Talk:Blackout
From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Can I take this as a hint to the mesmer reveal coming soon, because it's obviously This
- It does seem rather mesmer-esque, but then, the interview was rather roughly-translated, and calling it 'Blackout' may have just been a way to liken the new condition to something we're familiar with. We'll have to wait on more info before jumping to any conclusions 165.29.184.7 17:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- "a condition which resemble another effect from GW1" seems that this is the exact name in fact. This one seems to me like a mesmer exclusive condition the same way fear is necromancer exclusive because it hasn't been mentioned until now.Lokheit 18:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Unless Izzy speaks French, the text of the interview was translated, but the quotes and English words he used shouldn't have needed to be translated. "Blackout" as the name seems like something he actually said that was translated to French for the original article - the article cross-references the skill Blackout with this condition at the end. Ekko 21:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- "a condition which resemble another effect from GW1" seems that this is the exact name in fact. This one seems to me like a mesmer exclusive condition the same way fear is necromancer exclusive because it hasn't been mentioned until now.Lokheit 18:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
There's already a condition called Daze that has this affect. Several known skills already reference it. This page should probably be deleted. 69.205.115.195 02:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Daze is not a condition. –~=Ϛρѧякγ
(τѧιк) ←♥– 02:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. We already know that daze causes this affect. All Izzy was probably referencing in the interview was that. He didn't specifically say there was a condition called blackout. More likely he was referencing it based on how it functioned in GW1. There are absolutely no skills which reference blackout so there is no reason to conclude that there is such a condition, especially when there is already something known that does have this affect. 69.205.115.195 15:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, it's not irrelevant. Daze is not a condition, and blackout is.
- "There'll obviously still be stunts and blackouts, a condition which resemble another effect from GW1 forbidding you the use of skills for a while." (from the reference link)
- There are no skills that cause blackout yet. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, especially when it's directly mentioned in this interview with Izzy. --ஸ Kyoshi
16:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- You entirely missed the point of what I was saying. You're being far too literal with your interpretation of what I said, and what Izzy was saying when we said "condition." We already know that there is an affect that does the same thing this proposed condition. Regardless of whether or not you call it a condition I doubt they would be so redundant. They're trying to scale things down to make them less complex remember. Such redundancy seems highly improbable. More than likely you'll later see a skill called blackout that dazes people. There is also no reason to undo my changes without further proof that I'm wrong. What would mean seeing a skill that actually causes this affect. 69.205.115.195 16:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- 69.205 IP, firstly you should not have reverted the article so many times, this is an edit war now and you should please stop. Secondly, I agree with Kyoshi. Daze, thus far, is not a condition; whereas, blackout is. This is the most up to date information that we have. If in the future it is proven incorrect, then it can be changed. Yes there may be a slight degree of interpretation, but I feel that it was interpreted correctly before. Venom20
16:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Izzy explicitly referred to it as a condition, and while there's a chance he misspoke or didn't feel like trying to explain the concept of stuns/knockbacks/launches/daze (which don't seem to have a proper name), at the moment we should take it at face value. Manifold
17:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) And you, 69, missed my point. "...blackouts, a condition..." If they didn't mean condition, they would have said "effect". Making things less complicated loses its point if you flat out say the wrong thing, like you're suggesting. We have been given this information and for the moment it is all we have to go on; I don't need any more proof than I have that you're wrong, because all the information we have does that by itself, despite whatever assumptions you make about "likelihood" (which is, by definition, speculation, and we don't document speculation). --ஸ Kyoshi 17:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- So nobody here really want to have it added that it at least bears resemblance towards daze? That the only real difference is that Daze isn't seen as a "condition" even though they're otherwise identical? That there are no known skills that presently support the stated assumption? There are skills that identify daze, we know that it exists. People have seen it in game. Functionally it's the same as what is presently being described on the page. The only exception is the word "condition." The only evidence for it being a separate condition is the literal interpretation of what Izzy said when there is still room for interpretation. I have read the article before around when it was first posted. The only reason why I didn't make the assumption that it was it's own condition was because it sounded too much like daze. How about we meet somewhere in neutral territory? Because of the lack of any real concrete information, a little ambiguity might be in order. How about a description on the page that says something along the lines of "Blackout is a condition hinted towards by Izzy that prevents targets from using their skills. This condition bears a strong resemblance towards daze, but it is yet not known how or if the two are functionally different." --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.205.115.195 (talk).
