User talk:Shard

From Guild Wars Wiki

Contents 1 About the emulator 2 Flames on Izzy's page 3 Youtubing? 4 Backbreaker

[edit] About the emulator

What about copyright issues? As far as I know you might not have issues taking the implementation but Anet might have issues if you use their skill names or skill icons.

And since when do you get 10 skills on your skillbar?

Finally how long did it take you to write the engine? 96.233.0.7 15:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Anet doesn't have a copyright on their game mechanics, only the skill names and most of the icons are copyrighted. There are even ways I can work around that. I don't think it will be an issue. Copyrights exist so people can make money off their ideas. This project won't compete with GW.

Actually, you can technically have up to 120 skills, but they'd all suck. I use a skill point system instead of an attribute system. Max level characters get 120 skill points, which can max out 6 skills. There are shift and control skillbars for easy access to 30 skill slots, should you need them.

It took roughly two years to come up with and program the game mechanics, and another year implementing the 3d engine so far. I hope to have basic functionality for the engine by Christmas (enemy health bars, floating numbers for damage, some animations and effects, etc). ~Shard 18:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

that would be awesome and as long as you dont have a bad influence (thus youre not giving youre copy to players who dont have a gw acc and not asking money) isnt it legal ? Lilondra *poke* 05:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not an actual emulator, it will just have a game mode that micmics guild wars' combat rules. The only thing I would take from GW directly is the skill icons, and there are ways I can get around that legally. It won't even be a requirement to have those icons, I can just use mine. It also will not be an online game for a long time. I coded it so I could convert it easily, but it's going to be a while before I can give it network play. TBH I'm not worried about lawsuits of any kind at this point. Like I said, it won't compete with guild wars.

As far as I know I think it's legal as long as both of the following conditions are present

• Shard doesn't directly take a sizable portion or skill names from Guild Wars(having 2 or 3 similar or same skill names or functionalities could be overlooked as coincidence but if a large percentage of skill names and functionalities are copied then it may be a problem)

• Shard does not use the Guild Wars skill icons or artwork as artwork is probably copyrighted.

Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not an expert at this but this is what I'm thinking as a result of this discussion. I'm guessing that you should be okay if you make your own skill icons/artwork and try to avoid copying the exact skill functionalities71.174.18.132 12:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Anet has stated that they won't persue legal options if people decide to make emulators like GWLP, as long as people don't have access to things they can't get in GW (like they can't use dervishes without nightfall). Also, this project is non-commercial, and won't have online play for a long time. Anet will lose more money hiring a lawyer than they will to just let me do what I want. If I decide to market a final version, I can strip out the GW rules. ~Shard 21:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I got an idea, how about no "expansion professions" or equivalent stuff in your emulator. For one thing, that means you don't have to worry about players accessing features they haven't paid Anet for. For another thing, it makes balancing easier. You're supposed to be more intelligent from Anet. Let's learn from their mistakes and NOT make stupid broken expansion professions at all.

Tbh, get on MSN more. I'm wondering if we couldn't merge this with my MMO project. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 21:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I will later tonight, I have class in a bit and just passing some time. ~Shard 21:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flames on Izzy's page

Ok, you are obviously unhappy with the way Izzy is doing his job. We all get that. However, the continuing flaming posts on his page need to stop. If you want to tell him how badly you think he's doing, using whatever language you choose to use, email him. Don't put it on his talk page, in the feedback pages,or anywhere else on this wiki. Your posts are counter productive and only encourage others. At this point, if you don't have anything constructive to say, don't say anything at all. -- Wyn 03:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

At this point, there is nothing constructive to say. It's all been said and nothing's been done. --71.229.253.172 03:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Whyn, it doesn't make a difference, and Shard has the uncanny capability of adding useful information in his edits. Leave it be. 75.182.89.73 04:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's Wyn, and besides, just because he posts useful information, if they're cloaked in flaming and insults, they have no place on the wiki. Period. Kokuou 04:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't be a zealot. He has a right to post here just as much as you do, and his "flaming and insulting" isn't half as bad as you're making it out to be.

