User:Ilr/archive

meaninglless 1st

on another note can you link signature to talk page :x Lilondra *Poke* 07:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

To your talk page? Sure.
I don't think linking to mine to would be a good idea, I already got 2 or 3 H8-Clubs as it is --ilr 20:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh and incase Lil sees this again sometime... my Icon redirects to my Talk page. ...So, there go. Oh and here's a bonus almost no one else gets to see, My Steam Profile (add meh if you're an Ally!) --ilr 00:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Memser Preview in Layman's terms for PvE nubs:

(If you just PvP, all you need to know is: they buffed the shit out of hexway. GG, play Divert or run a int Bot, or else just go uninstall nao)

• PvE Mobs are dumb again and don't get faster activation of skills with a 2 second or quicker activation even though the players they're usually fighting are buffed even higher with Rock Candies & Celerities.

Title Skills: Cry of Pain -- slightly longer (net result: buffed for FC mesmers)

• • Ether Nightmare -- much longer (net result: nerfed hard for everyone else)

Fast Casting: --Attribute-- Nerfed in PvP -- In PvE, each FC rank decreases the time for your Mesmer Spells by 3%. ...no longer buffs casting of 1 secondary or titletrack Spells/Signets = 30% casting-time PvE nerf on average.

• Mantra of Recovery -- base effect slightly buffed, but increased by 50% so you have to bring .
• Stolen Speed -- You cast Arcane Conundrum and your party gets almost-Mindbender for 10 secs
• Psychic Instability -- If you interrupt a spell, you cast Earth Shaker + Earthbind at target foe's location.
• Symbolic Celerity -- Exploitable signets like + & +, or +, or + use your FC Attribute level.
• Keystone Signet -- 's faster; Added functionality: your next 0...5...6 signets cause Cry of Frustration.

Domination:

• Enchanter's Conundrum -- U now LB-Gaze everything every 10...7...6 seconds unless Ur target's enchanted b/c U fail @ stripping
• Energy Surge -- When chargin' Ur Purple Lazer, Anet reduces the you drain b/c it doesn't matter in PvE anyway
• Panic -- Cut cost in half; For 1...7...9 seconds, U R <awesomeface.jpg> @ interrupting clumped mobs even if Ur the worst mesmer player on earth.
• Power Flux, -- Power Block, Power Drain, Power Leak, Power Leech, Power Lock, Power Return, Power Spike, Psychic Distraction, Signet of Distraction,& Signet of Disruption -- All interrupt & affect skills now.
• Complicate -- Ur int-bot bar condenses 8 ints into a non-L.o.S. D-shot with a 1 until MoR runs out
• Backfire -- costs 5 less . & LoL...no PvP split
• Chaos Storm -- Doubled Damage & Casting Time. Energy loss unconditional. Forgotten Illusionists PWN moar n00bs.
• Cry of Frustration -- Doubled Damage b/c O^P Krytan Chickens weren't PWN'ing 'nuff n00bs.
• Energy Burn -- Added moar PURPLE & made moar spammable. Charr & Crystal Spiders PWN moar n00bs.
• Empathy -- anything target foe hits, has Shielding Hands so Sages sage sage sage moar n00bs.
• Mind Wrack -- nerfed. Becomes for Mesmers. Mergoyles might finally PWN sum n00bs.
• Overload -- Becomes a cheaper Cry of Frustration with a 4...2...2 but is called balanced b/c it doesn't actually interrupt anything (except that it permanently interrupts everything by killing it hella quick).

• Aneurysm & Wastrel's Worry -- Given the flat-up AoE treatment cuz there's no chance they'd ever wanna revisit that kinda ham-fisting... O WAIT...
• Fragility -- nerfed!... LuLz

• Shatter Delusions -- Also given AoE treatment...& buff, AND a damage buff b/c hexway wasn't already awesome enough.
• Signet of Weariness -- Also given AoE treatment while causing twice as much nothing-important to happen.
• Unnatural Signet -- Given the AoE treatment & buffed too. Becomes a one-time triggered Soulbarbs with only 2x the damage making it vastly superior to Signet of Suffering which still isn't saying much...
• Mistrust -- basically cut in half and damage buffed to OMGWTF
• Mirror of Disenchantment & Shatter Enchantment -- Made moar spammable by popular demand b/c everyone loves' losing their Ench's in PvE.
• Spiritual Pain -- no more instant recharge & only affects summons, but cost 0.5½'d, damage doubled, & expanded to Area ...(fail)...

Illusion:

• Fragility -- ^See above^
• Signet of Clumsiness -- slight buff & everyone affected becomes Chevy Chase
• Imagined Burden -- reduced & everyone affected becomes Gerald Ford
• Images of Remorse -- everyone affected, including Anet, becomes Harry Reid.
• Ineptitude -- all adjacent targets also become Ray Charles, but w/o any musical talent and only 0.5½ the drugs.
• Fevered Dreams --**BUG FIX - nerfed the same mechanic that used to make +++ almost Epic
• Illusionary Weaponry -- You now have the illusion of increased armor too depending on how many illusions you create.
• Phantom Pain -- Its cost now suffers from a deep wound, but that's about it...
• Price of Pride -- For 20...12...10 more days, Anet can't label its change until it's leaked into a WiK-Live patch again.
• Accumulated Pain -- Buffed liek Whoah but still not hexgay-enuff to replace IoP
• Arcane Conundrum -- when Ur targets R done being stupid, you get a partial refund().
• Calculated Risk -- Made ROFLBBQ spammable. New Function: Flip a coin to determine if physical attacker gets Pain Inverter'd.
• Clumsiness -- For the next 10...7...6 months, Mindblade Spectres Anally Rape all "Balanced Teams"
• Migraine -- Becomes LOLersk8z Spammable, WTF Degen, & new function: for fucking forever, your target suffers from dazing that can't be removed by a RC, also it affects other skills too...meanwhile Mindblade Spectres continue to Anally Rape all
• Frustration -- No longer synergizes /w TechnoBabble. Now only benefits standard spike interrupts b/c Bots weren't already superior enough to actual people in that department for Anet.
• Recurring Insecurity -- Now automatically affects everyone who's still stupid enough to PvP in this game.
• Shared Burden -- Made uber Spammable. Now replaces water snare Eles who were already all Mesmers anyway.
• Soothing Images -- Target smokes a better bowl and thus attacks slower
• Sum of All Fears -- Target uses a roach clip to get 13% stupider, but for a shorter duration b/c they get paranoid.
• Wandering Eye -- blah blah blah, moar , less , moar triple digit yellow numbers... *zzz*

Inspiration:

• Energy Drain, Mantra of Recall, Energy Tap,& Ether Phantom -- HaHa, totally nerfed ...Sorry Memsers, you're not good enough to constantly get free energy like Necros or Eles.

• Tease -- Anet Teases you by adding this skill to the change list without actually updating its Text.
• Leech Signet -- Anets stops trolling for a second by cutting this skill's in 0.5½ without fucking it up in any other way unless you count the nerf to mantra of signets:
• Mantra of Signets -- Instead of 1 instant signet recharge, you gain almost half of the survivability you woulda had if you were in a better stance. You also get echoed-mending if you spam enough worthless signets until the Paraways find some way to exploit it and get it nerfed anyway.
• Ignorance -- For the next 16...10...8 days, Anet suffers from Ignorance and isn't sure what this skill does yet but all of 3 options are equally hurf derp'ish.
• Mantra of Persistence -- Nerfed pretty good but not enough to offset the donkey punch Migraine now delivers.
• Spirit of Failure -- either a mini-version of WTF-Panic, or 10x the amount of & gain for your entire party that + delivers. ...Also made 10x moar Spammable than those demotivational skills too!

No Attribute:

• Hypochondria -- Every 7...5...4 seconds, you Fragility-spike every mob in a clump Twice b/c this retarded crap removes every condition from them before Epidemic re-applies them all over again.
• Web of Disruption -- cost reduced despite the fact most nubs still won't bother learning how to chain it
• Lyssa's Balance -- Upon Activation of this update, Anet makes this goddess so functionally retarded that even the Wammos can worship her as the next Sarah Palin.