- (Edit conflict) And you, 69, missed my point. "...blackouts, a condition..." If they didn't mean condition, they would have said "effect". Making things less complicated loses its point if you flat out say the wrong thing, like you're suggesting. We have been given this information and for the moment it is all we have to go on; I don't need any more proof than I have that you're wrong, because all the information we have does that by itself, despite whatever assumptions you make about "likelihood" (which is, by definition, speculation, and we don't document speculation). --ஸ Kyoshi
- Izzy explicitly referred to it as a condition, and while there's a chance he misspoke or didn't feel like trying to explain the concept of stuns/knockbacks/launches/daze (which don't seem to have a proper name), at the moment we should take it at face value. Manifold
- 69.205 IP, firstly you should not have reverted the article so many times, this is an edit war now and you should please stop. Secondly, I agree with Kyoshi. Daze, thus far, is not a condition; whereas, blackout is. This is the most up to date information that we have. If in the future it is proven incorrect, then it can be changed. Yes there may be a slight degree of interpretation, but I feel that it was interpreted correctly before. Venom20
- You entirely missed the point of what I was saying. You're being far too literal with your interpretation of what I said, and what Izzy was saying when we said "condition." We already know that there is an affect that does the same thing this proposed condition. Regardless of whether or not you call it a condition I doubt they would be so redundant. They're trying to scale things down to make them less complex remember. Such redundancy seems highly improbable. More than likely you'll later see a skill called blackout that dazes people. There is also no reason to undo my changes without further proof that I'm wrong. What would mean seeing a skill that actually causes this affect. 69.205.115.195 16:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. We already know that daze causes this affect. All Izzy was probably referencing in the interview was that. He didn't specifically say there was a condition called blackout. More likely he was referencing it based on how it functioned in GW1. There are absolutely no skills which reference blackout so there is no reason to conclude that there is such a condition, especially when there is already something known that does have this affect. 69.205.115.195 15:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
(Reset indent) Okay, here I am to explain to you why you're wrong.
"I didn't make the assumption that it was it's own condition was because it sounded too much like daze."
Even talking about daze is irrelevant to this condition. Why? Because it is a different effect. Do you also support deleting Bestial Fury's page because it is nearly identical to Tiger's Fury?
While thinking about coexisting similarities, why not take a look at stun and knock down? They have identical effects and neither is a condition. They are both confirmed and are caused and prevented by various skills already confirmed. How can it be that those two effects are more identical than these, but still exist? Should we delete one, then? The fact of the matter is that they have the same difference as between "block" and "evade" (I'm hoping you get this reference).
"The only exception is the word 'condition.'"
Here's some food for thought: conditions like blackout are removable, effects such as knock down or daze are not removable – that's a big difference. It's not just a word as you so elliptically put it.
Whether a note should actually be placed on blackout, daze, stun, and knock down that a similar effect exists is debatable, but saying, "it is yet not known how or if the two are functionally different" is incorrect. An acceptable and unbiased note would say something to the effect of daze being similar, but not a condition. –~=Ϛρѧякγ 
(τѧιк) ←♥– 01:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Your first example is rather poor since they are clearly two different skills. Your block and evade argument is poor since they eventually removed one of them. Stun and knock down have two different visual affects. And just as various skills played off of different affects and conditions in the first game...one can likely see the same in GW2. That if anything I can see helping your argument. But it still remains that there are no known skills that give one a "blackout condition". Such a fact should be stated in writing. Given the yet to be revealed specifics and it's overall closeness to daze, that should also merit mention as well. Maybe my exact chosen words weren't the best, but those bits of information should be included until more information is presented. 69.205.115.195 02:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- 'Sigh'. Enough with the anger. It is really quite unnecessary. Anyways, I added notes to both pages regarding the similarities. If you have a reason as to why there should not be a note, then post it below without negativity. And just to state my opinion, I highly doubt Izzy would not only say the wrong term for it or the wrong name. So I agree with Konig. Eive
02:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not ambiguous enough for starters. There is still lots of room for interpretation as to what was said. And upon reading the page again it's not even directly quoting Izzy. It's the author's own interpretation of what he said. For all we know Izzy might not have even said the word 'blackout' during the interview. Again, I'd take the literal usage of the word with a grain of salt. 69.205.115.195 06:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Your first example is rather poor since they are clearly two different skills."
