Talk:Vanquisher

Archive

---

• /Archive1
• /Archive2
• /Archive3

Saoshang Trail min count

I think the current Saoshang Trail min count (24) is a typo because

Case 1. The max count is 37 (if you popup all the foes).

Case 2. You can avoid one popup group if you stick to the path, reducing the count to 34.

Case 3. If you start from Linnok Courtyard, you can longbow pull the last mantid, avoid 6 more popup enemies, reducing the count to 28.

I think the current min count (24) is a typo of Case 2 (34). Either there is a way to get a count of 24, or I propose increasing the min for Saoshang Trail to 28. Jafar 03:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I support your idea (as long as we fix both this article and the explorable). Even if 24 is possible, it paints a misleading picture of what nearly everyone should expect. (I imagine that some insane combination of shadowsteps and corpse-traversal might allow one to skip some pops, but it seems that it would be more trouble than it's worth.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 04:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say go for 28 too. Beleeth 10:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

remove 'combines well with cartographer'...

It is a myth that these two titles can be combined well: being able to max cartographer and vanquisher with just entering an area only a single time does not mean that it is efficient. When doing both titles at once you have to kill more mobs in hard mode, since you always get all/most pop-up groups which are normally hidden. For cartographer you can simply rush though most areas (in normal mode) if you have to discover a tiny spot on the far end of a map. Unless you have to vanquish AND explore an area that is NOT near an outpost, like (Dreadnoughts drift, Icedome, etc.) it is much faster and easier to max vanquisher & cartographer titles seperately. nabiki 04:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not a myth; it just doesn't apply to everyone. I prefer your idea: optimize builds for VQ/HM and bring lots of speed boosts for finishing Carto. But most of the people I play with prefer to spend 15% more time in a VQ to avoid returning; for them, it's faster to do both together.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 05:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

"When doing both titles at once you have to kill more mobs in hard mode, since you always get all/most pop-up groups which are normally hidden." .. Wait..? You actually try to kill as few monsters as possible? It is really better to try and pop more spawns and monsters, as this earns you extra gold, experience (for survivor), faction (if in Jade Sea/Echovald), Sunspear/LB points (if in Elona) or reputation (if in EotN, Master of the North title = VQ/Carto). Waar Kijk Je Naar 05:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You didn't get what I was trying to say Waar Kijk Je Naar... sorry. Most people in most areas explore the area AFTER they vanquished it (border of areas), so there is no extra faction/money for killing the pop-ups which appear after you finished VQ. If you explore and vanquish at the same time, really the same time (kill a group and explore nearby area), you might want to think again about what you are going to achieve with this procedure: wasting as much time as possible? - No, thats nonsense, especially if you achieved a special mob-hunt in EOTN... Btw. getting an average extra gold of about 100g isn't worth spending 10~15 min for aggro-ing all pop-ups before you have 'cleaned' the area. nabiki 23:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

"...so there is no extra faction/money for killing the pop-ups which appear after you finished VQ..." - I believe Waar was referring to the drops and the (non-vanquish) points/rep/etc that normally come with killing mobs while under a blessing or bounty Shane 16:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

@Tennessee Ernie Ford, I used to be a person that thought the same but two years ago I realized that doing both titles together is really a waste of time: it takes about 20% longer for average sized areas and increases the bigger the area is. Another issue I forgot to mention is that VQ is very efficient to do with other players since the amount of mobs is the same for all people within the instance - On the other hand: Cartographing an area is a pure client-side procedure. nabiki 23:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you; I do them separately. But in the end, the only true measure of efficiency in the game is: is it more fun? or more grind/boring? And, for a lot of people, having to retrace their steps feel like a setback and a waste of time. And that cannot be measured simply by counting hours spent acquiring titles. Sometimes better depends on the person's play style, skill, and/or outlook.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that combining the two isn't necessarily optimal in no way proves that combining the two isn't a reasonable suggestion. It works well most of the time. Don't remove the suggestion, but if you want to expound on more optimal procedures, go ahead. --71.203.195.195 08:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I wall hug the map while killing foes within a compass band of the edge. After circling the zone i finish off the center to complete the vanq. Yes I could Vanq alot faster without wall huging. Yes I could just pack on speed skills and run in normal mode and acheive cartographer much faster. No I cannot do both sepperatly and say I was more efficient. Even if I could break even or even do it faster I wouldnt for the same reason I dont do easy ZBs for 70 coin bosses. Its boring as hell and nty to the added grind. Same thing annoys me when people say "do ZM in HM then do bonus in nm" when its like why not do both in HM and save yourself the grind? Justice 05:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I need to clarify that I don't say: 'Do it like I do.' The only thing I do not like is that it says: ...combines 'WELL'. After vanquishing & exploring with the 11th character YOU will definitely change your mind. Your point sounds a bit (sorry to say that) stubborn. It's like saying: "I know how to save $2000, but I don't like to change my routine." So the only thing I do not like is the word: 'well' - because I still think vanquishing & exploring at the same time works but it is far from being good. nabiki 22:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it technically possible to reuse counts on other pages?

