How I believe GA and pierce should work together

[Occhidiangela]

Before LoD, GA did not pierce.

With LoD, GA was changed, by the folks who changed the game. Now, I find it very interesting that one of the changers classifies it as a bug, a bug let go for every patch since . . . 1.07? Really? If it were not intended to Pierce, it would have been left untouched, as is, like any number of other skills from DII to LoD.

I concluded, from playing, that the change was deliberate, for better or for worse.

So, dear Isolde, I don't want to impugn your integrity, you actually know how things work, you have been in the belly of the beast, but I gotta ask:

How does it follow that a skill change that came with LoD (we also saw this in the beta) that seemed to me a deliberate change in how the skill behaved, a change to an already perfectly fine skill, is 'a bug,' an unintended consequence of something else not related to GA? Obviously, I do not understand all of the nuance and the variety of code interaction, which are immense, of what you guys changed to turn DII into LoD.

In short, left alone, GA was fine. Was the intention to never have it Pierce, or did something else induce the Pierce feature to unintentionally manifest itself?

You illumination actually confuses me. :)

If, on the other hand, you were to say that the decision to fuse Pierce and GA in the LoD and beyond was made, and you all then decided that it did not quite work out the way you had planned, I could understand that as a 'design improvement error' it needs to be readjusted.

Bug? Unintended action. Design error? Idea that did not quite pan out.

I may be looking at this too simplistically.