User talk:Jon Lupen/Archive1

Archives

---

• Izzy Police
• April 09
• May 09
• June 09
• Aug 09
• Sept 09
• Jan 10

Its good to have a row

I'll move this from Shard's space to save him time archiving. Anyway...at some point I think we found a common ground of agreement. Either way, that was an enjoyable row. Argue with me again sometime, its enjoyable when people actually have facts to back claims. Hit my page or we can continue where we left off on Shard's page here if there's anything left to say.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 00:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't like to argue, I like to discuss =D. Anyway, I'm out for the moment unless you have more. — Jon 00:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

you sir

Are a random person.Anyway if you ought it to be done you can move the discussion to my talk page.Lilondra *gale* 16:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for volunteering :) — Jon Lupen 21:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This talk page

is too short for a user who is doing such good work. Keep it up! ;) — Why 00:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, very much. =D — Jon Lupen 00:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that's funny. I reinstalled Morrowind that day, even though I hadn't seen that message! And yes indeed it > GW, though it was better when it was new. Its replayability is lower than GW's, imo. Still, as I haven't played it for over two years, starting anew feels great. Have you played Oblivion too? — Why 23:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh by the way, you might be a horse, but I still think you should consider this, some time in the future, if you're interested. You'd do a good job, I think. Atm I fear you'd have too many votes against you just because people are pissed off you're patrolling Izzy's page though. — Why 23:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL! If you ever finish everything XD Yes, played Oblivion too and it's not as good as Morrowind was. Oblivion has pretty much all the good mechanics, Morrowind has ALL the good content. Each of the guilds and faction quest line sin Morrowins is 2 to 3 times (or more) longer than each of Oblivion's, and there are so many more. I still hold up Morrowind as a shining example of what a good game should be.

I've thought about an RFA, and am considering one down the line, but right now I just haven't been around long enough. I may have a rather good rep, but it's not a very extensive one.

I also lol'd pretty hard at the "THIS USER IS A HORSE!!!!!1111" — Jon Lupen 00:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Hehe. Agreed on Oblivion vs Morrowind. I regret not being able to join the magic mushroom people Great House Telvanni in Oblivion. Shivering Isles did make up for that, a bit, but not totally. Still, I very much enjoyed the Dark Brotherhood chain in Oblivion, it was unlike anything from Morrowind. If you liked that one too, this might interest you. It's a very large mod continuing those quests. It's still a WIP, but they're nearly done. I'll be one of the lucky few béta-testing it soon. :D (we still need more béta testers by the way, so, I don't know if you're thát interested, but if you want to join, I think they'd have a spot for you.) — Why 00:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I did enjoy the Dark Brotherhood quite a bit in Oblivion, and it saddens me that it's not joinable in Morrowind. I checked the link, and I think I'll wait until it's out and check it out then. As it stands I'm pretty solidly booked on time for a while. Sounds pretty cool, and the site alone is rather impressive. Keep me posted and hit me up when they've finished it. =D — Jon Lupen 00:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I will. I'll be under NDA as soon as testing begins, but I'll tell you once it gets released ^^ — Why 00:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. — Jon Lupen 00:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Gogo make 13 relevant edits, btw. :P — Why 23:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm? — Jon Lupen 23:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

OH! Nvm, I see. — Jon Lupen 23:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ran into a tree?

Is the tree OK? Get well soon! — Why 00:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I actualy did run into a tree. Be better in a few days, Thanks — Jon Lupen 00:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I ran into a tree once. It had been raining so my pants and shirt got all wet. My friend laughed at me and tells people that story... Misery 20:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, me running into a tree at a very high velocity did NOT end up very well. I was unconscious for quite some time afterwards. I ended the deal with 16 skull fractures, a fractured rib, and a fractured sternum. If I had not been wearing a helmet at the time, I might not have made it out of the whole deal alive =O or in MUCH worse shape at best, possibly with permanent damage. — Jon Lupen 20:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You ended up with a cool story and multiple fractures. I ended up with an embarrassing story and wet pants. I consider you the victor. Misery 20:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Physicaly tho, I think you walked away in MUCH better shape than I did. Heck, you were able to actualy walk away. I, on the other hand, was shipped out to the hospital while unconscious :P Oh, not to mention a cut on my scalp that severed a small artery close to the surface of the skin. My right eye was also black, blue and purple from a massive bruse for quite some time. plus my left shoulder is not doing to fine atm. I was pretty messed up. — Jon Lupen 20:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