Also, sorry, unconscious typo after seeing too much whyning. 75.182.89.73 04:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

While thats true flaming and baiting doesn't add to the conversation at all. If you think it does your wrong. Dominator Matrix 04:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing's going to add to the bloody conversation anyway; ANet's not going to read what Shard posts at any point, but if they do, I'd rather they get a hint of what they've done to their game. 75.182.89.73 04:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you give me one good reason why A.Net cares about anything on izzy's page especially since hes not doing the balancing anymore? Dominator Matrix 04:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure that, even if that were in any way related, Izzy's still the game balancer. 75.182.89.73 04:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

At this point I do believe they've gotten the hint since none of it has been hinted at but rather screamed from the rooftop at the top of Shard's lungs for the past several months. However, I will stand by my statement that this wiki is NOT the place for it. It belongs in a forum somewhere or an email directly to ArenaNet. As Dominator stated above, baiting other users into ranting and raving doesn't add to the conversation, it just creates drama that is unproductive. You say that nothing is going to change... I agree. So just accept it, and move on, don't drag everyone into the muck. -- Wyn 04:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

But, you see, ANet set this up so players could talk to the devs. This is the kind of thing they have to deal with anyway - not to mention the lack of grounds for its removal in the first place. "This edit was unproductive and angerful, therefore we'll remove it!" Great, now go ahead and delete the entire arenanet and guild namespaces, as there's nothing productive in either of those. 75.182.89.73 04:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I am standing by my removal of the Dear Anet post on the spoil victor feedback page. If you disagree, then take it to another admin for review. As stated in my initial post here, that type of post has no place on this wiki, and can easily be seen as a violation of GWW:NPA against ArenaNet employees, most of whom are users of this wiki. -- Wyn 04:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but no other admin will care either, simply because none of you realize the intention behind NPA. 75.182.89.73 04:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Saying someone sucks at their job is not a personal attack, especially when it's pretty much common knowledge. ~Shard 05:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's common knowledge that he sucks at his job. Updates favors only GvG and HB, there are over dozens of bugged skills that when guildwars started haven't being fixed yet, there are attributes that are not effective in any arena, he keeps track of only GvG and HB,etc. Even the sysops know it. They were inform ahead of time of the Smiter's Boon changed and were online to move all the comment from his page... they knew that actions as this one makes wikis post hate statement against him, why? Awful decision at his table when making a game, we buy a product just to realize it wasn't even properly tested before release and it makes everyone ponder why he is in charge of GW2? Know this, GW is a good game but almost half of it cant be used(skills, elite areas,etc.) or nor offer nothing for your effort. It will be very surprising if they get a successful launch when GW2 comes. For me, Im not buying it. Really, GW2 is dead as far I'm concern. Making GW 1 awful to sucker people to GW2? What an awful strategy.--ShadowFog 06:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt the admins were warned ahead of time about the smiter's boon nerf; they're just fucking ninja.

Also, yeah, loads of people have given up on GW2 already...

75.182.89.73 06:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's going to be another 2 or 3 years before it even releases, I don't think they're ruining GW1 intentionally. Their hook to GW2 is titles, not making GW1 boring. I really believe they're just inept. ~Shard 06:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

