Talk:Gamer

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Titles 9 ten and eleven confirmed by dev flashing in test server. Under no NDA. User Blastedt sig.jpgBLASTEDT 15:33, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Removed. We cannot support speculation from a test server, and until it goes live, it shouldn't be documented. - Drago-Shield-Mini.gif Drago 20:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Devs can't "fake" titles. User Blastedt sig.jpgBLASTEDT 15:35, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh, it is live now, just no one has it :P User Blastedt sig.jpgBLASTEDT 15:35, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Until you prove it, I'm removing it. If you revert again, you'll be in violation of the 'revert only once' policy. - Drago-Shield-Mini.gif Drago 15:13, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
I disagree, information from the test should be documented as long as it is made clear that it may be different in the live version. There is a very good chance it isn't and is nice to know. Throwing around policy instead of having a discussion is not good form either. --Lemming64 18:11, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
confirming this track goes at least to 9... (GW:EN HoM) -- Alexanderpas Talk|Contrib|Guild 23:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
does anyone else find the requirement to display the gamer title a little onerous? i mean at the current availability of gamer events, getting to r9 could take upwards of 5 years. --VVong|BA 00:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely the title uber micro is a reference to Pure Pwnage? teh pwnerer used that phrase a lot. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:86.21.11.94 .

New Ways?[edit]

You guys think that they will impute new ways to gain Gamer points? If this track really does go to twelve, then A-net needs to do something about the current games... Maybe change the number of points gained per win? Idk... Mattman243 User Mattman243 Shadow Axe.png 19:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


i have Uber Micro Skillz at 19,993 pts it took me all christmas break to get the title, and sadly i think anything more then teir 7 is more then the neccessary hrs to farm a title. Compared to other Titles and the hours t takes to farm them, its rediculous and not to mention Snow Ball Fights gets really boring. I think the title should maybe be recondsider in the max if it really goes to teir (12)

i would have to agree w/ this sentiment. i watched someone reach 1337 and that is crazy impressive w/ the amount of time we had to play this game. as leet as this player is, it wouldn't have been possible if he didn't sync enter and i mean that as no disrespect to him b/c even other syncers weren't able to achieve it. but confining these games to holidays and then having such high reqs at the upper tiers means that only ppl who have sacrificed time w/ family and friends could hope to display something like that. even r9 as a max seems borderline unreasonable given the lifespan of this game b/c gw2 is coming out. e.g. 32.5k has taken just over a year's worth of minigame playing. tier 9 looks to come in around 73k. even the most hardcore leet player would need 1.5 more years to get r9 (much less than my original assessment b/c i underestimated how good some ppl are). i understand that pvp titles are supposed to be hard to come by and i could understand the need for a r9 max. but r12? seems impossible w/o many many years of investment. if r12 really is the max, then some alternative such as gamer weekends throughout the year should be offered as a path towards reaching max. --VVong|BA 20:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
They should just open the dragon arena and the beetle racing year round, that would at least allow people to do it a little more casually, and those are the best holiday games imo ^^ 68.104.205.160 19:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
that or make it like a weakened thing, so it still takes some time but not 5 years
well, as i mentioned my post above, i underestimated ppl so one of my previous posts which mentioned 5 years was way off. also, at the time the pt rewards for the costume brawl hadn't been implemented. that one reward change possibly reduced the title farming time by months/years. there are now many (relatively) r6 players, several r7 players and a few r8 players. i only know of 1 r9 player atm. --VVong|BA 22:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

iddqd[edit]

what does that even mean? oo" LunarEffectUser LunarEffect Moon.png 18:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

ok...I read onwards ^^ np ^^ LunarEffectUser LunarEffect Moon.png 22:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Display Title in HOM[edit]

can you display this title at r1 or does it have to be higher? TheScotty 23:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As per "Honor", r3 is required.--Fighterdoken 23:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

points for new tiers[edit]

is there any source for the pt req for tiers 9-12? --VVong|BA 14:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

see the possible pt reqs here. --VVong|BA 14:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Possibility doesn't make it correct.-- User Vanguard VanguardLogo.pnganguard 20:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
oookay. their possibly incorrect status is what prompted me to remove them in the first place. and that post was several months ago. the reqs i just reverted are here. --VVong|BA 21:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we put the points for 9-12 as at least a POSSIBLE point req.? its better than nothing, and including possible req says that there is only a chance that those are the correct numbers, or even that the ranks exist at all. Tearh 00:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe we need screenshot confirmation.-- User Vanguard VanguardLogo.pnganguard 00:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

postead screenshot for r9 seems valid to me: [1] - Y0_ich_halt User Y0 ich halt sig.png 14:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Gamer Point Balance[edit]

