remove the aftercast. It's very annoying to stop in the middle of running and pause when you want a speed boost especially when it's only for seconds and you'll get crippled after.

Buff IMS of it? -/- Discuss 17:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Lengthen Cripple?

I happen to have a runic sword on my mesmer that has a lengthen cripple on it (bought like that with the caster mods already on it)... I am wondering if the lengthen cripple portion would actually lengthen it on yourself when this ends? o.O -- SabreWolf 16:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It ought to. Silencing works for Headbutt. Vili 16:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

it does, what you should do is have a cripple reducing shield and rune to reduce the crippling to 1 second (given the way GW applies these bonuses seprately and rounds strangely) --Ckal Ktak 21:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

the speed boost

is @ 12 illusion magic, with no enchantment mods.. if you keep walking without removing the cripple - 1.33*10+0.5+0.5+0.5/13=1.138 = +14% speed boost

if you reapply the enchantment just before the enchantment ends. 1.33*9+0+(0.25*1.33) =12.3025 / 10.75 = 1.14 = 14% speed boost.

if you keep walking with a reduced cripple mod 1.33*10+0.5/11=1.2545 = +25% speed boost

ofcourse, fast casting to reduce the 0 time while casting isn't measured in these calculations, as I am dumb 80.126.47.201 17:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If you factor in the casting time, things look different. I'll measure distance covered in units, where 1 unit is the distance a character runs in 1 second. Starting at 12 illusion and @15 FC (=50% cast time).

A single cast (with crippled at the end) results in:

0.5 seconds casting + 0.75 seconds aftercast-delay + 10 seconds running at 133% + 3 seconds running at 50% = 14.8 units in 14.25 seconds, speed increase of ~4%

If you re-cast as soon as the crippled starts:

0.5 seconds casting + 0.75 seconds aftercast-delay + 10 seconds running at 133% = 13.3 units in 11.25 seconds, average speed increase of ~18%.

chained @16 illusion with 20% HCT and +20% enchantment duration:

0.45 seconds casting + 0.75 seconds aftercast-delay + 13 seconds running at 133% = 17.29 units in 14.2 seconds, average speed increase of ~21.8%.

Tub 00:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

re:split

Eh, I don't think we need to split the article. Shared Burden (Gwen) and Sum of All Fears (Gwen) are functionally different than their non-Gwen counterparts, and Distortion (Gwen) has a different recharge than Distortion. These qualities are a reason for having different pages, but the version of IoH that Gwen picks up is the same as the ones that other Mesmers use. It would just be redudant. --Riddle 01:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps a note in the skill of this page that gwen uses the same skill. I think the id for this is linked the same as well. Kaisha 02:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Falconeye wants the distinct articles because it makes auto-categorization easier within the skill box itself. Some tables will automatically exclude the titles of articles in category:special skills...so having normal IoH and IoH (Gwen) allows all that magic to happen without hiccups.

I think that's a good reason...but it would be better to figure out if we could make the tables recognize IoH as both a special skill page and a non-special skill page. But, (on the third hand), if that takes more than 30-40 minutes to figure out, then it's easier to split the article and revisit the issue later. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No split. If you follow the links from the game, you'll notice that it's the same skill in both cases, both having the same skill-id. Take a look at Turai Ossa, Master Togo or Saul D'Alessio, we've done a split where the game actually has separate skills, no split on the others.

The stated reason "other 7 gwen skills are special skills" doesn't hold, and I don't see why the reused regular skills need to be in category:special skills, either. They're not special. Tub 14:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As TEF said, auto-categorization; there are dozens of "list of <insert subject>" non-existing pages to create (or in dire need of cleanup)... and there plenty of skill overlaps/splits/merges thats annoying/preventing me from properly implementing them without creating a mess. ^_^ --Falconeye 04:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, they should all follow consistency. --Falconeye 04:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Just saying "auto-categorization" isn't really an argument. What categories do you want these pages to be in (or not to be in), for which pages are these categories needed, and why does it require a split instead of adding [[Category:something]] to the bottom?

I agree that consistency is a good thing, but I'd understand that argument to adjust the one page with artificial splits (Togo (disguise)) to the seven pages without (Master Togo, Turai Ossa, Turai Ossa (disguise), Gwen, Gwen (disguise), Saul D'Alessio and Saul D'Alessio (disguise)). Tub 10:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You have now edited your above paragraph to point to a skill list, but you haven't explained why manually adding [[Category:Bonus Mission Pack skills]] to the skills in question isn't sufficient. As far as I can tell from your link, it could be made to work just fine. (Assuming you'd even want to include IoH in that list, since it doesn't fit the description on top of that page.)

You also haven't suggested any resolution to the mentioned problems caused by the splits. Breaking one thing for the sake of fixing another is not an acceptable change unless backed up by a strong consensus. Tub 11:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The problems created by this split are still unresolved; the person who did the splits does not seem to care and has neither implemented nor suggested any solutions. Since there has been no consensus for the split, and the split is not actually required for any article brought forth in this discussion, I will go ahead and revert the splits in the coming days as time permits.

Of course I'd prefer to see the person who created the mess to own up to his mistakes and revert it himself, but I don't see that happening. Tub 19:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)