So if I use your reasoning Shard, I could say that you suck at skill balancing, and it wouldn't be a personal attack, because it is common knowledge among people who DO know what they're talking about? It's all a matter of opinion, even when it's about Izzy. 87.210.150.58 09:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong mr IP izzy has made so many mistakes and so manly players have SAID it yet he doesnt fix it.WS,WoD,... He to stubborn to check what other ppl think which results in this.Now first of all not everyone knows shard (not everyone that matters) so it isnt common knowledge and you dont have an argument Why shard is bad shard has an argument WHY izzy is bad. Lilondra *poke* 16:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have just 2 points to make...1: I agree with Shard and I support his right to voice his outrage on what a lousy job Anet has done at maintaining their game. 2: Anyone who puts themselves up as a represenative of something--example Gray Davis was governor of California during the "rolling blackouts" and power crisis in 2000-2003 which partly resulted in him being recalled as Gov. The public, often being fickle and uninformed did not realize it was his predacessor, Pete Wilson, who signed deregulation into law which caused the blackouts to occur, however, Davis, as the active face and represenative of California as a whole, took the hit, criticizm and outrage. Izzy is in a similar position as a figurehead for Anet. Its part of his job, and unfortunately, if he cannot stand any criticizm or insults, perhaps he should tattle to the playground teacher. Please people, hearing things you don't always like is a part of life.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 16:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Life != wiki. Take your complaints elsewhere; this isn't anyone's soapbox or complaints department. "It's life, so deal with it" doesn't apply here. -- Brains12 \ talk 17:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that repeatedly telling someone they suck at their job, and telling them to resign, and telling their boss to fire them because something they have done has made you unhappy is actually a pretty direct personal attack, and no matter how many times you say it isn't because it's what everyone thinks, you would continue to be wrong. If someone were to come to your talk page and continually tell you you suck at playing the game and all your ideas are crap and you should just leave because you have nothing to offer, you would want it to be considered a personal attack, or at least case of trolling and want something done about it. Comparing Izzy to a politician is like comparing a grape to a walnut so just stop. Your reasoning is based on flawed logic. -- Wyn 17:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

First, you're combining both my statements and Shard's. I've never said anything about Izzy, or him being fired or anything of the like, don't throw me in a similar catagory. Second, read Shard's archive, people tell him his ideas are bad all the time, and argue with him in a similar fashion. Third, Shard is a friend of mine, so I am not trolling by defending his position and certain opinions he may take. Forth who cares if he's wrong. The two of you seem to have some power here, so remove his comments or do whatever is in your policy to do. Fifth and finally, if you read what I said, you would have seen my point is that with a represenative job such as Izzy's he is bound to take criticizm and insults. I even have a quote from him--ironically enough it was a reply to something Shard said, where he even states its a part of his job he has to deal with and have a sense of humor about--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 02:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet those insults are against the rules of the wiki. Ask for a revision of that rule if you don't like it. As for my earlier comment about Shard's balancing qualities, I have said for a long time that I'd quit the game if Shard were the balancer. To me, he doesn't have an open mind and in many ways, doesn't know what he is talking about. Maybe I am wrong, maybe I am not, but I am not calling Shard names. 145.94.74.23 07:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, telling someone they suck at their job, then PROVING IT, is not a personal attack, it's a fact. I can't post facts on wiki? What universe did I fall into?

People come to my page and tell me I'm bad at balance all the time, usually without a reason. If I can't post facts with backup telling izzy he's bad at his job, why should anyone else do it to me? In fact, since I got banned for it, maybe I should make a list of 40 or 50 people who have ever disagreed with me. They should be banned too according to your godly logic skills.

Frankly, I think the idea that what I did somehow violates the NPA disgusts me. Should we all vote for Bush again because he did such a wonderful job these past 8 years? Should we tell a weather forecaster he's amazing after he predicts heavy downpours, and it's sunny all day? It's the fucking weather's fault, right? Let's tell a cancer patient they have 200 more years to live. Let's tell his doctor it's okay to lie to your patients, you can suck at your job and still get paid because your control-freak friends will cover for you.

I don't know who's telling you to censor good, legitimate ideas just because they put one person's neglect of a job at stake. I'm pretty sure me being the only person banned for posting relevant info on izzy's page isn't a random event.