---

Request for NON-imbagon Advice

I decided since no one ever posts anything Positive to talk about on my Page, that I'd make my own constructive thread in search of advice now that my #1 concern (class-wise) got some various buffs or whatever to its Command/Leadership line. So far my testing was mostly in Sparkfly, and I'll list me and My Heroes' builds below -- Large groups of Raptors were no Prob. I kept getting spiked myself by Angoradons and T-Rexes but for the most part, even 5 monster groups of them were no Prob. Even took out Modrin's scary ass group without a teamwipe despite a MASSIVE lagspike during it. Is that good enough or can this be improved? Builds:

How should I improve on these? My SF-Ele never runs out of Energy but my other two Heroes end up needing a shot of B.R. between every fight. ...And no S.Y. plz, I'm not going P/W like everyone else. --ilr 00:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what your leadership is at for both paragons, but I'd imagine its up there since you have TNtF. GftE gives awesome energy return. Would be better than glowing signet. Personally though I don't like how if one chain in your party build breaks everything falls apart. I prefer more independent builds on heroes and I have more of a best D is a good O play style.~>Sins WDB

Personally, I've never been a fan of SF ele's, so if I were you I'd run SH w/rodgorts or a RoJ smiter... Dual defensive anthem seems like a waste imo, the second paragon has little to no damage, so bringing a prot monk who can keep up aegis constantly would likely be better; and three sources of daze seems overkill :P I'd probably change to be spear/leadership with spear of fury, TNTF, they're on fire, blazing spear, wild throw, stunning strike, and skills of choice (not necessarily in that order) plus two skills of choice. I'd swap the SF hero for a RoJ personally, and the second paragon for a prot monk (or maybe even a soul twisting rit) Actually, I take that back, I'd probably suggest to bring something condition-spammy to use with the fevered dreams. And you could bring barbed spear + signet of infection for bleed/disease or summin... dunno. Just a few ideas. 70.181.72.216

At the time I posted this, I didn't own Factions ;) ...Also, I went back AFTER the HM-Caster nerf and beat it easily.
Turns out it was just Anet's fault I couldn't beat it with a balanced team. --ilr 22:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Part 2

The other night I failed Kononur Crossroads on HardMode for 5 whole hours and the only reason I beat it was because I sunk a ton of cash into enough Granite to make 2 Powerstones. Obviously I'm not happy about this. ...Henchmen were Odurra, Cynn, Sogolon, and Mehnlo. My build and Heroes builds were:

I've never had so much trouble on a Hardmode Mission on any of my other Alts... So I have to assume it's either that particular mission, or Paragons just plain suck still... --ilr 00:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The biggest problem I keep seeing with your build types is that they are too defensive (and yes paragons still do suck, but Fallback + Incoming make running easy). In HM the best damage you have in your party is coming from your (I'm assuming) necro. Your Second highest damage source is the degen from SF. So while you may have great defenses, there are always going to be gaps in them given you are the only human player. Taking all that into account you aren't going to bring things down very fast let alone at all with enemy healers. Paragons really are kind of useless besides for running and Imbagon. There are a few ways to dominate HM, however non of these involve paragons, I'll give you some of those that I use.

(Target With Splinter Weapon and Ancestors' Rage)

Of course there are other things like the minion bomber etc. The main concepts behind effective HM builds are 3 things reducing damage to something manageable, Armor Ignoring Damage, and Area of Effect. The paragon can do the damage redux sort of well, but beyond that its very nature is single target damage with very small benefits in damage. Even with the latest update nothing has changed in regard to its damage dealing potential. Therefore it is inferior and all other professions are still better than paragons in PvE (except in the case of the imbagon).~>Sins WDB 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, that does make a lot of sense... Thanks for the Post. It won't stop me from Pursuing this tangent but it does some me some insights on what could be improved... esp damage wise --ilr 22:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok so after many months of doing HM in a real guild, I finally understand that it isn't more "offense" in general that's needed here, it's more offensive Gimmicks and that's all Hardmode will ever be about ...hence the nature of the latest Mesmer update. Gonna archive this section soon, now that non-mesmer Casters in hardmode have finally been Nerfed a little. --ilr 20:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry

Let's start again. My name is Misery, how are you? Misery 21:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Serious Misery is serious? — Jon Lupen 21:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

R U stalkering meh b/c I called ya a furry? --ilr 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on now, don't be so serious. I'm not really holding a grudge about the stupid Dancing Daggers argument b/c it didn't matter to me anyway(but don't tell Shard). That debate was purely the result of abject boredom from the game itself not receiving any meaningful PvE updates at the time. (I could even remove the comment on your Bueraucrat page if that's what ya really want) ...But as for talk on Dev pages, I'll probably never stop being a cynical ass clown. Infact Linsey laughed out loud at my "Majorly" Antics last month If-You-Recall. I'm not using expletives with wild abandon, I'm not singling you out, I'm just doing what God designed me to do; and that's play Devil's advocate. If it's a real problem to the ppl who actually run this Wiki then I'll just stick with TF2 for the next month b/c I've seen how little it takes to incite their b& wrath --ilr 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You are funny :> Misery 22:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well give it some thought anyway, I'm never married to anything I post and can usually be convinced to edit just about anything.... --ilr 22:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you even understand what the heck I am going on about 99% of the time. Misery 22:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Question for the legal team

→ moved from User talk:Mike O'Brien

The only problem with Bug reports is that the Live team itself is WAY TOO SLOOOW on Confirming whether certain behaviors or results in-game are a Bug or an Intended design. ...RoJ vs A.I.'s for instance... But that doesn't mean the players reporting those bugs should continue to be ignored as givers of "Suggestion" feedback. --ilr 20:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OK ilr, once again, you are hijacking a topic that has nothing to do with your unhappiness with the speed/competence of the ArenaNet staff. QA uses the bug reporting pages quite consistently and has for a while now. Please stay on topic. -- Wyn 20:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No I am not hijacking it and I'd ask you to apologize please for your accusation of Trolling. It is a Provable fact (not whining) that a lot of requests for Bug fixes or bug reports themselves are mislabeled as suggestions. And the issue here of Bug Reports being invalid because of that Wiki-Revisionism would be a ridiculous loss of data, resources, and user Contributions. Contacting support directly doesn't put the Bug up in Public view where everyone can see that it's being dealt with (or NOT dealt with, like it should). A multipronged attack is best, and you are wrong, the lack of timely responses is indeed a contributing issue here.
The Next time you think I'm just axe-Grinding, bring it up on my Talk page instead of making a scene where it doesn't belong. Thank you. (in most cases, I'd be more than happy to edit my wording for accuracy) --ilr 22:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Gonna have to side with Wyn here. Your post really wasn't relevant to the topic of licensing issues. --JonTheMon 23:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Elaborate plz --ilr 23:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This conversation should be moved to your talkpage. Vili 点 23:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean "censored"... this one comment should be censored and segregated from the actual discussion it was part of even though no violations took place. And I agree Now that those "experts" ended up being WRONG anyway, LoL, so it's not an issue now. Bugs and other Feedback get to STAY, and the only ppl who'll see this are the obsessive types up at 3:00am riding the "recent" contribs instead of MTOB'ing. Thx!, i <3 U all 2 :D

Removing comments

You can archive them, but not just delete them. Removing them again will result in a violation of the Userpage policy -- Wyn 08:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I ARCHIVED it like you said to. Stop micromanaging with my Userspace plz, you are engaging in harassment --ilr 09:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Policy requires a link to your archive VISIBLE on your talk page, I apologize for harassing you, simply doing my job. -- Wyn 09:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

A role for pets in PVE HM please?

I really liked the menagerie pet update allowing us to access a wider range of pets at any time. Unfortunately, pets are more of a liability than an asset in HM PVE play due to their low AL80 armor and front line role. I went on a HM mission with two hero melee rangers with hearty pets and three healers. When AOE damage hit(Barrage, Hundred blades, deep freeze), it caused around 50% or more hp loss. But instead of just two units without pets to heal, my healers had to heal four units. Having pets put a lot of strain on my healers and the pets' meager DPS certainly does not offset the increased damage taken. The two pet protections skills of having a meager ~15pt damage reduction or half damage redirection(not desirable b/c ranger already takes enough damage) are inadequate. I hope the dev team can do something to address the survivability of pets so they can be of some use in HM.

