Talk:Purging Flames
From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Does it pulse every second for entities inside it? Or one application each time someone touches the ring? — Gnarf ~ El Psy Congroo ~ 20:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Neither: they take five pulses of damage, regardless of how long the field was active before they entered. I've added details to the article. Kotaro the Hero 07:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- All of the notes you added to the article seem unnecessary to me. The first two simply describe how combo fields work in general, so they really don't belong on an individual skill page. The one about the trait is simply what the trait says: it extends the duration of the consecration, it doesn't alter any of the consecration's other effects. The third note is the only one that might be needed, but the way you wrote it is way too wordy. —Dr Ishmael
14:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- You do understand how confusing this skill is to use underwater, right? And yes, while I'm aware of the fact that it's what the trait says, it's a non-obvious interaction because how the other mechanics play out. My assumption was that notes that saved players 10-15 minutes of individually testing a skill to work out details that were not obvious from the skill description had merit.
Kotaro 18:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Compromise added. Opinion? I still think that some mention of the field shape is necessary due to how all the underwater graphic displays is a horizontal ring. Kotaro 18:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Like I said, that is too general of a note for this page. Something like that belongs on Combo or maybe Area of effect. —Dr Ishmael 01:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- You are evading collaboration and restating. If a skill is difficult underwater due to its visual effect not offering any suggestion of vertical height, then it stands to reason that some note on how to use it is warranted. You have not disagreed with this point, only disagreed on how it was expressed previously. As the editor who removed the prior content, it would behoove you to do one of the following: 1) disagree that this skill is difficult to target underwater (giving third parties the opportunity to agree or disagree), 2) state that you think too many skills from other classes have a similar problem and it is not worth mentioning (I wouldn't know), 3) help to express the information in a satisfactory way ("this skill provides no indication of vertical height underwater, but has a standard area of effect height"), or 4) anything else that is not a retread. Kotaro 13:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- You are evading collaboration and restating. If a skill is difficult underwater due to its visual effect not offering any suggestion of vertical height, then it stands to reason that some note on how to use it is warranted. You have not disagreed with this point, only disagreed on how it was expressed previously. As the editor who removed the prior content, it would behoove you to do one of the following: 1) disagree that this skill is difficult to target underwater (giving third parties the opportunity to agree or disagree), 2) state that you think too many skills from other classes have a similar problem and it is not worth mentioning (I wouldn't know), 3) help to express the information in a satisfactory way ("this skill provides no indication of vertical height underwater, but has a standard area of effect height"), or 4) anything else that is not a retread.
- Like I said, that is too general of a note for this page. Something like that belongs on Combo or maybe Area of effect. —Dr Ishmael
- Compromise added. Opinion? I still think that some mention of the field shape is necessary due to how all the underwater graphic displays is a horizontal ring.
- You do understand how confusing this skill is to use underwater, right? And yes, while I'm aware of the fact that it's what the trait says, it's a non-obvious interaction because how the other mechanics play out. My assumption was that notes that saved players 10-15 minutes of individually testing a skill to work out details that were not obvious from the skill description had merit.
- All of the notes you added to the article seem unnecessary to me. The first two simply describe how combo fields work in general, so they really don't belong on an individual skill page. The one about the trait is simply what the trait says: it extends the duration of the consecration, it doesn't alter any of the consecration's other effects. The third note is the only one that might be needed, but the way you wrote it is way too wordy. —Dr Ishmael
- I am only retreading because you are ignoring my point: it is a generic condition of AoE skills and does not need to be described on individual skill pages. This is similar to what you state in #2 "many skills from other classes have a similar problem" although I'm not sure what you mean by "is not worth mentioning". I think it is worth mentioning, but because it affects an entire class of skills, it does not belong here. —Dr Ishmael 19:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- what is the range/radius of this skill? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.129.28.5 (talk • contribs) at 03:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC).
- Does this remove conditions from the guardian casting it? It is confusing where some skills/utilities which say "all" do not include the caster. I wish this could be clarified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.226.68.206 (talk • contribs) at 19:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC).
- what is the range/radius of this skill? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.129.28.5 (talk • contribs) at 03:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC).
- I am only retreading because you are ignoring my point: it is a generic condition of AoE skills and does not need to be described on individual skill pages. This is similar to what you state in #2 "many skills from other classes have a similar problem" although I'm not sure what you mean by "is not worth mentioning". I think it is worth mentioning, but because it affects an entire class of skills, it does not belong here. —Dr Ishmael
Amount of conditions cleared?[edit]
Does this clear three conditions on each ally, or does it simply clear three conditions in total? --KirbyGotenksabsorbed (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- each ally, self included.