This title is a very fun one, but playing the different games has shown how unbalanced the points are awarded. For instance in the snowball arena - a game inspired with a good amount of luck (drops and snowball curve) - consecutive wins keep giving a mere 10 points (per 3-10 minutes of gameplay?). Costume brawl is purely based on the tactic and coordination of a team and significantly easier to win with an experienced team. Consecutive wins add to provide a huge bonus. Comparing just these two games show that points are highly unbalanced. Even if you count in that Wintersday is active for a longer time - it also requires much more time from the player.
My request now would be that - just like the wisdom and treasure hunter titles - this title could get fixed. Especially since it gives no in-game advantage there should be no reason to buff this a little. As for now all high tiers are solely achieved by abusing bugs (rollerbeetles - partially fixed ^^) and sync-entering. --User Karasu sig.png Karasu (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Try posting this on the talk pages of Regina. She's not likely to read this talk page. -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 01:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed[edit]

Please provide proof (screenshots work) of the title bar at rank 10 showing how many points have been accumulated. Or consensus on the validity of the information. Here is where we discuss, rather than violate GWW:1RR all day. --Wyn's Talk page Wyn/talk 19:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

talked to some guildmates and they agree that marius got it during the break and that the req is 90k. i don't have a problem w/ the dispute tag being removed at this point. --VVong|BA 02:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Any actual screenshots though?- TheRave talk (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Screenshots aren't needed. --Wyn's Talk page Wyn/talk 16:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Since when did we require screenshots for the adding of new information? I honestly am not comfortable with how this is going. Whatever happened to AGF?! I understand once something is disputed then some kind of proof is helpful or we discuss and reach a consensus upon that information, however just a blanket statement such as Rave's which basically says a screenshot is required to reach consensus should really NEVER be the case. We currently have several people stating that the tier is 90k, which include a couple of IP's, a new user and an established user and his friends. Im all in favour of us discussing and reaching a wider consensus but adding the requirement of screenshots is really counter-productive imho. EDIT: LOL Wyn summed that up nicely. :) -- Salome User salome sig2.png 16:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Salome, relax.. I wasn't totally aware of those AGF rules that's why I wanted at least some proof before an IP started editing. Just like TheRave, I'm also still interested in a screenshot. Not as proof - but as some confidence and mostly just out of interest. We got the message about this whole discussion. BTW.. if someone stated the voltaic spear also drops from a locked chest or from Mallyx' chest - would you leave it there without proof? --User Karasu sig.png Karasu (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I am completely relaxed, I'm just very passionate about this issue as the wiki is supposed to be a source of information made by the users for the use of the users and I'm just not liking the slide by some of our users towards a requirement for screenshots for new information from IP's, as its against the spirit of the wiki.
As for if information was added concerning the voltaic spear dropping from other chests. I would add a disputed tag to the page, then i would start a subject, like this one, asking the users involved in the debate to discuss the issues at hand and through wider consensus then decide if the information is correct or not. That's how the wiki is supposed to work, through consensus of the majority. It should never be the case of people adding new information and then basically getting reverted and having proof demanded from them simply because people don't believe them. Of course screenshots are always handy as they help people reach consensus but really the should never become a requirement. Added to this it really isn't a nice way to welcome new helpful users onto the wiki either. On the flip side though I do understand the want to have the correct information on the wiki, as its one I share, but their are better ways to attain that goal than reverting each other and those ways can be found within our policies. Once again I would like to point out that I'm not getting at anyone in particular this is more a general comment in regards to people demanding proof for edits. Blessed be. :) -- Salome User salome sig2.png 19:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
salome, i see ur concern, but u acted differently in the hero title talk threads when u dismissed out of hand a picture of the r15 emote. u didn't think it was even worth discussing. the admins protected the page for a period to prevent speculative or false edits. were they wrong to do so? if they were, why didn't u make a big deal about it at the time? --VVong|BA 19:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
wubz uploaded the screenie.
User Wubz R9Gamer.jpg --VVong|BA 19:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I see your point Wongba, however their is a mjor difference, the picture in question was of a Golden Retriever and clearly not the R15 emote, thus my comment as to why i didnt understand why people were discussing something which clearly wasn't supposed to be taken seriously. We should always try and abide by AGF, however clear joking/trolling posts are an exception to this, which also conforms to our current polices on AGF. For example if all of a sudden someone put in that they received an Aston Martin DB9 from the z-chest, I think it is then totally valid to revert and dismiss that edit as it is so obviously not true. However if someone said that the next tiers limit on a title track is a certain number, then that is not a clear jokey/trolling edit. Thus AGF should always be tempered by a degree of common sense. Thus golden retriever R15 emote = Likey to be joke/troll; whereas 90,000 points for next level = May well be valid.
Also the sysop's protected the hero page as it was continually being reverted and changed by numerous users, thus to stop the constant editing and re-editing it needed to be protected while the dispute was brought to a close. If this article had of spawned the same degree of edits and reverts as was found on the hero article I would have again been in favour of the sysops protecting the article until people had reached a consensus. However as interesting as this discussion is I think if we want to pursue it further, which I'm more than happy to do so, we should perhaps take it to one of our talk pages. As we are no longer really discussing the gamer article and have more strayed into policy chat. :)EDIT: Also Wubs has a crap load of ectos, doesn't he?! -- Salome User salome sig2.png 21:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Not more than me, I can assure. ;) --Uchiha Lena 05:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