yh, also imba skills like asuran scan does not affect pets so you are better off not using them if you want dommages, and certainly pve is all about that... - Wuhy 22:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I reread this three times and still don't see any point where he suggested an explicit method of fixing this complaint... care to enlighten us Era? --ilr 22:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"two hero melee rangers" I think that is more of your problem for "my healers had to heal four units", not the pet thing. All pets do is really make your ranger(s) a big of a decoy, as - unless it is given some non-beast mastery skills - the ranger(s) would only have pet skills for the most part. Pet survivability is no problem as long as you give the ranger just one healing or protection skill for the pet (such as Heal as One - my favorite beast master elite). Also, ilr, I think the 'suggestion' - though not really a suggestion - would be "I hope the dev team can do something to address the survivability of pets...". -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 01:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of skills that can help you out (Otyugh's Cry for example), but with it's 80 armor, a pet is already fairly tough to begin with (having more base armor than any melee except the warrior). That's just me though. 145.94.74.23 10:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, as ilr pointed out, there's no suggestion here. It points out a problem (lack of the ability to use pets effectively in hard mode). It has zero suggestion whatsoever of how it might be fixed in any way. "Hope they can do something to address a problem" is by no means a suggestion, no matter how you look at it. --71.240.44.21 11:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I wish they would revert the update that made the pet corpse non exploitable... I'd love to take a pet to let it soak some of the damage from the rest of the party then if it does die make it yet still be an asset to the partys necros... but no apparently there were some weird team builds somewhere that exploited that so the choice was made to have pets corpses non exploitable... which makes no sence to me... perhaps make only level 20 pets exploitable... MrPaladin talk 12:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You rly don't have a clue do you ? (read:Shitway and thats just an example) Lilondra *panda* 14:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That was a PvP change. It shouldn't have affected PvE. Although honestly, making a pet more useful when it's dead is quite beside the point - they should be more useful when they're alive. As it is, they're just a waste of skill bar space. -Auron 14:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you actually believe that pets can have a both viable and balanced role in GW ? I don't know if they CAN be cool.Lilondra *panda* 14:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Try beast mastery. Pets generating corpses are only bad when ppl end up bringing low-level pets for the purpose of getting them repeatedly killed. -- Alaris 16:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Beast mastery is bad. Try speccing 8 or 10 points in channeling and splinter barraging. For pets to be useful, they need to do at least that much damage or they will always be inferior to a generic bow ranger. I want pets to be useful in PvE, but at this point, they are not. Their damage is too low, their AI is too clumsy, and speccing heavy points into BM means you have less points to spend on shit that actually deals damage, like bow attacks or preparations. Yes, pets are "cool" (I play a hunter in WoW because pets are awesome), but you need to realize that they are really weak compared to other damage options, not only on ranger, but other classes as well. That has to be addressed before they will ever be a viable choice for PvE. -Auron 16:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it? I just read the skill descriptions, and I see KD, interrupt, poison, bleeding, cripple, daze, IAS, defense skills... I see a strong potential for a bow+pet build focused on shutdown & degen here. -- Alaris 16:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with pet skills is timing, you can click on a pet skill to cause KD, for example, but it doesn't happen until the pet's next attack, which is not easy to keep track of because the pet can be anywhere, so timing your attacks with a pet is very difficult. I tried running a strong pet on my ranger for a while, but it was just too hard to time everything correctly and make sure the pet was attacking the target I wanted it to. Plus Auron is right, the pet just doesn't have the damage output to warrant taking up all those skill slots, especially since you use up two skill slots on the pet just to even have the thing around. Only reason to have pets in PvE is to act as reusable minions/tanks in a BP group. (Satanael 17:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

When running RaO, I actually missed my pet's extra damage when it was dead. Those extra -24s are important. :( Raine - talk 17:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that's my point - the pet is just there to add a smidgen of damage to a hunter's total output. With that build in particular, the point was to be a cspace cowboy - you trained a single target and applied as much daze and knockdown as humanly possibly, and by the way, try to deal damage as well.

If you have to devote 2 skills minimum to bring a pet along, they should at least be doing a quarter of your damage - that's basic math. If you devote 7 skills (last slot for res) to your pet, he should be doing as much damage as a ranger who didn't bother to bring a pet - your pet should be doing 100s on multiple targets, or 200s on single targets. Often. Like every 2 seconds often. Alaris, if you're trying to say that you took a beast mastery build and beat the game... grats, I guess. But that's missing the point. Beast mastery is not as effective as a standard ranger using a bow (or, hell, a scythe). It doesn't do nearly as much damage. You just read the descriptions of the skills - did you see any that were useful in PvE? KD? Trash, outside of being unreliable. Interrupt? As Satanael pointed out, impossible to time. You mash it on recharge and pray it hits something. Trash. Poison? Bleeding? Cripple? Defense? All trash. This is PvE we're talking about. The entire point of PvE is to roll through the mobs as quickly as possible. The best Beast Mastery has is a bunch of passive, long-duration buffs for the pet plus Enraged Lunge, which can crit for about 120 on a good day and on a low armor target. A single low armor target. In PvE, especially, as the topic points out, hard mode PvE, you are competing with damage sources like fire eles, mesmers and necros. The best beast mastery has to offer cannot begin to compare with those damage sources. It was weak to begin with and has just been power creeped ever since. On paper, pets can do a myriad of things - in reality, mostly because they're unreliable, those myriad things are useless. Unless the design of PvE is changed, you want to do as much damage to as many targets as possible - beast mastery does not offer that, at all, period. I will say no more on this topic on Linsey's page, but please, do your homework before trying to defend seriously weak attributes and mechanics. -Auron 17:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Damnit Auron, sometimes you post the most enlightened things, but it's usually at the ass end of the indents so it's like reading a chinese wall scroll with frayed edges. --ilr 20:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. At all. It is very enlightened and enlightening though. calor (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to completely agree with Auron. W/o a serious change to the way BM works or the way pets work in general, all they'll do is look cool and do minimal damage. Seriously if minions can do more pressure than pets, why would anyone ever bring a pet or pet skills? It just doesn't make sense. Karate Jesus 21:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would use the word "enlightened" in this case. I guess comparing Auron to Buddhist monks searching for nirvana just doesn't sit right with me in general :P Nonetheless, I think the point has been pretty clearly made, and Auron certainly deserves credit for that. (Satanael 21:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

Asking for anything that changes the game is a suggestion. Asking pets to have a higher survability is a suggestion; asking pets to be useful in HM is a suggestion. Asking you people to get a clue and stop asking for things pretending you are not making suggestions is also a suggestion, by the way, but thankfully one that falls outside the license problems. Erasculio 22:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Your definition of a Suggestion is flawed then. And so is your Date Notification process... IE: you retroactively marked it with basically a 24 hour period when the REAL sysop here (IoW: NOT YOU) usually gives them atleast 72 hours to be rephrased or moved. But back to your definition: You do realize just how many topics would fall under the definition of "It changes the game", don't you?
Learn the Definition of Intellectual Property please... For it to qualify, and thus be "a threat" to current licensing limitations, it must have proprietary knowledge (Read Details) on exact changes to be made. "Give Pets a Role" is not a unique Detail or specific change to mechanics. In other words, it is not an "Idea". It is a general request that expects all details to be handled explicitly by Anet's Employees. Nothing in the Original Post could be used in Court to show proprietary ownership of said ideas if actual Changes came from said request. I'm not going to remove the tag myself, but I will CORRECT the timeframe to keep parity with Wyn's maintenance schedule. Thank you. --ilr 23:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time linking you to a dictionary so you learn what a suggestion is. The note at the top of this page states "I am unable to accept or comment on user submitted suggestions of any kind", not 'I'm unable to accept or comment user submitted suggestions from users others than those who believe themselves lawyers'. Wynthyst created the template and in her opinion (and nothing more than her opinion) 3 days is long enough, in my opinion 1 day is enough; given how there is no policy stating how long is the correct time, feel free to show me which rule I am violating by removing ideas one day after they have been posted. Erasculio 23:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Then feel free to show me where you were granted greater authority than the rest of us... until then, do not revert the timeframe on this disputed discussion. Also, you must prove that infringement could take place in order for the "request" to violate current licensing guidelines. The fact that Wyn's personal policy template didn't take this into account doesn't change the fact that you are wrong --ilr 23:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What, you decided to revert the timeframe I had mentioned and you ask me when I was granted higher authority than you? When were you granted higher authority than me to change the timeframe that I had added originally? You don't understand how a wiki works, and you also don't understand that your (lack of) legal knowledge doesn't account how Linsey is not accepting any suggestion, not only suggestions which (in your opinion) doesn't conflict with the license issue.

In other words: this section is a suggestion. Suggestions cannot be posted here. Therefore, this section has to go. Your pseudo-legal mumbo jumbo, Using Words in Caps and bolding or whatever don't change those simple facts. Erasculio 00:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ya'll, what the fuck? Ilr, stop armchair lawyering, it doesn't work, and erasculio, I dunno what your problem is, but it doesn't make sense to discuss whether a section is a suggestion or not in said section, let alone do it to a point where it derails the entire thread. Ilr has a talk page. You have a talk page. Those are the places that discussion should go. Not Linsey's, where the rest of this discussion should have stayed.

