User:FleshAndFaith/Archive 1

On talk/discussion pages, please sign your comment by typing four tildes ( ~ ). &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  00:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC) http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Talk:Healer%27s_Covenant to answer yar question <=Oni 17:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi FleshAndFaith. I was wondering what you meant in your comment in Talk:Charging Strike. What did you mean about criticals? Arachanox 00:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"Hahahahahahahahaha"
For Shadow Form comment tiled "Hahahahahahahahaha", yeah, take them down a peg!--ShadowFog 13:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Baffle
What the heck you found in Clamor of Souls that made you say "This is my favorite skill, always effective in PvP and PvE. Foes envy me!"?--ShadowFog 17:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This guy
Seeing as how you're in love with bad reasonings and trails of thought, are you also a creationist? :> -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 12:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was raised christian, but found as I got older that it was harder for me to have faith, so I am now a Theistic Agnostic (I think there is a higher power, but I doubt we as human being will ever understand what it is). However, I find your blatant contempt with people of faith offensive, and would ask that you simply not post on my talk page ever again. See, I do not like bigots of any kind, and the worst kind of bigot is a stubborn, uneducated, mob-swayed bigot.FleshAndFaith 18:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mocking creationism isn't mocking people of faith, it's mocking people of a particular belief. I would also not label myself as anything near a bigot, I was obviously just trolling because I found the fascism-Codex thingy amazingly hilarious, and your arguments on the Magehunter Strike page are wonderfully far-fetched.
 * On a more neutral and intellectual note, may I point out that my message doesn't indicate in one way or another how educated I am. Making ad hominems is making ad hominems, which, however, counts as being ignorant in just directly neglecting the other person's arguments. In this case there were none, so at the end of the day, I'm just an offensive troll.
 * Yes, I posted on your page, but I prefer speaking matters through, perhaps just for the sake of a good argument, perhaps because I'm too stubborn and ignorant to allow myself to be called stubborn, ignorant and uneducated. Mob-swayed falls into another category of ridiculousness. -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 21:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mocking creationism isolates people who honestly believe it. There is no proof one way or the other, therefore people have faith in it. It's not my place or yours to decide which religion is silly. I personally don't care who or what you mock, I was mearly hoping you would take the hint and bugger off to be somebody else's problem.
 * Using an expansive vocabulary doesn't make you intelligent. It makes you irritating.
 * Finally, Related Skills aren't related because of how people use them. There are very many utilities for the same skill, and it is not decided by one or two people (or even a thousand) how it is used. You made the example that people use Prot Strike and MH Strike because it follows up on a spike. Sure, I can believe that. I would too, if thats my team's build. However, I mostly use Prot Strike to put pressure on a kiting foe. I hit for extra damage because he is moving (something MH Strike doesn't do), and a critical hit because I hit him in the back. No spike follow up, just constant pressure. I use MH Strike whenever I damn well feel like it. It provides unconditional damage (something Prot Strike doesn't do) and has a chance to be unblockable if the target is enchanted (something Prot Strike doesn't do). I use it whenever I want to build adrenaline against an enchanted target. In what ways then are these skills related for me? WHat makes them so similar, for the way I (and others) play? You can't decide skills are related based on how you think they should be used, because chances are very good someone uses them differently. For example, I use Fireball to deal damage to one (or more) foes. I use Invoke Lightning to deal damage to one (or more) foes. Are these skills related? I use Blades of Steel as my finishing move for assassins. I use Decapitate as my finishing move for Warriors. Are these skills related? I use Word of Healing to heal a low health ally. I use Infuse Health to heal a low health target. Are these skills related?


 * I think argument is healthy, but not when both parties are so sure their way is correct that they will ignore any logical (or illogical) points made. Oh, and don't insult me ever again. People who pretend do be intellectuals while slinging out base insults make me itchy. FleshAndFaith 00:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't ignore your reasoning before you provide some, which you now did. That actually qualifies as an answer and I finally see your trail of thought.