- That's the point.
- "Your block and evade argument is poor since they eventually removed one of them."
- That wasn't an argument, only a comparison to the difference between knock down and stun. It doesn't really matter whether one was removed, they were the same thing, but were caused and prevented by different skills like knock down and stun in GW2.
- "Stun and knock down have two different visual affects."
- You'd assume that blackout and daze have the same visual effects? Visual effects don't change how they affect their target.
- "...overall closeness to daze, that should also merit mention as well."
- Yes, I personally think similar effects should have notes mentioning this, much like related skills are noted on GWW. Also, we are not entirely sure if blackout is what they said verbatim (name, description, etc. could be different). As for not being caused by any skills or traits yet, that does not matter, almost all of the conditions were known about before we knew any skills that caused them. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 16:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- @69. most of your arguments are based on "What Ifs" and aren't very credible because of it. Of course, we could always assume "what if the interviewer didn't hear Izzy correctly" or "what if Izzy accidentally said the wrong thing" but the fact is, the only information we have to go on is things we've been told. If at a later time we find information conflicting what we "know", then we can restart this argument. But for now, our current sources claim that blackout and daze are two separate effects. Eive 21:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- The fact remains that we're taking another person's interpretation and trying to present it as fact. A simple change in word usage to show this is all I'm requesting until we get a a better source. Otherwise the information can be misleading by saying that it is, rather than it might be when there is no substantial evidence to conclude that it is. 69.205.115.195 00:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Suggesting that they accidentally said blackout when referring to daze, and accidentally said that it's a condition, seems like a bit of a stretch, regardless of what "misinterpretations" there may have been in transit/translation of information. --ஸ Kyoshi 06:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- However there is some truth in what the IP is saying, I see no need for a change in wording. Kyoshi, Sparky and Eive gave strong arguments and I do agree with what Kyoshi said above my post. Further, there is no evidence it is related to daze, so if we change the wording it is, in fact, based on your interpretation. This discussion can expand till extreme sizes, so I advice that we wait with any changes till we have more information about this condition. -- Cyan
12:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- However there is some truth in what the IP is saying, I see no need for a change in wording. Kyoshi, Sparky and Eive gave strong arguments and I do agree with what Kyoshi said above my post. Further, there is no evidence it is related to daze, so if we change the wording it is, in fact, based on your interpretation. This discussion can expand till extreme sizes, so I advice that we wait with any changes till we have more information about this condition. -- Cyan
- Suggesting that they accidentally said blackout when referring to daze, and accidentally said that it's a condition, seems like a bit of a stretch, regardless of what "misinterpretations" there may have been in transit/translation of information. --ஸ Kyoshi
- The fact remains that we're taking another person's interpretation and trying to present it as fact. A simple change in word usage to show this is all I'm requesting until we get a a better source. Otherwise the information can be misleading by saying that it is, rather than it might be when there is no substantial evidence to conclude that it is. 69.205.115.195 00:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- @69. most of your arguments are based on "What Ifs" and aren't very credible because of it. Of course, we could always assume "what if the interviewer didn't hear Izzy correctly" or "what if Izzy accidentally said the wrong thing" but the fact is, the only information we have to go on is things we've been told. If at a later time we find information conflicting what we "know", then we can restart this argument. But for now, our current sources claim that blackout and daze are two separate effects. Eive
- Not ambiguous enough for starters. There is still lots of room for interpretation as to what was said. And upon reading the page again it's not even directly quoting Izzy. It's the author's own interpretation of what he said. For all we know Izzy might not have even said the word 'blackout' during the interview. Again, I'd take the literal usage of the word with a grain of salt. 69.205.115.195 06:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- 'Sigh'. Enough with the anger. It is really quite unnecessary. Anyways, I added notes to both pages regarding the similarities. If you have a reason as to why there should not be a note, then post it below without negativity. And just to state my opinion, I highly doubt Izzy would not only say the wrong term for it or the wrong name. So I agree with Konig. Eive