Furthermore, pointing out current problems with the game is not giving suggestions on how to improve it. Yes, I am aware that there are plenty of people who veil their rather blatant suggestions with a "you know, i was thinking, is it possible if you could do this..." but this section had none of that. I, for one, was specifically avoiding giving actual suggestions as to how to fix the problem (even though I have many in this case) - I was content with pointing out what the problem was (unreliable pet attacks, pets taking up too much skill bar space, and low overall damage). ANet can ignore it. ANet can try to address the problem in a myriad of ways. But merely pointing out the problem and stopping there is in no way a suggestion, and I'm pretty miffed that you and ilr bitched at each other until the section had to be removed. Please don't ever do that again. -Auron 03:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

<3 ... now that this discussion is on my page (and thus officially dead on arrival), can I archive every part of it except for this epic post? ...That'd be pretty sweet --ilr 04:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(RI) Yes, Auron, I know what you wrote did not have any suggestion on it. Saying "pets are bad because of X" isn't a suggestion, but saying "pets are bad because of X and I wish Arena Net would do Y to fix it" is asking for a change, as is saying "I wish they would revert the update that made the pet corpse non exploitable" and so on, which others have written in this discussion.
You know that as well as I do, though. If you really want to have this discussion on Linsey's talk page, you know you are free to add a new section there stating why you think pets are a problem and without mentioning how you would like Arena Net to fix them. Good luck doing that without anyone asking for a change in the middle of the discussion, and thus making the entire section to be tagged as a suggestion. People have been mostly pretending that asking for the changes they want to the game isn't making suggestions, with arguments that go From The Bad to the worse. Erasculio 22:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Erasculio, I'd have to say that in this discussion, you accuse ilr as being lawyer-ish, but from my viewpoint YOU are the one that's coming off as the lawyer. ilr is actually thinking about the reasons behind the rule for judging where it should and shouldn't apply, while you seem to have latched onto a rather broad definition of "suggestion" and applying it to anything that even remotely fits - a lawyerish application of the letter of the law to the detriment of the spirit. While I agree people have tried to do odd things to slip under the radar, a simple "can you do something about..." does not carry any IP baggage in and of itself unless a, well, suggestion is made as to what that 'something' could be. Draxynnic 00:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

See, you are not seeing the problem: Arena Net has not said "we don't want suggestions that would cause IP problems", they have said "we don't want suggestions outside the feedback space at all". Which is something that makes perfect sense: our users are not lawyers (despite how a few think they are), so we cannot really expect them to know exactly which suggestions are allowed and which ones aren't, and the same applies to the Arena Net developers, who cannot have their legal team over their shoulders telling them if they can or not read what they are seeing.

So both the letter of the law and the spirit of the law here are: no suggestions on Linsey's talk page. No "but...", no "if...", no way around that. As long as something is a suggestion, it does not belong there, rather in the feedback space. And ironically, if people had spent a fraction of the time they wasted adding suggestions to Linsey's page, and trying to justify them, working on the Feedback space instead, the proper place in which to post suggestions in the wiki would have been finished by now. Erasculio 00:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wasting time posting it on a dev's talk page seems like a better option even now, tbh, since your option is wasting time creating a namespace for suggestions to be ignored :p -Auron 01:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is an irrefutable argument : P Erasculio 01:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

""pets are bad because of X and I wish Arena Net would do Y to fix it""
Calmore's post is right there at the top of the page for you to reread several times like I did, he didn't give a "Y", that was the entire reason for our argument. "Fix Plz" is just more "X"
"a lawyerish application of the letter of the law to the detriment of the spirit."
Not saying the slipper fits, but I ran across this article on accident the other day and found it refreshing
"if people had spent a fraction of the time they wasted adding suggestions to Linsey's page, working on the Feedback space instead, the proper place in which to post suggestions in the wiki would have been finished by now."
"Hi Emily, I think the biggest bump at the moment is probably going to be technical implementation - poke, I, and a few others still need to finalize exactly what is going to be done" -- Aiiane on the primary hurdle, IoW: Engine overhaul, and "too many hands under the hood" only makes it worse... --ilr 04:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

irl, I'll try to say it slowly so you may understand it this time:

"A suggestion is anything at all asking for and specifying changes"

That's at the top of Linsey's talk page. Now let's see:

"A role for pets in PVE HM please?"

That's the title of this section. Is it asking for a change? Yes, it's asking for pets to have a role in PvE Hard Mode, given how today (as he elaborates) they don't.

" I hope the dev team can do something to address the survivability of pets so they can be of some use in HM."

That's the conclusion of the first entry in this section. Is it asking for a change? Obviously. Is he mentioning a specific way in which to fix the lack of roles for pets in PvE? Yes, by increasing their survivability.

"IoW: Engine overhaul, and "too many hands under the hood" only makes it worse"

Lol, great excuse to not do anything and wait for other people to do all the hard work. Erasculio 12:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Key word there: SPECIFYING. Saying something is a problem isn't specifying how to fix it. Now I'm going to be a bit lawyeristic by dissecting the language (although really, this is just reading comprehension), but if Linsey really classed everything asking for a change as a suggestion, she wouldn't have added the "and specifying" clause - she would simply have said "A suggestion is anything at all asking for changes". Since she went to the effort of adding those extra two words, it can be presumed that asking for change without specifying how to make the change isn't something she regards as a suggestion. Draxynnic 14:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So the only thing you would consider to be a suggestion would be if someone posted the code changes to the Guild Wars engine necessary to make a change, right? Because anything else is just asking for a change without telling Linsey step by step how do do it. Pfff, stop with the excuses. The IP asked for a change (a role for pets in HM) and described how to do it (by increasing their survability), as I have already stated (so much for "reading comprehension", I guess). He didn't just say "something is a problem" (which is what Auron did), neither did you - if you are so interested in telling Linsey about this problem, you are free to go there and tell her all about it. Only expect someone to make a suggestion in the middle of the discussion and then make all of it be tagged as a suggestion. Erasculio 15:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"Give them a Role" and "more Survivability plz" is just the Goal though, the desired result ...no steps were specified on how to achieve that. And it's time you just faced the music on this Era b/c you're definitely out-voted and in one case(Auron's) out-ranked on it. ...Now TBH, I'd like to restate it but the main reason I haven't moved the first feedback back onto Linsey's page or reworded it myself, is that I don't have enough experience with my own pets in HM. Once I get more experience, I intend to re-present it along with another issues concerning high-armor Caster-Mobs with Attrib_20+ spammable powers. (IE: Mesmer Class is also poorly-suited in dealing with these particular PvE mobs in HM). And by that time, the new namespace will already be functional... --ilr 22:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hah! And the next time, when someone says "Add 100 more health for pets", what is your pathetic excuse going to be, "no steps were specificed in how to code +100 health in the game"? Right. The wiki (which you obviously don't understand) is not a democracy, nor do the admins have more of a say in content matters than any user here. The facts, as I have already stated, are that the original coment here was asking for a change and telling Linsey how to achieve it. If you make any new suggestions like this on Linsey's page, it will only be tagged and remove again. Erasculio 22:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What "Hah"? Adding more health would be a Specific, but All Squares are rectangles while not every Rectangle is a Square. And yes actually, it IS a kind of democracy because of the 1-Revert rule. ...which then requires debate for a resolution to be reached. In the end, the compromise that is most heavily agreed upon is what moves forward. If it's not a kind of democracy, then why does the new Namespace project have any discussions at all? And if you continue to engage in rouge "enforcement" you might soon find yourself overruled by actions instead of merely by discussion. --ilr 23:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Erasculio: If someone had specified "add 100 health to pets", that WOULD be a specification and thus a suggestion. But on reading through this topic yet again, guess what? No-one had. Certainly no-one had in the first couple of entries before you jumped the gun and overzealously tagged it as one. And as for the wiki being a democracy... maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but certainly the actual admins are higher on the totem pole than you? (And I seem to remember seeing notices occasionally about elections being held for those admins, although I've never participated in them myself, so...yeah.) Draxynnic 23:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so now "add more health" is a suggestion, while "increase survability" isn't? Right. I wonder, if the original comment here had been "I hope the dev team can do something to add more health to pets so they can be of some use in HM", if today our little horde of overzealous defenders of "suggestions" wouldn't be saying that "'add more health' isn't a suggestion, but 'increase survability' is".