 * I'll leave the rest be, but I could point out that the "There is no proof one way or the other" is not exactly true. If I was to pick a third party perspective, all the evidence would be against creationism. But to hell with that, I shouldn't be mocking other religions in public, but shut up like a good boy.
 * And /wave, I haven't (directly - but everyone on GWW is passively aggressive) insulted you other than calling you an idiot, once, for making bad comparisons between skills like Lightning Touch and Aura of Restoration, which you are still carrying on with. -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 09:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This edit
You are currently in violation of GWW:1RR. Please self revert and cease and desist from such behaviour in the future without first discussing and reaching consensus to prevent edit warring. Misery  09:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 90% of the wiki is in violation of GWW:1RR. You are in violation of GWW:1RR. Please do not patronize me, pretending to be some goody two-shoes hall monitor, when we all know full well you are simply trying to be a troll. You knew removing two related skills in a topic fully about related skills would instigate trouble, and yet you proceeded. Not very orderly if you ask me. FleshAndFaith 18:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I believe the quality of the page has been increased in all cases by my actions. You disagree with me and are free to discuss it, that is how wikis work. You are not free to simply continually revert until you get your way. Discuss, build consensus, make the changes. I suggest you do your homework before random name calling, I've been working hard to get the related skills section meaningful for a long time. I am also pretty certain I have never violated 1RR, I may have forgotten an incident in the past. Misery  18:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we all may have forgotten an incident in the past. Considering what I said is pretty true, 90% of active wiki users (the ones who actually do stuff, and not just log on and spout sarcasm on talk pages) are in violation of this rule. Either they do not know it, or they are pretty sure someone else misinterpreted it.
 * And I think you know my case by now. You can't say skills are related based on how you use them. You neglect to take into consideration the thousands of players who are not you, and who might be using said skills in a different manner. One example was Wild Strike and Wild Blow. I don't use those to the same ends at all. I use Wild Blow to end dangerous stances because it has a pretty heavy cost. I use Wild Strike because it is an unblockable, quick recharge Off-Hand, which means I can continually spam Dual Attacks if I have a spammable lead attack. I don't even take into consideration the fact that it can end stances. How are these skills related for me? Oh, maybe because they function the same way! Maybe because they end stances and are unblockable. You see, I use them for entirely different things, and yet they are related in my mind because of their mechantics.
 * It is the same with Magehunter Strike and Magehunter's Smash. I use Strike when I want to keep pressure on and build adrenaline against a target with enchantments and lots of blocking. I use Smash when I want to knock someone down, who might even be under the effects of a Guardian type spell. These are not similar for my playstyle at all. And yet, they both have an unconditional bonus and both become unblockable when your target is enchanted. They have identical conditional mechanics.
 * Your argument is "I think these skills are used a certain way, and the way I think they are used would indicate that they are not related." That's like a scientist standing in a room with a blinking blue light saying, "This blinking blue light makes me disoriented and violent, therefore blinking blue lights cause people to be violent and dizzy, therefore blinking blue lights and alcohol are related." FleshAndFaith 19:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you for reasons previously stated in multiple places. There is a place for recording mechanically related skills, I have highlighted it to you. The related skills section is for skills related in usage. The reason to not have both in the same section is that with no explanation of how the skills are related it becomes impossible to separate the two relationships and the information is not useful. If you are unhappy with this formatting practice, feel free to discuss possible changes on the relevant guideline, build support for your ideas, then change the guideline. That is what I did. Misery  19:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know where your comming from F&F and I had the same reservations with Mis... but if you look thru his proposed related skills changes the skills that relate in the same ways that came up on the talk page for Shielding Hands... I think where Mis is going with a See Also category type listings will stisfy the relation you observe with the functionality of the skills while keeping the related skills section for skills that offer the same purpose that people are so animated about in your current discussion... pop over to the sheilding hands talk page and you'll see what I mean... MrPaladin  &dagger;  talk 19:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That See Also section, the proposed idea of making a big ole list of mechanically similar skills, I think you are just sweeping the dirt under the rug. You want to prevent the Related skills section from getting cluttered and expanding to unreasonable numbers. I understand that, I respect that. Hell, I've done that with all the mesmer interrupts. Before they were all related to each other in a big, nasty pile. I put ones that affected energy by themselves, ones that damaged people by themselves, ones that disabled skills by themselves. It was a mess, and it was fixed. No complaints.