@Kyoshi. You completely ignored what I just said. There is no way to be conclusive that it is, rather than it might be. Without a primary source to go by, the claim that it is, is still just speculation. All, I'm suggesting now is to add a qualifying word so that the description isn't so concrete, when there is insufficient evidence to support it. Yes it was from an interview with Izzy, but it was a loose translation and not a direct quote that everybody seems to be going by. And when trying to explain a game mechanic, we cant just go by loose information and claim that something absolutely is. Regardless as to how well it may have been described, there was already a known mechanic with the same description. Just because somebody tags the word 'condition', doesn't mean that it should be taken at face value without any further information to back it up. So again I must stress the point that there is no way to be absolutely certain that blackout is a condition and it's affects are in any way different from daze based upon the information available. 69.205.115.195 12:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- You are saying Kyoshi ignores your points. Actually, you are also ignoring ours. However, because it seems there is no end to this discussion I recommend (again) we wait for more information about the subject before changing something. The note which is currently on both pages will do in that time. -- Cyan 13:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Can you or anybody else say with 100% certainty that blackout is a condition based on the information available? If you cant say yes to that question, than that alone merits a more ambiguous description. The fact that there is a discussion here should be proof enough that it isn't 100% certain. 69.205.115.195 13:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Im not planning to repeat myself more then two times. Changes are made on consensus, and that is clearly not reached if we don't agree with each other. The best thing to do at the moment is to leave the note on both pages till more information is available. If you are right at that time, we change the page. -- Cyan 14:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Twitter Isaiah asking this. This ("Is Blackout a condition?") is the kind of short question he might answer there. Erasculio 14:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) x8 Can anyone say with 100% certainty that anything on this wiki (aside from perhaps the name of the game and that the number of playable races is 5) is correct? The game is thus far, not released. So this means that the information on this wiki, including the aforementioned blackout, has been gathered from many sources. Whether it be a direct quote from the mouths of an employee or a "loosely translated quote" from an anet employee, this can still be considered a quote, and until it is retracted or further information claiming it to be untrue is presented, we can accept the quote for the time being. There is always a bit of interpretation when translating an article from one language to another. My french isn't not fluent, but it is intermediate, and I'm fairly certain that "...toujours les stunt ainsi que les blackout, une condition qui ressemble à ce qu'on..." contains the words "blackout" and "condition" when translated. Also, the sentence structure indicates that blackout is a condition. Also, in the future, can you please use show preview when adding a post? This way you don't spam the RC. Venom20 14:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- I did twitter Izzy and I hope he answers, so we can end this discussion. -- Cyan 14:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Until we get an answer, there are a few possible scenarios I would like to point out. If the page remains as is without a primary source, it'll either 100% right, or 100% wrong depending upon the outcome. If it turns out to be 100% wrong, the information that we've been presenting here would have been misleading people. If there was a more neutral comment there instead, the later scenario could be avoided all together. In either even, that will be my final word on the matter. I'll just leave you with that, and hope that you try to understand my reasoning. 69.205.115.195 14:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think we can live with that, tbh. It's not like we said going to <insert phishing site here> will get them into GW2 beta. --ஸ Kyoshi 17:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think we can live with that, tbh. It's not like we said going to <insert phishing site here> will get them into GW2 beta. --ஸ Kyoshi