In any case, I emailed Arenanet about this and they told me directly to post my concerns here, so that's what I'm doing. A personal attack is (and I do not mean these) "he's stupid, he's ugly, he's fat" or whatever it may be. "He is bad at his job and here's my proof and I don't have anything against him personally" is NOT a personal attack in this universe. If some random communist at anet says it is, they're wrong. All I'm doing is posting facts, and if you look hard enough, you wont find ONE personal attack since my last block a long time ago. ~Shard 22:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Then your proof has to be accepted by every person on this wiki as true, and I know there are quite a few people who disagree with you. The issues you bring up are not neccesarily proof of the fact that Izzy sucks at his job, just that some things don't work the way you'd want them to. Secondly, this is not real life, this is this wiki. This wiki has rules and you broke them. If you don't like those rules, you can ask for them to be changed. Personally, I must say that the content of your posts is often meaningful, but you manage to wrap them up in such an offensive writing style that you offend the people that you're trying to reach out to. Would you listen to a person who said you suck at game balance in every single post he makes? 145.94.74.23 07:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't. However, at least I'd doubt what I did. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 08:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll drop it from here on. Sorry to bother you on your own userpage. 145.94.74.23 10:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Since when does everyone have to accept a proof to make it true? I've run into people who've argued to me that 1 = 2 and then gave some convoluted proof and tried to tell me they were right. (They ended up dividing by a-a at one point, as I recall.) Likewise, people are going to argue against obviously true proofs even when they're clearly wrong - there's always going to be idiots. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 16:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. If everyone has to accept proof for something to be true, then religion trumps every law of science. There are some people who believe the earth is flat. That doesn't mean the earth isn't round. Nice try though. ~Shard 21:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Youtubing?

Is this you on youtube? The suspicion was from the familiar icon and name. I will comment on the video later if I get an answer from you.--ShadowFog 15:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It obviously is :p he links to it all the time and the videos are about crusade his emulator Lilondra *poke* 16:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will take that as a yes. Shard, why don't you send this videos and other stuff like these one to a NC/Arena Staff. Stuff here(ANYTHING POSTED in wikis) is not read by high executives. Let's hope that their numbers that are reading off the activities of guild wars are those that are dwindling when you send it to them. If that doesn't tinkle your fancy, take this exploit to Izzy himself, and please, if you do, try to keep the letter to the theme of "ez kil aganst guil lor" since anything that smells like NPA will get removed or moved.--ShadowFog 16:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

wow that video is epic, srsly send it to arenanet for lols. --Cancer Angel 01:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ironically enough, he did and the reply from Anet was to send it to the wiki.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 02:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That's Hardball! This is limbo after all. Like I always said: GuildWars will suffer a Fury death. They forgot to make the game fun and this comes from a guy that used to play Fury, too serious, no fun value when making builds and skills that sucks so much you had to run gimmick builds.--ShadowFog 04:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yasmin: Wow, ANet fails so hard. 216.187.245.204 16:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Good thinkin sherlock Lilondra *poke* 17:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Shard, I'd really like to sign your 10 epic rules. However, I always contradict one rule: "Thou shallt not commit gimmickry". Gimmickry is not gimmickry. A Spoil Victor GvG team might be the one you dislike (and you have my vote there) - a Mark of Fury hammer warrior might be the gimmick you don't dislike, the gimmick I favor.. in the end the gimmick I play GW for. Noctarch 23:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A gimmick is simply a way of doing something easier than it's intended to be. Unfortnately, you have to run gimmicks in GW because they're so much stronger than strategy. ~Shard 23:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Creating a build is strategy, too. If you mean battle-field strategy I have to say that it strongly ties to the skills. If there weren't snares your strategy'd look very different. A pity that I'm a zealous MtG player - I do love BuildWars. However, those mighty builds should be hard to play, too (like Brainfreeze/Springtide is powerful but very hard to play) so no scrubs are gonna visiting PvXP c/p'ing and thus winning. They should have the skillz to use those skills ;) As you may see, I agree to a certain extend with you. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 23:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You actually agree exactly with me. Stronger builds should require more from the player. ~Shard 23:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think "bad" gimmicks are good for the game, too. Builds that are bad but fun to play, so people would use them once in a while hoping not necessarily to win, rather to have some pointless fun. Like the Signet of Illusions mesmer build for RA rellying on stealing skills from the enemies - that's a horrible build, but it adds variety to the game and is a way of having fun between "serious" PvP play. Erasculio 23:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Aww, finally one of those who create builds for fun =D. All in all a good moment to end this day. *fabricatingevenmoarrubbishonshardsusertalkpage* Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 00:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Eras I assume you mean builds like minion factory, 8 mending wammos, eoe bomb, etc? Those aren't gimmicks because they don't accomplish as much as other builds for less effort. Their playability and power levels are in line with each other. It's not like sway where you c+space, autoattack for 80 damage a hit, become immune to damage via escape, and have a midliner that removes all enemy enchantments on the map in 2 seconds. ~Shard 21:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And there's the point where I disagree with you. Only because you think gimmicks have to be uber builds that require about no skill it doesn't mean it is that way. However, this expression seems rather opinionated. :/ Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 23:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