But what I think you are doing isn't going to work. You are just moving that clutter from the related skills section, to a different section of the wiki. You are then going to open the floodgates and allow for even more clutter and revert wars (these aren't mechanically similar, blah blah blah, you're a noob, you don't know how to play the game, whine whine whine).

My final thought would be to reiterate how strongly I feel about how you think related skills should be classified. You don't get to determine how people use skills. You, therefore, don't get to determine how said skills are related, if basing relativity on use. Because, really, you are categorizing skills based on your opinion. Opinions don't belong on skill pages, they belong on talk pages. However, identical mechanics are not opinions. It is a fact that MH Smash and MH Strike have identical conditional functions (becoming unblockable when a foe is enchanted). Facts belong on the skill page. Facts belong, Opinions be gone. That's my motto (cause it's so damn clever). FleshAndFaith 20:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Fox Fangs. Sup? -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 19:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wild Strike and Fox Fangs are related? I use them the exact same way, so they must be related! Even though one of them removes a stance, whereas the other does... Oh, nothing.FleshAndFaith 20:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By some odd goings-on, Fox Fangs is related to Wild Strike, but Wild Strike is not related to Fox Fangs. That's strange. I wonder why that is... Might it have something to do with the fact that the Wild attacks are only related to the wild attacks? Even though some of them are used differently, they are related because of their mechanics? What a novel concept.FleshAndFaith 20:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Or maybe no one has updated the page since the skill was updated. Also, all of those skills are used in practice to remove stances. Misery  20:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly! Those skills are all used to remove stances! Thats the only reason they are used. Except for Strike, which I use as an offhand. Which means it is related to all offhand attacks. Oh, and all Lead Attacks are related with all lead attacks. Same with Dual Attacks. Cause thats what I use them for. Even spells that count as lead and offhands, they are all related. Cause thats what they are used for. Obviously (or Obliviously, who knows anymore?) FleshAndFaith 20:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, not really, because you could not use Golden Phoenix Strike in the same situations where you could use Fox Fangs or Wild Strike almost interchangeably, but yes, Fox Fangs and Wild Strike would be related in my opinion. Also, you may have not noticed, but we do have Category:Off-hand attacks, so that information is covered already. Misery  20:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So two unblockable offhand attacks are related but two unblockable, if enchanted, melee attacks aren't? :S Owell, idc, really, I don't. -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 20:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See my point now? Misery thinks he knows how everyone uses a skill. He doesn't and still doesn't see that. He is the tragic fool, acting for the best, when we, the audience, knows full well he will fail. FleshAndFaith 05:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Both energy based, both used in the same way. Misery  21:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, both are used to link up a Dual Attack. But that's what I use all Offhand attacks for... I really wish I had some sort of cluttered pile of information with no real system of organization that would tell me a list of related skill functions.FleshAndFaith 05:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was pointing out that you should be using Fox Fangs because you're obv. not capitalizing on the advantages of Wild Strike. -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 20:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is my usertalk page being used for comparing dagger attacks in any sense other than relativity. GET OFF MY LAWN.FleshAndFaith 05:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, please refrain from making personal attacks, or I will have to escalate it to the admin noticeboard.
 * Like, many before Misery and I have stated, skills similar in usage and skills similar in mechanics are 2 different things. Magehunter's Smash is used to bypass prots to disrupt, whereas Magehunter's Strike is generally used to get an unprottable attack in while on a spike.