"Add more health" specifies how to improve survivability. "Do something to improve survivability" leaves open a range of possibilites, including adding health, adding armour, changing pet AI, improving skills that keep pets alive, giving pets Natural Resistance, or other possibilities I can't think of. ANet could do any of that list without raising the IP issue, but if someone said "increase health by 100" or even just "increase health", then that is potentially raising IP issues. (That would probably be thrown out of court in short order, but there's always the possibility that it won't, and even a short victorious case costs valuable time.) Draxynnic 14:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

And so you people understand how the wiki works, from the adminship policy: "This status is not intended to represent extra weight within community decisions or generally directing the wiki, nor is it a requirement for moderating or enforcing policy". Now please, show me in which content discussion has the outcome been decided through voting. Erasculio 23:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) "and erasculio, I dunno what your problem is, but it doesn't make sense to discuss whether a section is a suggestion or not in said section, let alone do it to a point where it derails the entire thread." ...Now then,..My behavior has been questioned by Wyn and I have been trying to resolve that issue and make changes TO MY OWN Mods Operandi to avoid a number of actions. But your behavior is also in question and you seem to have no intentions of even admitting it. I asked you to describe what part of Calmore's feedback was in violation of license limitations BEFORE the thread was moved but you started using weasel words instead and then moved it on your own anyway; TO THE WRONG PERSON'S PAGE. So far you have all the marking of a poor debater, and a Rogue Editor on top of that. That is the point where you're outranked, YOUR TACTICS are disruptive to other users who just want to be heard. And your opinions in the new Namespace discussions cement this observation. --ilr 00:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol, so arguments you cannot reply to become "weasel words", doing what I'm allowed to do per the policy I have just shown you is being a "Rogue Editor", and pointing the flaws in your (so called) line of thought is being "disruptive".

Again, let me say it slowly so you understand:

• The original comment here is a suggestion. Doesn't matter how much you try to squeeze yourself away from it, the IP was mentioning a problem and how to fix it.
• You have been unable, through this entire discussion, to provide a single argument about how the IP would not be asking for a specific change. Your arguments so far GO FROM USING WORDS IN CAPS to "using quotes" to bolding meaningless stuff without adressing how asking pets to be more resilient is one specific way to solve the problem of how pets have no role in PvE, as opposed to just stating the problem (like Auron did) or stating the problem and just asking Linsey to fix it without any mention to how.
• Given how your questioning of the suggestions tag derailed the discussion, I have then moved it to your talk page as it was you who, on the very first reply to this section, decided to stop the discussion about pets and begin a discussion about what is or isn't a suggestion.
• There is no "outrank". This isn't how the wiki works: admins have no higher say in content discussions than common users.
• My opinions in the Feedback space are the opinions of someone who is trying to move the project foward, as opposed to the opinions of someone who is just waiting for the others to do all the hard work and just sits on the sideline complaining.

If you had kept the discussion on this section about its topic, instead of going on your crusade about what is a suggestion, it would not have been moved to your talk page. Erasculio 00:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

ilr - lol? You're ranting like a madman here. Rogue editor? Outranked? Disruptive "tactics?" Weasel words? Take a step back and read what you're typing. It's ridiculous.

Erasculio's argument is this - the OP made a suggestion. Because of that, the section needed to be tagged as a suggestion. Because you didn't understand where the suggestion was, he gave an example of something that would be a suggestion, and instead of you seeing that as merely an example, you thought it was his entire point. No, nobody had given a suggestion for pets to have 100 HP - it's what we call a hypothetical situation. Nobody said "give pets 100 HP," they said "I hope the dev team can do something to address the survivability of pets so they can be of some use in HM," which is the same thing worded differently. I would have preferred the topic stay on Linsey's page, but Erasculio's point is correct - the OP made a suggestion, and thus it needed to be tagged. The resulting bitchfest between you two caused it not just to be tagged, but to be moved entirely.

Now please, if you have an argument here, state it. Calling Erasculio a rogue editor is not debunking his argument. Saying he's been outranked, even though nobody of higher "rank" has disagreed with him, is not debunking is argument. You accuse him of weasel wording, except when he lays his argument out plain and clear, you can't debunk it. Stop red herring-ing and get to the point. If you can't beat his logic, concede defeat. -Auron 10:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just going off of what You said: "Furthermore, pointing out current problems with the game is not giving suggestions on how to improve it. Yes, I am aware that there are plenty of people who veil their rather blatant suggestions with a "you know, i was thinking, is it possible if you could do this..." but this section had none of that." ..if you're changing your own verdict, then so be it. My point still remains: You can't add any part of "increase pet's survival" into C++ or an XLS document and suddenly have that Skill or Entity perform any differently. This is the finite point even Linsey made: Specifying = Suggestion. And the problem pointed out in this section by the OP was: Pets are Wimps in HM. The OP's argument WAS that pets don't have a role because they're Fragile and dilute your party's healing resources. The only part that could be considered Specifying an action, is asking or telling Anet to actually "do something about it" in which case almost nothing can be rightly posted right now b/c almost everything posted there is some sort of veiled demand for Anet to take action and tackle whatever problem is posted. --ilr 22:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Feedback namespace

""if she has time.... she just doesn't right now, so the way I see it is, if people are going to keep acting stupid, I will keep doing what I can to give her the time she needs to do what is really important, which is work on the game""

"Speaking of Linsey's talk page, perhaps it's time to lock it down, as has been done in the past."

This page will be locked down regardless... since none of this can be carried over to the new namespace while all Dev talk pages will be Proprietary to the namespace anyway. ...But I'd make one simple request: TIME TABLE PLZ... IE: give us fair warning first --ilr 20:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

While it is probably true that some of the material here can not be copied to the new name space, some things, like questions, very likely can be. I have at least one long standing question I still want an answer to. --Max 2 00:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing can be carried over, but these pages will remained linked but locked to editing by anyone but Linsey or admin. This will give her the opportunity to answer the questions. Keep in mind these answers will most likely remain weeks if not months late in being answered because of the sheer volume, the amount of time Linsey has available to answer, and the fact that new topics will be accumulating on the new page in the new namespace, not to mention the new namespace itself. There will be some new rules in the Feedback, like, post in the appropriate place. No skill feedback, no bug reports, no suggestions on staff pages. Btw, skill feedback (not bug reports but requests for changes in functionality beyond the published description rather than descriptions not matching functionality) will be part of the suggestions system, where if you don't read and follow instructions, your suggestion falls into the vast void that is the internetz never to be seen by the dev team. -- Wyn talk 03:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we have any idea yet when the new namespace will go live? It's been "almost done" for months now. Sometimes I wonder which will come out first, GW2 or the namespace. Or if they're both just vaporware. --63.106.124.254 18:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Arenanet works according to Valve Time, we won't know when things will be done until they already are. — Jon Lupen 18:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out, the ones holding up the Feedback namespace are us, not Anet. Emily's even asked us a few times now to hurry it the hell up (in far more polite terms, of course). Come to think of it, man, irony... - Tanetris 19:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What if you guys are the reason we have no GW2 info!? --Ravious 20:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can help with making the Feedback namespace, just go here and join in the discussion. The main reason we are slowed down right now is that we only have about 2 or 3 people with the coding skills to make a criticl piece of the space work, and those people seem to be busy with that weird thing called real life. It is moving, though, so the "almost done" response still applies. (Satanael 20:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC))

If additional Coding effort (which I have experience with) was really welcome, the folks deciding everything would have been more inviting to alternative proposals and atleast considered everyone else's feelings on the project as a whole. That is why I explicitly asked Emily NOT to step back Anet's involvement in it. But since that didn't change, complaining that you're doing it "all alone" now is a moot point as well. ...All I'm asking for now is a couple days advanced warning before this page is to be locked. Thank you. --ilr 01:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Big talk from someone who has barely said anything at all in the discussion. People cannot take in consideration the feelings of those who have not bothered to state what those feelings are. Erasculio 02:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What? WHO TOLD YOU?!? ...Oh, a joke. Right. Ha ha. Very funny... WE SHALL SPEAK NO MORE OF THIS! >_> - Tanetris 21:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The process for creating the new namespace has and is transparent to the entire community. Links to the current discussions have been posted in many prominent places since it began. ilr, your request for rules was heeded and included. You have not contributed much of anything else. I agree, it's difficult to join a discussion once it's been underway for some time and certain things have already been decided since changing those decisions at this point would mean starting over on the coding end of things, but you (and everyone else) have had the opportunity to participate since the beginning so complaining that it's not done yet, or that your feelings have not been considered is in pretty poor form, I agree with Erasculio that you expressed very few feelings in the matter for anyone to consider. As has been pointed out, we are down to the hard coding of the suggestion system. Unfortunately, that is not something that can be done by just anyone, it requires an understanding of what has already been done, and what needs to be done to complete it, and for that we have a few very good people.