There are foe counts and hints on this page. Then there are (slightly different) foe counts and further hints on each area's article. And lastly, it might be nice to have the counts and hints on the respective Zaishen Vanquish quest pages.

It seems to be possible to reuse the counts using DPL, but that seems to require that we move the vanquisher kill counts to each area's article. It appears that DPL will only accept whole articles, and cannot filter if multiple data points are on a single article. You can output "all kill counts on the Vanquisher article", but not "the kill counts on the Vanquisher article where %AREA%=Riven Earth". If we moved them, we could selectively output "the kill count on the Riven Earth article".

Then again, my wiki-fu is weak and the DPL Manual is daunting. Does someone know a way to make it work while retaining the current way to adjust counts? If not, would it be an option to move the kill counts? Tub 00:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Twin Serpent Lakes: should the max count for WiK instance be lowered from 150 to 133?

User:AngelicaNoctros suggested in this edit that the maximum count for VQing Twin Serpent Lakes (War in Kryta) be lowered from 150 to 133. Generally, we don't drop the max count (or raise the min count) because any individual VQ can only show that the max needs to be raised (or the min needs to be lowered).

However, in rare situations, someone has snuck in an unrealistic or inaccurate count and we have changed it. Is this such a situation? The current text on the instance article reads, "There are about 140 foes to vanquish," implying that 150 is a reasonable count for the max (and that 133 is too low). Can those who have recently VQ'd the WiK-version of the area post their results (screen or no screen) so that we can evaluate the number? Thanks!  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you're confused. The user increased the maximum count from 133 to 150, not decrease it. --Silver Edge 05:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Frick. I was confused. Sigh. Soz, Angelica. (Thanks for catching my mistake.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Kill count disputes

I disputed kill counts several times above, and maybe there will be more, so I'm making a single section for all of them. Today's dispute is Mamnoon Lagoon. If you go to the Mamnoon Lagoon talk page, you'll find a similar dispute - that the max count of 95 is too high. I tried it again today and with all popups I get 58 kills. I can't find a quest that changes the spawns. Jafar 01:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Guild Wiki lists 53-60 as the range.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe it was a digit transposition error: 95 should have been 59 76.164.71.104 02:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Update: I just went and vanquished it. I scraped the zone after getting credit for 57, and found no more popups. The only quest I can think of that brings one here is Mysterious Message. I can't repeat that one, but unless it spawns masses of extra creatures, 95 is very debatable. 76.164.71.104 04:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I vanquished it on 6 chars (Zaishen Vanquish from a few days ago) and I got between 56-58. Some popups can be avoided to reduce the count I guess, and some Warthogs may be killed to increase the count, which I didn't bother to try. So now that it seems everyone agrees to reduce the max count, what should it be? 58 (recent experience) or 60 (another website's seemingly reasonable number)?

Forgot to sign the above comment. Jafar 04:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The advantage of using 58 is that when someone raises it (perhaps b/c they hate warthogs more than Jafar does), we will have more faith in the new max. (The advantage of 60 is that is comes pre-vetted.) I'm willing to trust Jafar's instincts on this; he (she?) has demonstrated excellent attention to the details of reconfirming the min/max VQ counts.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 04:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Changed to 58. Jafar 06:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Watchtower Coast (war in kryta)

Today I Vanquished Watchtower Coast (war in kryta), with the quest The Undead Hordes active. My total kill count was 226. On the vanquishing page it says 185 is the max number of enemy's. I think this should be edited. --"Miki-chan"

That's significantly larger than anyone else has reported. You could also be bold and just update the number on this article and at Watchtower Coast (War in Kryta).