[caps lock in a good way]YO SHARD! GUESS WHAT? THE GUILD LORD NO LONGER DOES CYCLONE AXE! WHO CAN WE THANK FOR THAT?--ShadowFog 01:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, arenanet shows how lazy they are. They can't even fix a bug, they'd rather just kill a skill. ~Shard 02:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think they're too inept to code amulet of protection properly. -Auron 02:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to give them the benefit of the doubt, recoding it properly would require recoding a significant portion of all damage aspects of the game - similar to one of the reasons why you can't have flying mounts in Azeroth. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 03:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between coding flying mounts and coding simple algebra. Mounts use different physics, controls, and handling for dismounting int he air. Making AoP work properly requires knowledge of 6th grade math and the duration of 1 second (hint: The duration of 1 second is 1 second). ~Shard 03:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the bad fix, though. I meant the proper fix, which could mean redefining "damage" to the system (and thus redefining "damage" to every skill and attack). -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 03:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Backbreaker

Quote from various arenanet employees "We can't scale a knockdown duration."

Quote from various people who disagree with me "Arenanet can't scale a knockdown duration."

Quote from me "Yes you can."

Quote from update notes "Backbreaker - Now knocks down for 2...4...4 seconds."

Shard > ArenaNet.

Shard > people who disagree with me.

Next time you think I'm wrong because arenanet said so, think again. ~Shard 02:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The sad part is that Shard knows how to code GW better than ANet does, and he's not even seen the code. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 02:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The most sad part is that he seems to think that proving yourself replaces the effort to brace for the next thing. Short: Only because you were right does not mean we heave to rethink next time we doubt you. That's untrue for everyon and every discussed topic. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 03:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

He was right this time, he was right in the past, and he'll be right again. Is that so hard a concept to grasp? -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 03:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Half the time ANet says they can't do something, it doesn't mean "we're totally incapable of doing so," it means "it requires so much time and effort that we probably won't be able to do it because we don't have the resources." I'm fairly certain it was that way in this case. Shard just lucked out. -Auron 03:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Izzy said something along the lines of "The GW code can't scale KD durations, it's hard coded to the skill." Search for it. ~Shard 18:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Tbh, you can code anything, it's just a question of time and effort and they finally decided it was worth the effort, except they did it wrong. If they actually wanted to nerf BB sins they needed to make it 4 seconds at 13 hammer, that wouldn't have hurt hammers at all and just slightly nerfed BB sins, you can still get the combo off in 3 seconds but they will be standing up for BoS. Misery 18:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The big problem is that BB sins have such high hammer anyway. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 21:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Shard...I believe in you. Now log in every so often so I don't kick you from the guild. Oh, and I miss you! <3--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 00:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Gale. Hrrrmmmm. Half the time, I think ANet says what they say for liability issues (see: Smiter's Boon. "We may fix it in the future" (paraphrased) instead of "this skill needed to die."). --Ezekial Riddle 05:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Gale doesn't scale. Sometimes, anet says things because they're too clueless as to how their own game works. ~Shard 05:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I fear the most wickedsome case that is to say they are aware and not clueless but decided to ignore the problem for laziness's sake. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 12:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)