Guild Wars 2

So I’ve been wondering,

What is the thought process behind not listing full patch notes?
They must be intentional fixes, but were they not fully tested but patched in regardless hoping for a good outcome?
I think its annoying that we have to find out what may or may not have actually made the list because the full notes were not added.

One quick example would be the bug fix to rangers opening strikes on this Dec. 3 patch. It will now fully proc on any distance where-as before it was very limited and pets also had a hard time triggering it.

So is it intentional that they are left off due to lack of testing?
Did they not actually mean to fix it, just a lucky outcome?
Just lazy?

I’ve never understood the point behind them when they game-play affecting changes to be left off the list and are not just fun easter-egg type scenerios.

I agree. It’s frustrating when you think something is bugged still and avoid using the skill or going to a particular event/dungeon but then realize it’s fixed.

ANet has a long history of pulling this crap. Why should now be any different??

I wasn’t trying to just complain, just figuring out if it was intentional and the reason to it.

Maybe they don’t even realize they fixed it, anything is possible I suppose.

Either way, I’m quite happy that Opening Strikes works now.

They also failed to mention that Steel Tide had been nerfed.

Wait… Opening Strikes is now fixes, I didn’t actually realize this until you mentioned it.

It seems that they also fixed the sword #1 for rangers, it now allows you to move/dodge/use other actions when you aren’t in a leap attack (which is fair enough given that you can’t dodge while using leap on other professions).

But it would be nice if ANet could document these kinds of changes so that players (who read the patch notes) can actually use weapons/abilities etc. that were previously bugged and now aren’t.

hrm sword is also fixed? news to me lol. I’ll have to do some testing.

Faolchu.1629:

I wasn’t trying to just complain, just figuring out if it was intentional and the reason to it.

Well good luck with that. Unfortunately i don’t think we’ll be hearing anything from anyone in a long long time. It’s been two months in the engi forums and we’ve not seen a single “ETA, we’re testing this now, we hope to have an update soon, or we continue to collect your data please keep posting” messages from any dev at all. It’s really no wonder so many people have formulated weird end of the world scenarios about just what is happening at their headquarters. Weird.

ArcTheFallen.7682:

I agree. It’s frustrating when you think something is bugged still and avoid using the skill or going to a particular event/dungeon but then realize it’s fixed.

You know what is worse… Having a career around supporting professional business software and the same thing happens to it. For years something works or doesn’t work in some manner and one day a customer shows you something different then you ever known. It destroys confidence and makes you have to be a full system QA tester every single release. It gets to the point you can call your support teams and ask the same question three times to a different tech and you get three answers. Do you feel lucky punk? Frustrating.

Faolchu.1629:

So I’ve been wondering,

What is the thought process behind not listing full patch notes?
They must be intentional fixes, but were they not fully tested but patched in regardless hoping for a good outcome?
I think its annoying that we have to find out what may or may not have actually made the list because the full notes were not added.

One quick example would be the bug fix to rangers opening strikes on this Dec. 3 patch. It will now fully proc on any distance where-as before it was very limited and pets also had a hard time triggering it.

So is it intentional that they are left off due to lack of testing?
Did they not actually mean to fix it, just a lucky outcome?
Just lazy?

I’ve never understood the point behind them when they game-play affecting changes to be left off the list and are not just fun easter-egg type scenerios.

It’s due to the fact that there are so many exploits, hacks, and bots in the game. The idea is not to let the user know.

1. Some users will go looking for those exploits, hacks, and bots.
2. People will want to know why people abusing these exploits, hacks, and bots have not been banned. It’s because they can’t catch them.
3. Some people who were using the exploit get upset that it’s no longer available and amazingly have the nerve to come on to this board to complain about it.

Also they could have just left it out by accident, the list was pretty huge.

Volomon.9147:

Faolchu.1629:

So I’ve been wondering,

What is the thought process behind not listing full patch notes?
They must be intentional fixes, but were they not fully tested but patched in regardless hoping for a good outcome?
I think its annoying that we have to find out what may or may not have actually made the list because the full notes were not added.

One quick example would be the bug fix to rangers opening strikes on this Dec. 3 patch. It will now fully proc on any distance where-as before it was very limited and pets also had a hard time triggering it.

So is it intentional that they are left off due to lack of testing?
Did they not actually mean to fix it, just a lucky outcome?
Just lazy?

I’ve never understood the point behind them when they game-play affecting changes to be left off the list and are not just fun easter-egg type scenerios.

It’s due to the fact that there are so many exploits, hacks, and bots in the game. The idea is not to let the user know.

1. Some users will go looking for those exploits, hacks, and bots.
2. People will want to know why people abusing these exploits, hacks, and bots have not been banned. It’s because they can’t catch them.
3. Some people who were using the exploit get upset that it’s no longer available and amazingly have the nerve to come on to this board to complain about it.

Also they could have just left it out by accident, the list was pretty huge.

We’re not talking about exploits but fixes to game-play and skills.

lol…yeah, that was puzzles me.
exploits? bugs?
the heck?
what people want to know is this what does this NEW VERSION of software does better?

if a software has a bug where hitting the X key triggers a crash, would a person even bother ‘trying’ the X key again on a new build of the software if it’s an undocumented fix?

He won’t. That’s human nature.

I kinda wonder if this release was the wrong code… between the weird jumping issue, sPVP color change, ranger fix, etc. Maybe a system test or AT build got deployed, instead of the correct staging release.

…man I’d really like to know GW2’s promotion/testing model