 * You might want to actually refer to obs mode or even consult experience top warriors on to properly use the skill, like I did. There are reasons why they are at the top of the tier and why people like us are at the bottom or at the middle. Pika Fan 05:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A good player will tell you that there are many ways to use the same skill. A good player will tell you that the best build is one you are comfortable with. The "experienced top warriors" are mostly just people who are too afraid to run their own builds, and will try to learn "the only way" to use certain skills. Hence, they are not good players, they are just good at following instructions and running builds given to them from PvX wiki. How wonderful they must be. You know, its those kinds of people that make Codex arena boring and frustrating.


 * Oh, and like I said before, YOU do NOT get to decide how skills are used. Should I make Blades of Steel and Decapitate related skills? I use them to finish my opponents. How come they are not related?
 * Should I make Infuse Health and Word of Healing related? I use both of them when my ally is lower than 50% health.
 * Should I make Charging Strike and Incoming related? I use both of them to run faster.
 * You see, I use skills differently than you. There are thousands of players who use them differently than you. Then why should you be allowed to decide who is using them the "right" way? Are you special? "These skills is related cuz I use dem to do da same fing." Sure. But a thousand other players use them for different reasons. FleshAndFaith 05:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You see, I am not deciding on my own, I am discussing it with people. I'm not basing it just on how I am using skills, in fact I don't even play Guild Wars. I'm trying to make the advice useful and good, if you want to make it useless and bad I am going to oppose that. Misery  08:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There are many ways to use a skill, but a skill's main function is pretty much standard. You don't use a knockdown like a spammable unblockable attack skill. Good players know that just because a skill can do many things it does not mean they have to choose the most inefficient and ineffective way of using the skill. That's the difference between you and top players - you are unable to tell which function is the primary function of a skill, and thus unable to bring out the full potential of the skill. Please, carry on using shielding hands as a heal and choosing random enchanted targets to Msmash, but please don't interfere with other people trying to learn the right primary purpose of their skills. Pika Fan 09:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't even play? Then why are you getting in the way?
 * Hey Pika Fan, the difference between me and the top players - Top players are too afraid to run anything original, and will insist on lame builds that everyone has seen about a million times. Shock Axe? That's cool. I learned that build when it came out 3 years ago. No, I play PvE. I have cleared every campaign with a balanced party, with very traditional roles (frontline, midline, backline). I have cleared every campaign as a frontline (a warrior, in this case) a midline (mesmer and rit) and backline (monk and ele). I fit cohesively in any party because I recognize the strengths of the skills on my bar, the enemy bars, and my teammates bars. I am a good player. You must be confused, thinking only HA or GvG players are any good at the game. You must have met some nasty pugs. Or maybe you are the nasty pug who eventually gave up on finding groups cause you always caught the blame. "But TOP WARRIORS use this skill, you guys are dumb! This build rolls in HA!" Sure kid, get better at thinking for yourself. FleshAndFaith 19:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not playing the game doesn't mean I have forgotten how, or that I want this wiki to become terrible. If so I would not retain my position as a bureaucrat. Misery  19:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * When was the last time you played?
 * Chaos, stop posting on here or I'll just have you removed.FleshAndFaith 19:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yesterday actually, but before that probably Halloween an hour or so and before that a few hours the day Codex Arena came out. Not sure I see the relevance though. Misery  19:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. Could you please tell me why certain skills and builds are meta?
 * Could you please tell me how certain people become top and others don't, despite trying? -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 19:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Just curious. And Chaos, I can answer your questions. Certain builds are meta because they are popular. They are usually popular cause they are powerful without being overly difficult. Like IWAY, back in the day.

And people become top by running these builds several times a day, forsaking any other build. Basically, sheepish builds become meta, and sheepish players become top, according to Pika Fan. FleshAndFaith 20:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If 1000/1000 players run a gimmick, the one who plays it most skillfully wins. Alternatively, someone good enough to outplay it with balanced or to buildwars it. That doesn't make every single IWAYer top, only the good players, or perhaps those who are mindless enough to grind insane ranks. -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 07:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)