As for locking Linsey's page, it will happen when the new namespace goes live, along with all the other current staff talk pages. I would not expect any advance warning. You will know it's happened when you go to Linsey's page and the background is green. -- Wyn talk 09:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This wasn't about me, it's about the policies that you and Era ALONE have already decided and chiseled into stone at this point that have nothing at all to do with page Coding... But if I read you right, you are saying that Lin's page WON'T be locked prematurely just because it's getting a little long now. ...if that's the case, then thank you very much for that single concession. --ilr 00:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Erasculio and I are not the only ones that have been involved in discussions or decisions. Maybe the most visible, but that's simply because we are the ones that showed up for the discussion. -- Wyn talk 02:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

Well, atleast the "your junk is on the wrong bunk" bunk will be a lot easier to deal with than the "We can't talk about, look at, or keep your junk because we don't have a bunk that allows us to do so" bunk. — Jon Lupen 15:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually no... because I can't even talk about that "ruling" anymore either. Just as soon as you posted your doubts that the last discussion about this would be Archived just to silence me on it, IT WAS ARCHIVED which was against Wiki policy. I know no one else gives a shit about it, but that doesn't mean I have to take this abuse too. --ilr 21:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

How was it against policy? — Jon Lupen 21:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"*Archive only inactive discussions." ...this part of the policy is paraphrased on all 3 of the major pages that instruct the proper use of archiving. Also they will continue to personally attack me by referring to my valid contesting as QQ'ing (assuming they don't see this first and wise up about it). Either way, all policies can be contested at any time, and their rule-breaking on it will come back to haunt them if they keep handing me Ammunition like this. --ilr 21:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody commented for over 24 hours, and it probably seemed like the conversation was winding down. --JonTheMon 21:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Your "ammunition" as you call it, and the "rule-breaking" you are referring to are figments of your overactive imagination ilr. The discussion wasn't archived until days after anything had been added to it, and it was archived along with a lot of other no longer active topics, because the page was once again becoming difficult to navigate. You have a very narrow view of how YOU want things to go, and you have done very little over the past 9 months other than complain. You have offered very few suggestions or ideas contributing to the process of developing the feedback namespace. You posted a suggestion for the Rules, and it was adopted. I don't know where you source of angst is in all of this, other than you feel you will no longer be able to complain about game design, which is the furthest thing from the truth, since you will have an entire namespace to complain in, just not the dev's talk pages. -- Wyn talk 21:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about This, that wasn't a suggestion. It was a serious question on how many people were really in favor of such a heavy handed motion. I refrained from adding my own input b/c I was trying to avoid conflict at the time under the foolish assumption that it couldn't possibly materialize with such a tiny amount of support for it. --ilr 22:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Back to your original point, Jon: I honestly don't care IF suggestions get moved out, infact I think if they were really serious, they'd lock Linsey's page on the new feedback for the first week until everyone learns how to properly use the Suggestion section and vents their "back seat driver Rage". What I have a problem with, is that we won't be able to post general FEEDBACK directly and immediately to the devs about Exploits, Bugs, and balance issues that we've BEEN able to post all this time under the old licensing. Taking THAT away is what's driving me nuts right now and is what I personally see as "going against the spirit of discussion". I have no idea why that would even need to change since it has nothing to do with Licensing, and I haven't seen a single compelling argument yet as to why we can't bring those issues straight to the Devs if they're urgent enough. IoW: Era and Wyn intend to use Banning to fix something that isn't broken and had nothing at all to do with the necessity for a change in Licensing --ilr 22:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok.. what part of "If Linsey is taking all the bug reports, exploit reports, balance suggestions directly on her talk page, she will never have time to look at anything else" isn't clear? The Developers, Linsey included have wanted a way to centralize these discussions that don't include exploding their talk pages to the point they are not usable for anything by anyone. We have tried to give that to them in the Feedback namespace, and have made everything easily accessible to both the community and the developers. Seriously ilr, how has it been working for you to be able to go directly to Linsey's page and post walls of text about how broken something is? Do you get timely answers? Are these things miraculously fixed instantaneously because you were able to take it directly to Linsey? Not that I have seen, what I have seen however, is that the same things (Leeching, FA, JQ, SF...) have been brought up on her page over and over and over, with walls of text discussions among the community, very little timely participation from even Linsey, and problems that still exist. If however, these things go to a central page (a user suggestion page, bug report page, game update feedback page) the community can discuss to their hearts content, and the developers can watch AND participate in the discussion as appropriate, and potentially have enough information from everyone to do something about it (the hope anyway). -- Wyn talk 22:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

She's been answering nearly all of those things actually, or atleast giving us some insight on why they won't be changing. And Ironically enough, the very Feedback about Pets, which is on my Page right here, which I argued wasn't a suggestion but rather a valid complaint.... resulted in changes weeks later just like the Ritualist/Spawning Arguments months before that. I have been vindicated by that which you seek to over-protect. I was right, Era was wrong, and now the Game(and the Menagerie Coral where your character "Lives" is better for it). ...you can thank me later for being such an excellent devil's advocate and having such faith in Linsey being able to walk and chew gum at the same time. IF Linsey really gets sick of our noise (and I'm sure she will at some point) ...I think she's brave enough to tell us so herself instead of pulling an Izzy. And I personally, will respect it so long as it's only temporary. But if you want to make that decision for her, then be prepared for all the fallout that comes with it. --ilr 22:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I see.. that's why her page hovers around 300kb and is on the verge of breaking browsers more often than not. I see. And it's YOU posting directly on her page that is directly responsible for the changes you are claiming, it has nothing to do with requests and feedback from anyone else, in any other manner. I get it ilr. You have your rose colored glasses to view the world through. None of the changes that have been made, or things that have been installed in the Feedback namespace have been against the wishes of the dev teams. But obviously nothing I can say is going to change your opinion of anything. -- Wyn talk 22:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Signature

Could you change your signature to point to your userpage/talk page instead of your feedback homepage as Guild Wars Wiki:Sign your comments#Links explains? Thanks. -- Brains12 \ talk 21:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You want me to point to a Blank Page? WHY the hell should I?? It doesn't make any SENSE --ilr 21:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much the content in the page, but how the page links to your contact and reference points in all the familiar places - talk page, contribs, logs, email if you have it enabled, and block, plus more if one has GWWT enabled. If you have a problem with it being blank, you could of course create it - perhaps with a link going to your feedback page.

However, as I said, you can also link to your talk page. -- Brains12 \ talk 21:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, it already DOES link to my talk page (click the Icon instead). The text itself links to my feedback page b/c that's been my personal portal back to that page and that's how I've been accessing it since it went up. If you force me to link to the blank User page then I'll just make IT redirect to my feedback page so that it retains the current utility I require. Would that be preferred? --ilr 21:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Not particularly - a signature is mostly for others to get to you, not for you to get to, say, the feedback area. As the policy explains, you should keep any links of interest on your userpage; alternatively, bookmark it in your browser, or put something in your monobook.js to add a link in your interface (see User:Brains12/monobook.js, at the bottom starting with addOnloadHook(function() {, as an example).

As for the image redirect, it's not automatically clear as to where it leads, but it's fine. However, that doesn't sort out the "no other internal or external links" part. -- Brains12 \ talk 21:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with linking to the feedback homepage, but it would be great if you could swap the links (linking to your talk page from the text and to your feedback homepage from the icon). poke | talk 22:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

DONE. But Am I going to be expected to go back retroactively and fix all my previous signatures for the last 3 weeks? ...I Can, but I was really hoping to work on other stuff. --ilr 22:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No. – Emmett 00:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Something broke my Signature... NvM

...So don't bother telling me that my name is no longer linking to my Talk... I already know that.
What I don't know is why... I didn't change anything about my code in Prefs, see:
'''[[User_talk:Ilr|<font color="blue">ilr</font>]]'''[[image:User_ilr_deprav.png]]
It might be something to do with this... but I don't wanna jump to conclusions.