If it were me and I had forgotten to take a screenshot, I would post the number on the talk page and wait for confirmation or refutation. For data that's been on the wiki a long time, I prefer to err on the side of the status quo unless I can provide enough info to others to replicate my results.

For what it's worth: Guild Wiki reports a max of 172. This 2009 edit of their Vanquisher article upped the max to 221 (obviously without WiK active), but most of that edit was about changing "▼" to ▲ (the two show up the same on the wiki, but the latter is easier to read when editing) — it doesn't seem like it was a typo, but that sort of thing doesn't inspire confidence either. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 15:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa127/Craften/gw093.jpg

I can only give a link to my screenshot since I have no idea how to get my picture on the wiki

--"Miki-chan"

Super! Thanks for posting it. Can you update this article and Watchtower Coast (War in Kryta) with the new max? — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

page updated --"Miki-chan"

Winds of Change

Anyone wanting Canthan Vanquisher better do it before starting on WoC. Some of the new mobs are nasty, especially in newbie zones like Minister Cho's. -- Hong 14:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I know right! I started for this title and was on about 23 when the WoC came out but I didn't think anything of it and completed it in Normal Mode. Now I've managed to vanquish Haiju Lagoon and Sunjiang District and a few other vanquishes, in their WoC versions, since then but I'm dreading trying Minister Cho's and Zen Daijun which are 2 of the 3 that I have left to vanquish... Flexi 07:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Now you can change areas back to pre-WoC status talk to the Herald of Purity I believe in Kaening. 68.7.212.137 05:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC) 10:57, 7 April 2012 (PST)

Fahranur

Fahranur, the First City has a minimum count of 195. However, I vanquished this on 6 characters and got exactly 196 every single time. I think the spawns in this area are constant. I can understand the upper limit may be due to the quest, but I dunno about the lower limit of 195. Jafar 23:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

As per other comments above, I'm okay with you resetting that number. (If it's truly 195, someone else will pick it up and offer a screenshot.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, GuildWiki has 196 as the minimum at the area's article and its Vanquisher article. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 12:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe someone felt that we'd be better then Guildwiki if we could skip more mobs :o--Mark, het Beest 12:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

guildwiki.de lists 196 as well. Tub 13:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Minister Cho's Estate with WoC and Aflicted

357 Enemies in total... --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kali Shin Shivara (talk) at 00:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC).

(This appears to be during Rescue at Minister Cho's estate --File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 13:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC))

Drakkar Lake Maximum change

Just a little bit of evidence for the change: [1]

Divide the reputation/experience/gold by 5 giving the 527 enemies. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.3.27.251 (talk) at 14:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC).

Animals

Charmable animals don't have to be killed, but if you attack them and thus turn them hostile, they count towards the track, right? Surely then it's better to kill them all so that your gold and XP reward will be greater? 2.24.254.104 21:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

"Notes" section: "Passive charmable animals do not have to be killed unless they become hostile. Once they are hostile, they must be killed, and will add to the kill count, and the vanquisher bonus for that area. A minion master in need of corpses should consider killing them anyway." --Silver Edge 00:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The question is whether the small amount of XP/gold/faction gained for killing animals makes up for the extra time it might take (not to mention, the inevitable PETA boycott). The problem is that it takes you time to aggro and kill the animal and heroes waste their resources on an easy target. So, killing an extra dozen pets might generate 50-60 (and 500-600 faction), but that's hardly enough for most repeat VQers.

For my first half dozen or so VQs, I killed the animals (thinking: better rewards). By the time I approached legendary VQer, I had stopped going after them (thinking: anything that shaves seconds off a VQ means less time spent on the title). In other words, if you are broke and relatively new to VQing, it's a fine idea. Later, you'll be interested in anything that reduces the number of foes. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

WoC Zen Daijun

Just vanquished this and got a total kill count of 254, which is one lower than the wiki states is minimum. Have pics as proof, but no idea how to post them Simooshy 19:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. –Jette 22:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Nebo Terrace (war in kryta)

New max kill count is 199. I will update the main page. Fire And Blood 02:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[Leroi]