r5[edit]

not uppercase U, but lowercase u? Ubermacroskills.jpg --→Darklɘs McChaosmongɘr 22:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks uppercase to me. Compare it with the "e". -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 09:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It's just spelled with the german u i believe 71.100.212.254 14:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
u-umlaut from German alphabet see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ü
yes, it's our ü, and it's a capital letter. afaik it was Pure Pwnage who used it first in an episode where jeremy talks about his "über micro skillz", he took it from the german word "über" (which actually means "above" or "higher"). - Y0_ich_halt User Y0 ich halt sig.png 17:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

bleh[edit]

grinding? lame... it would have been nicer if you would get points in this for scoring high in competitive holiday events not for grinding your ass out the most inappropriate time of the year (assuming u have friends&family) - Wuhy User Wuhy sig.jpg 15:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The points are somewhat high, true. But you don't HAVE to max this title. Also - limiting points to "high scores" (like rollerbeetles have them) would only stimulate match manipulation even more (syncing, cheating..) --User Karasu sig.png Karasu (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
make them not random maybe? i always hated that - Wuhy User Wuhy sig.jpg 08:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
i mean, gamers dont usually go with random teams u kno;D - Wuhy User Wuhy sig.jpg 21:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

r10[edit]

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/535/gw774.jpg

110k points till r11 :). 90.202.225.7

Nice skillz there.. *Tries not to make a comment about syncing and assassins in PvP* --User Karasu sig.png Karasu (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
You just did. :) ~JasonBacon User Lena Sig.png talk 20:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

r12[edit]

It seems that someone made it? Because it's already entered at the wiki page. I'd be happy to see a screenie and... congrats ^^. —Faalagorn/ 01:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC).

None did yet, a couple people have made rank 11, wich means they can see rank 12 requirement already ;D 206.127.146.60 15:36 2 January 2010 (GMT). --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.65.50.55 (talk).

some1 just did it :) dan heal theory did --Nick123 User Nick123 sig.jpg 17:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I can confirm that, I have a screen, post in my talk to get it.--Derv Who Likes To 17:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
[2] Here you guys go--Derv Who Likes To 19:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Can he confirm if there is a r13? Anraiki 22:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Lol..... If it triggered a message in GToB, it means it was the max rank. User Rose Of Kali SIG.jpgRose Of Kali 10:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a PvP title?[edit]

according to the HoM calculator this title isn't a PvP title. please someone tell me i screwed up because this title is the only chance i have of getting those 3 points :( the zaishen rank title can be maxed with no PvP at all and is counted as a PvP title and as far as i know you can only get this title by playing PvP so i don't see why it isn't a PvP title =/ Duke Falcus 00:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, not counting this as PvP is a bit lame. Might be an error on ANets part. --Xeeron 20:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
hopefully it's just an error and that gamer will be added. and i forgot to sign my original post so i just signed it now :P Duke Falcus 00:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Let them know. This should get fixed. --Irgendwer 01:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
This should be made a pvp title without a doubt. I was ganna get this in Halloween's Costume Brawl but now if they don't change it to being worth a pvp statue i'm not sure...--Darknessguy 20:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)