PS: how do I manually add the timestamp?? I'd like to format that part of it too... --ilr 20:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You are aware that on your own talk page, your signature won't link to itself? --JonTheMon 20:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't linking in the Feedback space either but that seems to have fixed itself now.... either way: false alarm --ilr 22:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You are not allowed to redirect your signature image to Feedback namespace. I tried that and i almost got killed by "Our Benefactors". - J.P.Talk 22:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This has already been discussed on my page... plz drop it --ilr 22:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

out of curiosity, where is your main link to your archives? --JonTheMon 22:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Weird, for me it was an absolute NO! Though poke wasn't involved in the discussion. - J.P.Talk 22:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Terrific... you've just roped me into this pointless semantics fight against my will. Though I appreciate your concern and efforts to change such an ethereal policy quirk directly at its source. Look, my sig already goes to my talk page which is the only thing needed to contact me. Meanwhile my feedback page is my user page. It's the hub of my only real contributions to Anet therefore it's the only page that satisfies Emmet's own Declaration that one's identity page is defined by where the majority of users seek you out (as if that's even his decision alone to make). And I'm sure someone will get bored enough to make a big stink about it just long enough for me to reshuffle the redirects while clowning on them just to spite their overzealous efforts (news flash: I'm abrasive, I wear people down).

Placing redundant links on my user page creates an unnecessary extra step and thus creates more clutter, not less. But I'm pointing to the fact that they're the exact same thing, no re-interpratation required at all. Infact for the Devs themselves, their Feedback spaces are their talk pages now. Any nuance between the two is purely regressive; IE, the User's feedback space is an extension of their Userspace and the only difference is that Anet can legally use content from the second chain in that hierarchy. And in my case, there is no first chain therefore it defaults to the second. Contradicting that in effect means imbuing some users with different standards than others which is something that has already caused undue drama on the subjects of Socking/Trolling. ...It's not worth reinterpreting and enforcing. Nor am I a case that is setting precedent, they already set precedent when they made the Feedback structure what it is. --ilr 01:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

HM

I saw your HM section(s) above. Is advice still wanted and accepted? Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 21:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If you mean paragon builds, then yes, I'm always looking for more advice on them :) --ilr 21:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That and hero builds to assisst your paragon :P Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 23:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As over-powered "Fire magic's AoE pwnge" is considered in PvP, Fire magic is not for damage on HM. The main source of loss of life in a searing flames build is either the burning or the enemies to you.

Don't give a hero that is made for range stuff a PBAoE skill or a melee skill (that is to say no Spear Swipe [you are already better of with carrying it yourself]).

Air magic has nice utility (Blind, weakness and Cracked armor) as well as high single target damage.

Paragon's have one of the cheapest sources of Bleeding. If you accept PvE-only skills, why not using Signet of Infection? It harmonizes with the fevered mesmer hero quite well.

Hard-res on everyone. Really, it helps.

Master of Magic isn't really good for energy management on humans, let's not talk about spamming heroes.

Hero healers outclass the available henchmen heroes to a degree you could say bringing one is mandatory.

Angelic Protection is aweful. Even protection prayers 3 Protective Spirit deals better with pressure (yes, in PvE pressure tends to be of spike value).

I used Boon of Creation and Spirit Siphon, the siphon showed to be purely better on heroes and has the advantage of not being an enchantment to be stripped.

Splinter Weapon only shines in ball-up scenarios. AoE isn't bad, take it, but skills that are only good because of their AoE nature are bad. They cost too much time of positioning and tanking - you could just spike the foes off one after the other (in fact, many many groups are easier when doing this rather than AoE nuking).

Pain of Disenchantment is basically useless most of the time. And when it isn't it doesn't beat Defile Enchantments. You almost never have a foe protted to heaven and back.

Oh, and ever tried a Paragon thumper? They shine and are fun to play :D Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 16:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Master of Magic

Notes

• Heroes don't appear to use this skill unless told to do so.

Yep, those pesky spamming heroes. A F K When Needed 21:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I knew that was a mistake going in, but I'm sure it was more than just one cylinder that wasn't firing here. Noctarch definitely pointed out a lot more of those "compounding" problems across the team build itself which I'm certainly thankful for (and will try out the next time this mission is a Zquest). --ilr 23:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

An interesting note on randomness

If you have a room full of people and tell them to arrange themselves randomly throughout the room, the randomness of the distribution will decrease as the number of people increases as everyone tries to spread themselves out as much as possible (to try and make it "random") and actually end up forming a regular pattern. People have an idea that "random" has meaning, that people wouldn't be standing in clusters in a random system, of course anything is possible in a random system, that is why it is random. When they try to make things "more random", they of course make everything less random by removing possible outcomes and tend towards what people generally think random is. Then you end up with something like this, which is not random at all or incidentally, funny at all. Misery 14:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A fine point but here's the counterpoint: Many things (especially when human behavior is involved) which when viewed on the surface might appear totally random may infact be following a definite pattern. This is especially true for any socially engineered activity or reward system which encourages group think.
...And the titles, zaishen bonuses, and overall design of this latest format definitely falls into those categories. IoW: It's a grind which every right-thinking person will seek out the shortest path through and as long as the code is completely Non-objective in which skills are available daily; the predictable human response will always be to take the most gimmicky of those skills. Meaning that the RESULT will still follow the most predictable of patterns to the pre-calculated exclusion of true randomness. (whether they even realize it or not) --ilr 19:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I was simply looking at the definition of randomness. If you let people pick their skills, it will never be truly random. Pure randomness/badness is not the point of Sealed Deck though. Just wait until a deck with no viable healing is rolled and laugh. Misery 01:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

...Countin' the days... but I'd laugh a lot harder if there was one with only defensive elites --ilr 09:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I once played with a deck where there were no healing skills that could target yourself. Midline Heal Other to keep the monk alive! Misery 12:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sneaky aren't you?

→ moved from Feedback talk:Linsey Murdock

/Failpraise... according to the Wiki it's Friday Morning. ...And Major content (that can be exploited) should never be released on a Friday. --ilr 05:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Updates are usually done on friday midnights UTC. BlazeRick 10:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

But this one was done at 8 pm (midnight in eastern US, don't think that is UTC...). So the time of the time was different than usual. -- Konig/talk 11:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Some people whine when they don't get content...And then whine when they get content. Ergo, some people always whine anyway, just ignore them. The new model for Dhuum is impressive, the artist who designed it did an amazing job. The new rewards are nice, too - I'm very curious to see the new scythe in-game.

It is a pity, though, that one of the first reports of successfully defeating Dhuum came from a team of six Shadow Form assassins. Apparently Shadow Form will still be considered the way to play through this new content. Erasculio 11:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey check it out... the guy who whined about me making a joke is also whining about shadowform. Double Bonus! --ilr 11:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You know someone is a whiner when he can't tell the difference between whining (such as complaining when an update is released) and constructive criticism (such as pointing that SF is still the most prevalent build in the UW). Erasculio 11:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

/facepalm --ilr 11:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

...And later tries to hide it by changing a previous entry in a discussion that had already progressed. Tsk, the things people to do to try to disguise their own ignorance. Erasculio 11:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It didn't feel like a joke when I excitedly checked my wiki last night to see how people were reacting to Dhuum's release... - Linsey talk 18:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Then, I would suggest checking GWGuru as well (or really, any of the major forums). People there seem to feel that the irony is palpable. Karate Jesus 18:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, You mean this?? ...yeah under-linking the exact wording only "changes" it if you didn't know what it meant in the first place. This would be rather LuLzy to me right about now if Linsey hadn't taken it personally enough to bother responding. And I'd point out exactly how petty and hypocritical you're being Era... but I think I'll just let it perish as a failed experiment in satire and next time I'll be sure to include a big Visual aid so that even a constant drama inciter like you can't muck up the message. --ilr 21:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hah, denial is amazing. If you haven't noticed: Linsey said it didn't feel like a joke. You "mucked up" your own message by trying (and failing, as expected) to make a joke or whatever it was the trash you were spewing was supposed to be. If even Linsey going as close as she can to telling you to shut up is not enough to make you stop pestering her, well, I'll just have to hope you'll be banned soon like your friend KJ above was. Erasculio 01:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

dont be so mean 127.0.0.1 01:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