Griffon's Mouth

New max kill count is 53. It was previously 52. I will update the main page. Fire And Blood 21:05, 18 April 2012 (EST)[Leroi]

Argos Soft's GW Vanquisher

GWVanquisher (from Argos Soft)

This is a a piece of third party software that adds a window similar to the HM-indicator in the game, except that it also displays the total and remaining number of foes. (Basically, a numerical value of what the HM-progress bar already shows.) I don't think it should be linked directly to the main article because:

• It's a third party tool, and therefore officially unsupported.
  • It's unclear if what its host-site does to prevent hijacking.
  • The site doesn't provide checksum information to help people ensure that the program they download is the one that Argos Soft intended.
• It's helpful for VQing, but plenty of people can successfully VQ without it.

In contrast, Cartography made easy is a well-known plug-in for TexMod — we do have reliable security information about that program, but we still provide appropriate warnings about it. And the Cartography title is much more difficult (some might say, "nearly impossible") to do without TexMod+CME, so it makes sense to mention it prominently. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

We could link to here, where we have it linked already. But I agree that we don't need a direct link to the argosvq site from this page. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 19:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Chieftain. But the warning should be different than with TexMod since we know nothing about the tool or the maker. Drogo Boffin 20:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe the tool is written in C# or some other sluggish .NET language. There are a bunch of good reverse compilers for those languages, so if someone had the urge, the safety of the program could be independently verified without as much work as, say, TexMod. I've used the tool myself with no ill effects on my account, but Gaile has stated it might result in bans on the official forums. In either case, it's not as well-known or useful as TexMod, so I wouldn't advise linking to it. –Jette 20:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

As it turns out, the site is suspended at the moment (no idea why or for how long).

BTW: Jette's idea is reasonable (that someone might want to reverse compile to check out the code), but I wasn't arguing about the trustworthiness of the software itself. I'm saying that anyone who downloads software from that site has no way of knowing if they are getting the intended exe or a modified version. In the past, GW players (among others) have unknowingly DL'd malicious software thinking they were getting something else. That's why we provide checksum data for TM/CME.

I doubt that this has happened yet with argos-soft (based on reviewing checks by McAfee, Norton, Google, etc), but it only needs to happen once to ruin someone's game and tarnish this wiki's reputation.

Shorter story: I don't think we should link to the third party tools (except from the other mods article) unless there's a really, really compelling reason and viable security checks in place. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I dont think we should link to anything against the EULA Drogo Boffin 21:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

A side note, the program hasn't worked in months so there's no point to link it until its updated. leechers.veeber.net 23:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

vq abbreviation

in pre searing ascalon the vanguard quest is abrevviated to VQ as well, is it worth putting in a page for people that type in the search bar just VQ, similar to the pages when you type SS for example.Spark-TBa 20:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't need a disambiguation page for two pages. You can add a note to the top of this article similar to Area of effect and List of PvE-only skills, stating that Vq redirects here and if you are looking for the page with information about Vanguard quests to go to Lieutenant Langmar. --Silver Edge 04:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Added it to the main page as you suggested, hope i did it right, please let me know if its not so i can get better at my wikifu :P Spark-TBa 16:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Turai's Procession Max Count

I upped the max count for Turai's procession significantly (240->319). I did the vq along with all of Mizra Veldrunner's quests in the Troubled Lands -> Ancestral Anguish -> Total Corruption -> Battle of Turai's Procession quest chain, each of which increases the kill count significantly. I double checked the numbers, even if I'm off though, the max was significantly low. Sorry I didn't grab a screen.... I could post chat menu screens of the experience numbers and gold (1595) along with Korr, Living Flame targeting if needed. Thyeggman

Totals For the Tables

Suggest including totals at the base of all the tables (It would be nice to see at a glance the amount of creatures you have to kill and the amount of money you will make etc), but I am unsure how to do it and even if such a function is possible in this Wiki. Drvst 13:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What the...