- Until we get an answer, there are a few possible scenarios I would like to point out. If the page remains as is without a primary source, it'll either 100% right, or 100% wrong depending upon the outcome. If it turns out to be 100% wrong, the information that we've been presenting here would have been misleading people. If there was a more neutral comment there instead, the later scenario could be avoided all together. In either even, that will be my final word on the matter. I'll just leave you with that, and hope that you try to understand my reasoning. 69.205.115.195 14:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- I did twitter Izzy and I hope he answers, so we can end this discussion. -- Cyan
- (Edit conflict) x8 Can anyone say with 100% certainty that anything on this wiki (aside from perhaps the name of the game and that the number of playable races is 5) is correct? The game is thus far, not released. So this means that the information on this wiki, including the aforementioned blackout, has been gathered from many sources. Whether it be a direct quote from the mouths of an employee or a "loosely translated quote" from an anet employee, this can still be considered a quote, and until it is retracted or further information claiming it to be untrue is presented, we can accept the quote for the time being. There is always a bit of interpretation when translating an article from one language to another. My french isn't not fluent, but it is intermediate, and I'm fairly certain that "...toujours les stunt ainsi que les blackout, une condition qui ressemble à ce qu'on..." contains the words "blackout" and "condition" when translated. Also, the sentence structure indicates that blackout is a condition. Also, in the future, can you please use show preview when adding a post? This way you don't spam the RC. Venom20
- Twitter Isaiah asking this. This ("Is Blackout a condition?") is the kind of short question he might answer there. Erasculio 14:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Im not planning to repeat myself more then two times. Changes are made on consensus, and that is clearly not reached if we don't agree with each other. The best thing to do at the moment is to leave the note on both pages till more information is available. If you are right at that time, we change the page. -- Cyan
- Can you or anybody else say with 100% certainty that blackout is a condition based on the information available? If you cant say yes to that question, than that alone merits a more ambiguous description. The fact that there is a discussion here should be proof enough that it isn't 100% certain. 69.205.115.195 13:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
(Reset indent) I just found this: "It's not a condition, there is an effect called "Daze" that effectively puts your skills into recharge much like black used to." Somehow I did miss Isaiah's reaction on my tweet completely, but this is his answer on the question about blackout being a condition. So, I dont know exactly what to do with this page right now, although I think we can slam a deletion tag on it. -- Cyan 
17:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Was that a direct reply to the question about blackout, and not a reply to potentially someone else's question about daze as a similarity to the GW1 condition? (source of tweets?) That alone seems just a tad ambiguous as to what it means regarding this page. ~~
Kiomadoushi 17:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- It was a direct reply to my question. -- Cyan 18:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Still slightly ambiguous. Saying Blackout is not a condition and a new effect has its old effect does not say it does not exist. Slapping the deletion tag still doesn't sound necessary - just an outdated tag. ~~ Kiomadoushi 18:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Put an unimplemented content tag on it. And none of you are about to go rampant about how this is now an upcoming mesmer skill or I will gut you. :) - Infinite - talk 18:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- it's a new mesmer skill! mesmer's coming out! omg look mesmer! mesmer is coming! this is now a mesmer skill! looooook!!! <3 I had to, you know. Just because you said it. (Don't ignore the possibility though - they didn't say it no longer exists, just is not a condition and something else has its old effect.) ~~ Kiomadoushi 18:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- it's a new mesmer skill! mesmer's coming out! omg look mesmer! mesmer is coming! this is now a mesmer skill! looooook!!! <3 I had to, you know. Just because you said it. (Don't ignore the possibility though - they didn't say it no longer exists, just is not a condition and something else has its old effect.) ~~
- Still slightly ambiguous. Saying Blackout is not a condition and a new effect has its old effect does not say it does not exist. Slapping the deletion tag still doesn't sound necessary - just an outdated tag. ~~
- It was a direct reply to my question. -- Cyan
Deletion[edit]
"There'll obviously still be stunts and blackouts, a condition which resemble another effect from GW1 forbidding you the use of skills for a while."
