Talk:"Strength of the Pack!"
720 seconds versus 12 minutes? Though ingame might have been used 720 seconds, 12 minutes sounds easier to me and perhaps others. Just a quick and random thought. Not even sure if other skills have this amount of time for a recharge. ge4ce 16:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Gee, I think I would've preferred a less powerful version that was usable more often...12 minute recharge, really? Arshay Duskbrow 22:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Yea, im also concerned about these elite's recharge times, and it seems it will be for most/all the elites. The Devs did say they are used to turn the tide of battle and such, but to me it sort of sounds like an "i win" button. Then again, the game is pretty solid so far from what im seeing in the demo so hopefully there will be other ways to work with this... 85.114.54.166 15:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- So GW2 RaO is basically GW RaO with a recharge? — Raine Valen 23:02, 3 Sep 2010 (UTC)
- Except it's even more effective and also makes you "ignore damage". ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 23:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's suppose to say "and deal armor ignoring damage" - Giant Nuker 23:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Quite possible, not sure what to make of that wording. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 00:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- To me, it reads, "you cannot be downed." I.e., you can still take damage, but it won't affect you until RAO ends. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 01:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I also interpreted it to mean "you take damage, but don't get knocked around so much". If that makes sense. — Raine Valen 1:33, 4 Sep 2010 (UTC)
- To me, it reads, "you cannot be downed." I.e., you can still take damage, but it won't affect you until RAO ends. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 01:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Quite possible, not sure what to make of that wording. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 00:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's suppose to say "and deal armor ignoring damage" - Giant Nuker 23:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Except it's even more effective and also makes you "ignore damage". ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 23:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
As or as?[edit]
The Guild War skill is Rampage as One, which currently makes the Guild Wars Skill code not work. Ramei Arashi 15:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I just made it a redirect anyways. Vald [Citation Needed] 16:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC) :I am also getting the same bug
Quickening Zephyr[edit]
Is this skill still in the demo, or has it been renamed as "Quickening Zephyr" (same icon and description seen here)? •••Mora 03:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think it is a bug. Because QZ is one of the elites which is given by the engineer elite Elixir X. And this skill would be absolute shit to get if you were an engineer you know what I'm saying? -- aspectacle 06:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- I believe this skill is now Quickening Zephyr. Both have the same description, are elites, and have the same icon as shown above. And yes, it may seem not so useful on engenier, but it still gives a speed boost. Alfa-R 06:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
BWE3 skill type[edit]
Did anyone notice if the skill type was changed on this? I didn't notice in my whirlwind skill updates yesterday, and I can't access my screenshots at work today (forgot to put them on my Google Drive). "Search and Rescue!" was changed to a shout, so I'm wondering if this either also became a shout (which wouldn't make a whole lot of sense), or if it is now typeless. If no one knows, I'll be able to check after work in ~6 hours. —Dr Ishmael 16:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, it still says "Pet". Hope they change it for launch, since having a skill type represented by a single skill would be silly. —Dr Ishmael 22:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
"Might Last 8 Seconds..."[edit]
I'm not claiming to be an all-knowing expert of this wiki, but... the notes section looks a little dubious. Or is it just me?
- Well it did last that time I tested it... there's a 20s window when might can be applied, but each individual might buff lasted 8s. I don't see the duration listed anywhere else. Adrian R 06:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- D'oh, the OP and I made the same mistake of reading "might" with the wrong definition. I'll return it with better phrasing. —Dr Ishmael 13:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hehe, now I see the problem with the wording I had used. Adrian R 19:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)