Talk:Body block/Archive1

The.. by profession sorting is a little strange... I think it's a little redundant as most body blocking can be accomplished by all characters. --Narcism 23:32, 10 February 2007 (PST)


 * I agree on this. Body blocking doesn't really have anything to do with professions, just your physical characters. Pretty much everything listed could be summed up in a "snares make it easier, AoEs can counter it" kind of sentence. --Vindexus 15:11, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Seeing as how a bunch of stuff spawned off of it, the redundancy kind of vanished, although a few of the classes don't really have any special body blocking abilities.Arcad1a 23:36, 10 February 2007 (PST)


 * delete* not relevant, you made a good point.


 * It is a formula that I'm hoping to use (and perhaps others will use) for many of the pages in the PvP tactics section. See also melee counters, speed boosts, snares.--Drekmonger 00:19, 11 February 2007 (PST)

I do not think that Pets and Minions make good body blocks, Minions move around much and do not decide on a target, not to mention their "accidental wall is really just a ball usually" the pets also lack this, they have the problem of following targets every now and then, plus they may attack the rear instead of the front of a target. also the assassin part is just about snaring, and should be rewritten about maybe knock downs or snares used to catch up/get in front of the target. Arcad1a 06:27, 11 February 2007 (PST)


 * I tried to stress that minions and pet blocking is mostly accidental, that they can block allies as easily as opponents. I didn't write the assassin section, but if you have something to add there feel free.  Feel free to clean up/add to any section in any tactics document. Thank you for starting the techniques section.--Drekmonger 07:26, 11 February 2007 (PST)

"As a melee ranged fighter, friendly warriors can sometimes body block each other when attacking the same target. When this occurs, it can be best for one of the warriors to either break off and attack another target -- or position himself to approach the original target from a different angle." was removed with a message saying "allies ont block each other". This is false, and has been known to happen with several warriors ont he same build, and even characters are turning a corner at the same time. Please consider reverting, considering a clump of us were body blocked in the middle of the map 5 seconds into a game, by each other --Narcism 15:06, 12 February 2007 (PST)
 * Agree with Narcism, that tidbit should be included. --Vindexus 15:09, 12 February 2007 (PST)


 * Obviously whoever changed it was speaking about the PvE side of the game, a difference which is already explained in the article. Revert, and I hope this isn't going to become a common occurance.--Drekmonger 15:32, 12 February 2007 (PST)


 * Blastedt-please go and try out posts written by Narcism in PvP before reverting them. Remember the rule that these edits are presumed in good faith.--Trevor Reznik 16:04, 12 February 2007 (PST)
 * Left him a comment about it here and reverted it. Hopefully that'll be enough.--Dirigible 16:06, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Anyhoo, got rid of that entire "by profession" section, keeping only the notes that mattered (most didn't make sense, and some content belonged more in Snare (tactics) than in Body Block). -Auron 16:12, 12 February 2007 (PST)


 * Reconsideration: this article does not need a by profession section. However, it concerns me that you left out details, especially the detail that Blastedt editted away--Drekmonger 16:23, 12 February 2007 (PST)


 * Editting back in the details that Auron left out. This is time I wanted to use creating new articles.  Not happy in the least.  Policy is required concerning the proper editing of any article of tactical interest.  And I'm beginning to understand why many of the more respected, knowledgable PvP players in Guild Wars community were upset at the situation over on guild wiki and have refused to become involved with this wiki.  Constant edit wars is not desirable, not productive, not sustainable.


 * There's plenty of content to write for the wiki without people busy unwriting what has already been written.--Drekmonger 16:29, 12 February 2007 (PST)
 * Out of interest, which details did I leave out? I can't seem to find where you edited them back in, I only see the note User:Trevor Reznik added about warriors who are caught breaking "aggro" to switch targets. Most of what I cleared out had nothing to do with anything, like assassins using Horns of the Ox to... bodyblock... or something. -Auron 16:48, 12 February 2007 (PST)


 * I've given up on editting this or any other article today, as I have officially blown my stack. If this isn't some kind of fun for me, then it won't happen.  While your changes could be considered an improvement (maybe, I haven't decided), seeing such a large block of text disappear after dealing with revert wars with Blastedt has left a sour taste in my mouth. I have an inkling that Warskull, Kuntz, and other PvP players who have decided that this sort of wiki can't work for PvP players may be right.  I must consider whether or not it's possible to work on a PvP section without having to constantly police for errors from well meaning but dead wrong individuals.


 * Details that are left out include:


 * the friendly body blocking issue for warriors
 * the utility of point blank AoE, including dervish scythe attacks
 * the correct spelling of "body block" (you write it as "bodyblock" constantly)
 * the necromancer minion thing
 * probably more. It upsets me that i have compare histories to find out instead of finishing my article on Interrupts.


 * I agree that a lot of the writing could have been improved. You could have done so within the context of the original document structure, or discussed making a drastic change to document structure before doing it.