...wishing ill of people on a place they can't avoid is one step away from Threats and Harassment. In other words, I know that you are attempting to troll me into attacking you back so that you can attempt to report me to the Noticeboard again. It may work... and it may not work... But the point being is that your own hands are far from clean and so long as there is even one sysop who might disagree with the lengths you go to, to protect Anet from honest opinions ...your own "good standing" of never being banned is in question as well. ...But I thank you for NOT moving Nathe's topic to my page(yet) as you're so fond of doing with so many other topics for the sole purpose of annoying me... --ilr 01:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) ...also I think I've demonstrated that I have sympathy for Linsey and wouldn't intentionally and instantly sandbag her right on the release of anything she put a lot of effort into. And I can cite (and link to) multiple cases where I ALWAYS wait days or even weeks (because that's long it takes me to test skill/content Changes) before I deconstruct anything. --ilr 01:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, sympathy. So explain me one thing: how is your request (to know if Linsey is still interested in the Feedback space) not insinuating that her comment from 3 days ago, about how she reads the Feedback space, was a lie? Because it's one thing to state "honest opinions", another to go to someone's talk page and without any evidence call that person a liar. Or do you think that would not be ground enough by itself to report you for a violation of the "no personal attacks" policy, if I were interested at all in wiki-lawyering? Erasculio 01:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi erasculio. My name is Guild Wars. I have not been changed for the better in over a year now, and haven't had any significant changes in months. My makers say they read feedback on how to make me more fun, except none of it is ever put into the game. Thus, whether they read it or not is completely irrelevant, because they don't do jack shit with suggestions even if they do read them. My makers saying they read anything is, in the most ideal circumstances, a lie, because if if is the truth, then they're systematically ignoring a great number of suggestions that are rather easy to implement that will make me leagues better than I currently am, and focusing on small changes that take entirely too much effort for very little payoff. -Auron 18:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Auron, you know as well as I do that "reading the Feedback space" =\= reading "a great number of suggestions that are rather easy to implement that will make me leagues better" : P I don't think Arena Net is handling Guild Wars very well; I don't like the suggestions they have chosen to listen to and have implemented; however, making Linsey stop reading the wiki out of disgust is not really going to help. As it is, with Linsey posting here once in a while, we at least get some insights on why Arena Net makes some changes; if people pester Linsey enough so she eventually decides to not bother with the wiki anymore, we would lose even that. It's not really part of her job to deal with that kind of community feedback (that's Regina's job), and it's not like she couldn't just pull an Isaiah and be gone from here.

And before someone *coughilrcough* claims I'm saying we should give Linsey no negative feedback: I think we have to give her negative feedback, but with respect. Going to her page, calling her a liar and then demanding stuff isn't exactly a way to show respect. Erasculio 18:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey

So I noticed your reason for opposing me and you mentioning my name in the section above. You seem to think I have some kind of enduring grudge against you, when as far as I know we haven't even been involved in a discussion with each other in at least six months, let alone been at each other's throats. I certainly can't recall bullying you. Have I missed something? What exactly is up here? Misery 20:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It's nothing personal yet, you're just the kind of person who Associates with those who would take overstepping authoritative actions against simple nuisances. This isn't character assassination, it's just me getting my Symetrist's-O.C.D. moral grievances in Early and ahead of the curve. I don't have to tell YOU that the wiki's toxically divided on certain things and a tipping point is inevitable despite Gordon's RFA not being that point; it's still an indicator that bolstered your candidacy and that is what I'm objecting to. I don't agree with change just for the sake of change. And you WOULD change things. ...More to the point, you would unbalance them. --ilr 21:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That does explain the comments pertaining to my adminship, but it doesn't explain why I was included above. I'm not convinced that you have an adequate understanding of who I am, what motivates me or what I am trying to achieve. I think it is this that has lead to conflict between us in the past. About the changes, am I right in thinking that you don't mean I seek to actively change things, but more that the fact that I am being elected points towards change already inherent in the system? Changes, that you are uncomfortable with? My current plans involve not being here for a while and I have said as much, so I don't think I will be changing much of anything in the forseeable future. If the culture of this wiki is changing, I submit that it is independent of me. Misery 23:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You are merely a troll. His points are spot on, and he has quite enough understanding of you to see that. Unbalancing things is your goal, regardless of how you look at the situation - both your comments (and more importantly, your actions) on-wiki and off-wiki indicate that. He is one of the few users whose eyes you haven't thrown the wool over, which explains why you're trying to do it now. -Auron 23:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Auron. Misery 23:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

sup bru -Auron 23:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

#1>You pick your words too carefully for me to describe anything between us as "Conflict".
#2> your ACTIONS (or edits) were too often so under the radar that there's no point in me even trying to draw attention to them. Now the first one is just Hubris, your hastiness to dismiss my sense of character judgment confirms that I'm not respectable as a peer Or as a threat to you. And that's fine too, infact it's the chief reason I act like a jackass all the time. But that second one, is the primary reason for my Objecting in the present:
Upon promotion, you will be elevated above the radar where no amount of careful word choice can fend off consequences of action. And you can pretend to a be "patsy" of coming changes already inherent but ultimately the problem remains that you cavalierly accept the mantle of change to do exactly what Gordon has been criticized hardest for, IE: going it alone to a degree ...but in the opposite swing of the pendulum. And there is support for it. And that's what I disagree with and want you to be most aware of.
Now feel to tell me the situation is completely different... I'll be too busy in-game trying to get my effing account back from these geniuses who probably failed a Wal-Mart Security Certification. --ilr 03:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I guess we'll just have to see what happens. I don't think we understand each other at all, I especially don't understand the concept of "Going it alone" with "support for it". Merry Christmas and happy New Year. Misery 08:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA support

Not to nit-pick, but what are you talking about when you say that I "never missed a beat on archiving Dev Talks"? --JonTheMon 03:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Note to self: this wiki has TWO Jon 's
...oh well, I'm not gonna change my vote just b/c of that :D --ilr 03:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Lol. Just checking to see if you were thinking of the other Jon. --JonTheMon 05:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsigned Templates

Can you do me a favor, if you're going to tag something with an unsigned template, please subst it, I.E. {{subst:unsigned|12.53.93.199}}, so it will replace the template code with the actual contents of the template. . I'm told bad things happen to pages with too many templates. Sound fair? — Jon Lupen 18:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Did poke tell ya that? If not then I'm gonna need more than just secondhand explanations. ...Not that it matters since that section I tagged *should* be archived in a day or two anyway at which point all templates should be converted by the archivist, RIGHT?? --ilr 18:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm about 95% sure it was Poke (this was a while back...), and a few other people chimed in to reinforce the point. Also, fair point, but good practice is good, know what I mean? Also, it's easier to do the leg-work in small increments up front, than do it all on the back end. Because seriously, searching 80kb+ of text for templates buried in the text is not fun, and very time consuming... :P — Jon Lupen 18:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Paras do pretty serious damage.

Th'fuck do you mean "unsustainable skill chain"? It's not a skill chain. It's 5 very good damage skills that paragons can use on recharge. If you've ever opened obs and watched a para, you'd know that paragons do pretty ridiculous damage considering that they're throwing swords at people. is for Raine, etc. 02:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

And just how the fuck exactly do I "Obs" these SRS DMG high-end PvE Para Teams? ...where's the menu for that? --ilr 05:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure a Cruel Spear para would throw rapesticks just as rapeishly in PvE. Especially since they have a spike skill that recharges all their other spike skills.

As if lol I has deepwound every 2 attacks isn't good enough, their passive 60-damage shout has no recharge and they get a shout that's better defense than anything in the game, including armor. Oh and another one.

Paragons are ridiculous in PvE, and not just imbagons. They can pump out yellow numbers in a pretty noteworthy fashion. is for Raine, etc. 06:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting to get the impression that you've never played hard mode before in your life. Because if you had you would have noticed that pretty much everything in hardmode has enough armor to make your spear about as usefull as a BB gun. --Master Briar 07:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Including Casters... who are atleast 100 to 120 AL depending on skills.... Normally that wouldn't even be a problem except that they always have heals of some kind and insanely fast casting speeds on top of level 20+ attributes. Imba doesn't even begin to describe Caster mobs in HM... You actually start to feel sorry for most of the Physical (warriors, paras, etc) mobs b/c they're so weak in comparison and can usually be ignored. --ilr 07:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You know Searing Flames hits DoA mobs for like 46 (tops, after weaken armor and Ele Lord) without other damage buffs? Add in burning, and eles are doing ~29 dps w/ searing flames (that's just one ele, the others are only doing ~15). Paragons can pretty easily exceed that on a single target *while maintaining SY!*. No, a wiki imbagon can't, but a Soldier's Fury or Cruel Spear para can pretty damned easily.

When was the last time you did a DoA run? is for Raine, etc. 16:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Two nights ago on HardMode... Infact I'm fixin' to write a rant about here (soon as I find the right words) --ilr 18:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Earlier this morning. Searing Flames is for morons. --Master Briar 21:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Heket

I have one if your still looking for it. --Master Briar 07:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes... yes I very much am... You want to trade or ya just want the Plat for it? --ilr 07:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ive been looking for a miniature freezie...? --Master Briar 07:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, those three I listed under "Duplicates" are all I have to offer... --ilr 07:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Meh. oh well. Ill let you know as soon as I remember my mule accounts log in address. --Master Briar 07:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)