I did Vehjin Mines, had about 170 enemies. That's about right according to the table. However: the table shows that I only should have gotten around 850. I got 1810. Any explanation for this? --Spirit of the Bear 15:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Wayfarer's_Reverie#Notes Manifold 16:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Prophecies HM World Map Bug

The Bug listed on the page seems to have been fixed, i could remove it but i will let someone else verify it first.121.44.47.147 05:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Numbers here and on each area's page

A long time ago, the numbers collected here and on each area's page might've been the same. Since then folks oftentimes have correct only one of the 2 possible pages, since they might not have been aware of the other one. One recent example would be the Silent Surf (WoC) count. Are there any suggestions or ideas how to improve the situation? Keeping all the info just in one place (and removing it from each area page) might be one. Or isn't it important enough any more at the current stage of the game? ;) Steve1 (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to have the info on 2 places. Another example would be Jeree updating the Pockmark Flats page. I think it makes more sense to have the info on each area page - gonna remove the date here if noone comes up with a reason to keep it in 2 places. Steve1 (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Would it make sense to add it to the infobox? Would make it simple enough then to generate a list here that pulls the info from each page. horrible | contribs 16:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

(horrible ninja'd me) I agree that min-max numbers make more sense on each page, as well as information about quests, hidden enemies and other tips. I'd probably leave an avg. enemy count in this summary table so that people can easier see potential title points/map when wanting to grind a title. But before deleting the min-max column, they would need to be compared to each page's min-max numbers, and the lower/higher value kept in case there's a mismatch. -- kazerniel (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

What does "average" mean here? To take an extreme example, Zen Daijun (non-WoC) can either have 0 foes or 162 plus popups. What number would you put for that? Mist Y (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Average would be the average of player submitted kill counts, though I believe a lot of these values are carried over from the original user submissions on GuildWiki.

If there's interest in combining the list here and the information on each article, I'd be willing to go through and update each article with the information from this page, and then replace the info on this page with Template:Vanquisher_count. This would likely reduce any inaccuracies that have occurred as a result of one article being updated without the other. horrible | contribs 06:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Would there be a way to contribute new personal numbers for an average? GW2W has a quite good template for this kind of user data collection. (Might be useful for drop/salvage research too.) -- kazerniel (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Good question. Then probably Horrible's idea with the templates is the best solution, or to remove all numbers. I'm trying to think of a way to avoid lengthy Notes sections in this large of a table, but any kind of numbers listing would require explanation. -- kazerniel (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The notes section the way it currently reads about this is fine unless you guys are talking about putting a vanquisher table on each area page. It's better to say "With active quests" than just "Vanquisher" and three sets of numbers. Drogo Boffin 20:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking back I see what you're doing. I like it. My only suggestion is to make the numbers bold so they stand out from the rest of the sentence. Drogo Boffin 20:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd probably just get rid of the average info. Change the template to only include min and max. But best o' success adding the template to pages. :) Steve1 (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll have em done in maybe an hour. I like the average info because it gives you an idea. Some of the min/max numbers are a big difference. Drogo Boffin 22:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Otoh it sort of makes an assumption about how many quests the "average" user has accepted/completed before vanquishing. For example I always finish all non-Master difficulty secondary quests of an area before I proceed with the story, but I have no idea if this is typical behaviour or not. Completing quests can reduce, increase or change enemy spawns, so any numbers without detailed notes are probably not particularly useful. (Btw thanks Drogo Boffin for your work on the zone pages!) -- kazerniel (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome Kazerniel. The notes explain the differences that can be made in each area about having quests either active or inactive and the effect they have on the area. Very few regions if any that have quest differences don't have them noted. Drogo Boffin 20:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Please explain how the "average" thing is calculated, preferably without using the word "average". Just looking at the table right now, Anvil Rock appears to make no sense (the average is a range that starts below the listed minimum). Mist Y (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I fixed it. I left it til I could go back and read double check that there weren't any quests that drastically reduced the amount of foes. Thank you for reminding me that I didn't do that. Drogo Boffin 17:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The average listed is the sum of player-sourced kill counts, divided by the quantity of said player-sourced kill counts. I do not recall where on the wiki these lists are, but I am pretty sure they're here somewhere. Probably an archived Project page somewhere? horrible | contribs 19:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Something I remember adding info to as I was going through Prophecies. I'll try to find it later. Drogo Boffin 20:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Having Quests that affect number of foes was...