The French article has been translated. I say put delete tag on the article if there are no objections. Mediggo 06:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Nvm, it was already mentioned on this talk earlier. Still, I suggest deletion. Mediggo 06:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Template:Unimplemented_content if it used to be in the game or was going to be in the game, and then there are the mesmer NPCs that use it as well. --Xu Davella 08:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Wait, which mesmer NPCs? No creature/mob or anything seems to be linking back to this article, at least... Ascalonian Mesmers seem to use daze? Mediggo 08:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with the deletion, or at least redirecting to Daze; there is no trustworthy source/proof Blackout really exists, while Izzy talks about Daze having the recharge effect instead.
19:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete it and we can remake it if it returns in any other form afterwards. - Infinite - talk 19:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Izzy confirmed it is not a condition as previous believed, and that it does not cause a daze-like effect. However, he did not state that Blackout does not exist. Someone re-tweet him and ask if it exists at all first, even if it has a new effect. I'll agree with deletion if he says it does not exist. What he did there is say it is not a condition, and daze has that effect now. That's not saying blackout doesn't exist. (He even specifically says like it used to, meaning things have changed, and may possibly have a new effect.) ~~ Kiomadoushi 19:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- If it exists as something else than an effect, he's under NDA and he will tell us it doesn't exist, as we haven't seen it in any demo so far as of yet. ;) Virtually, to the public, Blackout does no longer exist in GW2. - Infinite - talk 19:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete and re-create when proved. -- Cyan 19:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Still think we should try for a clarify there. Blackout may have some new effect that we haven't seen in a demo but relates to non-"mesmer" professions only because of daze taking precedence because "blackout" seemed too mesmer-specific effect for what it did. Actually, in such a case, where Necromancer has its own "Fear", Mesmer may have a "Blackout" that only it utilizes. I think by the name alone, I guess that just disproved my whole theory for getting Izzy to confirm or deny... Probably best to just not bug him about it then if the name alone says "don't talk about it cos mesmer isn't a revealed profession".
- OK! I guess i approve of deletion xD sorry for all of that ~~ Kiomadoushi 19:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Unfortunately they’re not playable because they are dead mesmers in ghost form nailing me with Blackout" Link. This is a thing. Why are people saying delete? --hexal
07:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with the deletion too, I had never very clear if this was just an example used by Izzy to explain how daze or another blackout-effect thing worked, and now it looks like he confirmed it. - Bitter 07:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- "This is a thing. Why are people saying delete?" That is an unofficial blog post; screenshots clearly show they don't blackout, they daze. 10:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- "This is a thing. Why are people saying delete?" That is an unofficial blog post; screenshots clearly show they don't blackout, they daze.
- I agree with the deletion too, I had never very clear if this was just an example used by Izzy to explain how daze or another blackout-effect thing worked, and now it looks like he confirmed it. - Bitter 07:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Unfortunately they’re not playable because they are dead mesmers in ghost form nailing me with Blackout" Link. This is a thing. Why are people saying delete? --hexal
- Delete and re-create when proved. -- Cyan
- If it exists as something else than an effect, he's under NDA and he will tell us it doesn't exist, as we haven't seen it in any demo so far as of yet. ;) Virtually, to the public, Blackout does no longer exist in GW2. - Infinite - talk 19:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Izzy confirmed it is not a condition as previous believed, and that it does not cause a daze-like effect. However, he did not state that Blackout does not exist. Someone re-tweet him and ask if it exists at all first, even if it has a new effect. I'll agree with deletion if he says it does not exist. What he did there is say it is not a condition, and daze has that effect now. That's not saying blackout doesn't exist. (He even specifically says like it used to, meaning things have changed, and may possibly have a new effect.) ~~
- Delete it and we can remake it if it returns in any other form afterwards. - Infinite - talk 19:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with the deletion, or at least redirecting to Daze; there is no trustworthy source/proof Blackout really exists, while Izzy talks about Daze having the recharge effect instead.
- Wait, which mesmer NPCs? No creature/mob or anything seems to be linking back to this article, at least... Ascalonian Mesmers seem to use daze? Mediggo 08:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Template:Unimplemented_content if it used to be in the game or was going to be in the game, and then there are the mesmer NPCs that use it as well. --Xu Davella 08:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