 * My advice would be for you to revert your changes and clean up things in the original structure. Or whatever. At this point, my ability to care is waning.--Drekmonger 17:01, 12 February 2007 (PST)
 * Friendly body blocking was/is the only thing left out. PBAoE is still AoE, and I'll be damned if a Dervish can start firing off enchants and mystic twisters if he's being beat on by enough people to form a body block. Anyone can fix the "correct" spelling of "body block," that isn't detail left out; I've always spelled it "bodyblock," and if you don't like it that way, change it. The necromancer minion thing ties in to the Pet part (except for the whole you can't control what minions attack, and therefore can't plan around what they bodyblock).
 * I'm in this for the same reason you are; the Wiki has a horrible rep for getting PvP shit wrong, and I don't want the PvP tactics articles to be filled with the same wrong stuff that filled the old ones. I'd imagine it's frustrating to see a huge block of text disappear from an article you've been working on, but look at it from my perspective; coming upon an article named "body block" and seeing shit about Horns of the Ox and Spawning Power! I stepped back and looked at the article as a whole; the game treats all characters the same (warriors don't have different size "bodies" compared to monks, when it comes to bodyblocking), so unless the specific tactic mattered, there was no point having each class broken down.
 * Lastly, this is a Wiki. Read what it says every time you edit; "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here." That's got deeper meaning than it might seem at first; look at this case for example. You write an article, thereby agreeing to have it edited mercilessly etc... I come along and mercilessly edit it. Does that mean you have to stop editing? Does that mean that I think your opinion doesn't matter? Not in the least! You know what you can do? Click the Edit button and fix what's wrong. That's part of being a contributor on a Wiki. Now let's work together, instead of at odds with each other, and perfect the article. -Auron 17:14, 12 February 2007 (PST)


 * As stated, seeing your edit would not have upset me quite so much (or possibly at all) if I hadn't already seen Blastedt kill a (correct, important) detail two or three times. You killed the same detail, and it made it feel as if the battle was hopeless.  Wiki or not, re-editing an article every five minutes to correct an obvious error over and over is not my idea of fun.


 * While it is not a policy, the "by profession" thing was a convention (that possibly sucks) from other articles I started. Snare (tactic) Speed boost Attack speed The symmetry of maintaining it in other articles of both tactical and game mechanic interest appealed to me.  But does it make sense for Body block?  It's a question that can be honestly debated, and was debated in this very talk page.


 * You ignored the debate and decided to use your delete button. It would have pissed me off less if you had brought up the subject here, then made the change.


 * But what should I do here? 1: Revert back to the "by profession" version by fiat? 2: Debate reverting back to the "by profession" version?  3: Or just forget it and watch "Heros" instead?  Today, I pick option 3.  Tommorrow, the profession section may be back along with th Interrupt article.  Or not.  Depends on if I care or not.


 * You could help me to care by doing the reversion yourself, then debating the change.--Drekmonger 17:34, 12 February 2007 (PST)
 * Why would you go back to the profession layout? It doesn't fit in the context of the article, as the game treats all professions equally in the big scheme of bodyblocking. I don't see why you're considering throwing the "by profession" section back in at all; from your above points, merely adding those into the article would solve the problem, and save time (instead of ignoring all positive change and going back to the "by profession" dealie). It sounded like you ditched the idea yourself when you said "Reconsideration: this article does not need a by profession section," so I was working under that assumption.
 * If you want positive change to come to the article, you gotta start by being positive yourself. Constantly stating that you don't care and acting like article patrolling is beneath you doesn't help the page at all, it only separates you farther from the contributors trying to help you out. -Auron 17:53, 12 February 2007 (PST)


 * It's because, as I understand it, he was listing how to help break up a bodyblock. No one's going to bodyblock a runner when you have 4 searing flames eles nuking together-you'll end up wiping.  It's not the runner using the skills, it's allies that come in and pbaoe the blockers off.--Trevor Reznik 18:27, 12 February 2007 (PST)
 * So... just adding a little blurb about using PBAoE instead of AoE (or in addition to) would sort out the problem? I don't really see what we're disagreeing on. -Auron 19:09, 12 February 2007 (PST)


 * Read this. First line helped to me to understand why I was upset.
 * Whether or not your major change to document structure was valuable is open to debate. I lean towards -- maybe yes, but still a pain in the ass that you deleted facts and didn't discuss the change first.
 * That's it. Failure to follow conventions started you a  mini-argument is a wiki-noob and reduced the chances that the wiki-noob will contribute as often or as much. The noobite being me.
 * I'm washing my hands of the body block article. It's off my watch list.  Do whatever you want to it.--Drekmonger 20:20, 12 February 2007 (PST)
 * It almost affects me on a personal level as I saw Drekmonger extend his arms to the PvP community for help on this one article, only to see someone come in a nuke it. That aside, discussion = pro, Just please be considerate, as I was at the beginning of the discussion. and eventually my point was swayed. :)--Narcism 20:28, 12 February 2007 (PST)
 * His attitude is disgusting. This is a Wiki, however, this is not Wikipedia. Him linking to Wikipedia does nothing for us here, because it has nothing to do with us. He then uses his link to Wikipedia to justify ragequitting the article. QQ? That's ridiculous. I'd be touched by it if he didn't withdraw his "extended arms" as quickly as he put them in.
 * Now, Narcism, I agree; discussion = pro. As soon as I started discussing my changes, he starts discussing how he doesn't care. And by the time my thoughts are back onto the article and what remains to be done, he's ragequit. Is that pro?
 * On that note, however, what can we do to improve the article? Put in the one-liners that (apparently) make all the difference? The section I removed had about a paragraph and a half each devoted to "the friendly body blocking issue for warriors, the utility of point blank AoE, including dervish scythe attacks, the necromancer minion thing [and] probably more." Where do we put those back in? The Tactics section? -Auron 14:29, 13 February 2007 (PST)

what is the accepted procedure
for clearing out a talk page? I think this one could use a reset and a fresh start. I apologize for any QQing on my part, and believe that this conversation ought to be moved to user space or outside email/PMs.--Drekmonger 16:42, 13 February 2007 (PST)