Very useful information, especially having it in one place. Durp da durp (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It was and I kinda liked this page the way it was before but now it's a lot cleaner and that information is still on the area pages. Drogo Boffin 00:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It would be easy enough to re-add the information with the newer format. Would you just a list of quests that can modify the area, or a separation between quests that can decrease & increase the foe count? horrible | contribs 01:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, is there any other information from the page-specific vanquishing sections you'd want added? Potential missed areas, tips? horrible | contribs 01:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Only thing i ever miss is those annoying popups, but, short of a map of their locations for every area nothing will help me there 😆. Really just having the areas and quests that change them together in one list somewhere is all i want. Well, maybe notes like heavy on hexes or ench removal or whatever might help too. Durp da durp (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Vanquishing maps on the wiki have previously been removed with the argument that they're just a fully explored map, so I'd be hesitant to re-add them at this point. Adding a pop-ups section and a quests section would be fairly straight forward. I'd be worried about making the lists too wide with much more. horrible | contribs 02:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I'm hesitant to re-add any sort of notes section at all. Lots of articles have fairly expansive notes, like Deldrimor Bowl, and adding all notes for all areas would make this article unbearably long. I'm not suited to be the arbiter of what's worthy of being in this article, so I'll step out of this topic until some sort of decision on what to include is made. horrible | contribs 02:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm with Horrible on this. The whole point was to clean up the page. The information is readily available on each areas page and it is too much information to fit in a table. You can create yourself a page User:Durp da durp/Vanquishing and put the information there until you have finished vanquishing, which is something I've done for multiple things as I was working on them. Or just create a sandbox and keep it for whatever you need it for as you progress through titles. As far as adding it the wiki is run on a consensus standpoint so if there are enough people that want it we can get it back like it was. Drogo Boffin 05:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreeing with Horrible and Drogo Boffin. I assume users go to the page they're planning to vanquish anyway, for the more detailed notes. Putting notes in this summary table would either leave out pertinent information or make the table bloated (it was both before). -- kazerniel (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

[Reset indent]What about a column of "has quest changes" with either yes or no? Small column, somewhat keeps info, and you would know to check the area's page. Durp da durp (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

SOunds good to me. And another column for hidden foes?! Steve1 (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Good ideas! -- kazerniel (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

All of that info is on each areas page and would defeat the purpose of cleaning up the table. People aren't going to go to each areas page for information and not look at the table. To me the purpose is for quick information and to have all areas in one place. You then go to the area page for detailed information. Drogo Boffin 06:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I think two columns of / wouldn't make the table as bloated as the previous Notes column was. Let me know if my reasoning is faulty, but as far as I know the only things that can change the default spawn number is quests and popups, so those two indicative columns would cover both sources of variance for a glance. -- kazerniel (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I personally think that they are both moot points as all areas would be in both columns. Especially since that information is already readily available and you already have to go to the area page to the other useful notes. Drogo Boffin 11:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Not all. Most, but not all. For the few areas w/o at least one , the player would know they don't need to check the area page for more infor since there isn't any. I still like the idea of those 2 columns. Steve1 (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC) EDIT: Alternatively just put a note at the top of the table that the number of foes can be changed via Qs for most areas and that many have hidden foes. And to see each area's page for details. WOuld also suffice. Steve1 (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The pages I saw that didn't have a quest had pertinent notes either to party size or something to make it easier. I say leave it off and if you wanna know it's on the areas page. Drogo Boffin 10:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Table layout change

This diff https://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Vanquisher&diff=prev&oldid=2665336 removed a big portion of annotations etc. from the vanquishing table. Can we revert it? Kaede (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

You absolutely can and should feel free to do so if you believe the notes were beneficial (which I do too). There's no reason to automate this table given the number of foes in each area has probably been min-maxed since the game's release 14 years ago, a once-through campaign of aligning the numbers would be sufficient. -5.65.74.38 10:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

As far as I understand the content of the notes cell was moved to each map's page, which already held the more detailed notes anyway. It's easier to write in detail about relevant vanquishing information there, than trying to squeeze it all in a table cell. - kazerniel (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

For me it is much easier to have it on one page. I always keep a tab open and just quickly scroll through, and I was surprised that the information was missing when I came back to vanquishing earlier this month. In addition, the individual pages make it hard to find the info (it's usually written as text somewhere in the notes section; the German wiki makes it better as they have that information inside the info box). I already tried reverting it, but the page says there are conflicting changes. Kaede (talk) 12:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you should revert it without a consensus. If you look at the two talk sections above this, there was extensive discussion about the table formatting back in August. -- kazerniel (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I still want the missing info back. "Consensus" was basically "we did this already, screw others opinion". Its the quests that change the foe counts, so it makes sense to have the notes with the numbers. Durp da durp (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I still think it was very suboptimal in its previous form. It simultaneously lacked relevant information and took up too much space. What if it wasn't a table format but a long page with sections & subsections that provide the same information as the vanquishing notes on the individual map pages? I don't think it would be useful, but then imho neither would be notes a table format 🤷‍♂️ If we include notes on this page, it would need to be comprehensive, otherwise visitors looking at this page would think that this information is all there is to have. -- kazerniel (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Read the discussion above this for the why. as for the how, the template has an option for notes. If y'all feel it's worthwhile to have the notes on this page as well, it's a very simple prospect to add it back by moving the notes on each article into the template, and then changing the count template to add the section. horrible | contribs 17:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Above there didn't seem to be a consensus, some were in favor of the old, some in favor of the new layout. I am unfamiliar with wikis and always struggle to get templates properly inserted or template discovery, so it is not very simple for me. I guess I will just have to bookmark the old page (in fact, I'll save it right here: https://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Vanquisher&direction=prev&oldid=2665336) and use that. I don't understand why the change was needed in the first place, as the table was fine for about twelve years, starting with https://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Vanquisher&oldid=958325... Kaede (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The reasons were as follows: (1) The data was different between this page, and the area articles, and was not updated properly in both places. (2) The notes were incomplete, and did not accurately reflect the notes from the individual articles. Both of these points were brought up in the discussion above discussions.

If you want to bookmark the old version and not contribute, then feel free to do so. If you want the article changed, keep in mind that no one is obligated to make the wiki suit your desires - if you want the notes section brought back, do so. I've already mentioned an easy wayhow to do so in an accurate manner. horrible | contribs 02:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

First of all, sorry, I did not want to sound rude. I know that nobody is obliged to update the wiki for me etc; I was really just disappointed and a little too angry.

But your "not contribute" worked, I added the notes section; but almost no pages seem to include the notes into the Vanquisher template. However, I see now how it takes up lots of space; before, each entry had usually just just a brief ellipsis or two, now it's full paragraphs of text... (Plus, I didn't get the dplreplace to work properly inside the tables to replace `\n` with `\n– ` or similar.) So I guess you are right and we should simply leave it out. I will ponder about this for a while though. Maybe columns which contain the information in a concise manner ("Popups", "difficult quests", "recommended quests" ...). Kaede (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

No apology needed, you didn't come off as rude to me (though I tend to be an ass myself, so I may not be the best judge). There's definitely merit to adding those sections, but in the discussion section directly above this i pointed out that most areas have hidden foes and quests that change spawns. I don't feel qualified to judge what notes on each article are worth adding, but if there's a community decision on what we should add to this page (a list of quests that influence spawns, types of hidden foes, etc) I'd be willing to work on adding that information. horrible | contribs 02:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Personally, i just find that since its quests that tend to drastically change foe counts and foe count ranges are what the table documents, it makes sense to have quick acces to what quests change foes. Maybe just have a direct link to the corrosponding area pages notes section so you can find out what quests/other info fast from the table? Like https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/North_Kryta_Province#Notes (ofc prettied up with a nametag not just a url) Durp da durp (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Turai's Procession?

Currently, this section lists Turai's Procession average kills at 241, but a min-max of 163-219. That's not physically possible. About to go vanquish it now anyway, as I'm at 30/34 for Elonian Vanquisher on my Warrior. Will attempt to update as I can...

Update: Area vanquished, 195 foes. I will update the average kills to 195. Granted, other players may have different averages, and come here to do what I did, but an average that falls outside the range is nonsensical.

JSYantiss (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Does the kill count decrease if you vanquish an area repeatedly?

If you clear a zone and leave, then return immediately do the subsequent instances have fewer enemies? I heard someone claim this was to discourage farming but i don't believe such a mechanic exists. 172.58.27.139 10:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

They could have been referring to Loot Scaling; which has specifics, but as to your question, NO. Tikka LeFem talk (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)