here, thought you might like these

1. The roundest knight at King Arthur's round table was Sir Cumference. He acquired his size from too much pi.

2. I thought I saw an eye doctor on an Alaskan island, but it turned out to be an optical Aleutian.

3. She was only a whiskey maker, but he loved her still.

4. A rubber band pistol was confiscated from algebra class because it was a weapon of math disruption.

5. The butcher backed into the meat grinder and got a little behind in his work.

6. No matter how much you push the envelope, it'll still be stationery.

7. A dog gave birth to puppies near the road and was cited for littering.

8. A grenade thrown into a kitchen in France would result in Linoleum Blownapart.

9. Two silk worms had a race. They ended up in a tie.

10. Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

11. A hole has been found in the nudist camp wall. The police are looking into it.

12. Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

13. Two hats were hanging on a hat rack in the hallway. One hat said to the other, 'You stay here; I'll go on a head.'

14. I wondered why the baseball kept getting bigger. Then it hit me.

15. A sign on the lawn at a drug rehab center said: 'Keep off the Grass.'

16. A small boy swallowed some coins and was taken to a hospital. When his grandmother telephoned to ask how he was, a nurse said, 'No change yet.'

17. A chicken crossing the road is poultry in motion.

19. The short fortune-teller who escaped from prison was a small medium at large.

20. The man who survived mustard gas and pepper spray is now a seasoned veteran.

21. A backward poet writes inverse.

22. In democracy it's your vote that counts. In feudalism it's your count that votes.

23. When cannibals ate a missionary, they got a taste of religion.

24. Don't join dangerous cults: Practice safe sects!

-- WoB (contribs) 19:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

HAHA! #6 is the best imo. — Jon Lupen 20:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

xD, #24 is the best imo lol -- WoB (contribs)

Yeah, #24 is pretty good. I lol'd at #12 too. I like #13, it amused me as well. =D They're all pretty witty, I like the list as a whole. — Jon Lupen 00:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I laughed so hard at #9. Thanks for posting ^^ — Why 02:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

^^ -- WoB (contribs) 04:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

i like #1 and #4 the most xD - Y0_ich_halt 20:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, those amused me, as well as #5 =) — Jon Lupen 20:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Very nice; did you find these or make them up yourself? Sentry007 22:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of them I found, only like 6 of them I came up with. -- WoB (contribs) 02:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Clever there, no matter which ones you came up with, as they all are — Jon Lupen 03:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to say, "Major lulz"! - Ara Ara 03:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Signature

This isn't a complaint, just bringing it to your attention that your signature coding is very long and a tad on the confusing side when editing around it. Not a criticism though, as it's a nice sig, but if their is anyway you could get the same effect with shorter coding it would be greatly appreciated, but if you can't/don't want to change it, thats cool too. :) -- Salome 03:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You could save a little bit of code by changing it to...

— [[User:Jon Lupen|<span style="color:blue;font-family:Castellar;">'''Jon]] [[Image:User_Jon_Lupen_Sig_Image.png|18px]] [[User Talk:Jon Lupen|Lupen'''</span>]]

If that helps. Vili 03:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

@Salome:I'll have a look at it and see what I can turn up.

@Vili:Thanks for the tip :) — Jon Lupen 05:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I got it taken care of. I went with Vili's solution. My new sig was an add-on from my old one, so I really didn't think about slimming it down sadly....

@Salome: It's completely understandable to ask someone to streamline to code to there sig, it's quite another if you where you try and force them to change their sig with little to no reason, as the former requires no change to what your sig actualy looks like. — Jon Lupen 16:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I never noticed...*hits edit on an older post* meh. It wasn't so bad.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 21:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

True, but it could have been shorter, so shorter it became. — Jon Lupen 21:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed something, it appears my signature hadn't changed somehow last time I tried to change it :P It should be fine now. — Jon Lupen 21:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure it is fine? Last time I tried the way Vili suggested does not work, and your signature looks weird now. — Why 23:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Span can go outside the brackets to reduce some code, colours cannot, <span style="font-family:Castellar;">[[User:Jon Lupen|<font color="blue">'''Jon'''</font>]] [[Image:User_Jon_Lupen_Sig_Image.png|18px]] [[User Talk:Jon Lupen|<font color="blue">'''Lupen'''</font>]]</span> is optimised.

Looks like this: Jon Lupen

Vili's solution looks like this: Jon Lupen

Hope that helps. Misery 23:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any problem, they all look the same on my computer, the old, Vili's and Misery's versions. — Jon Lupen 23:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

AHA! Firefox/IE difference, let me show you what Vili's version looks like on Firefox: Jon Lupen

My version looks identical on both, your call if you care about firefox users. Misery 00:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I see the difference now, in Vili's, "Lupen" turns purple outside of my talk page. — Jon Lupen 00:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, for me your new signature looks like Jon Lupen on Opera and IE, and like Jon Lupen on Chrome, FF and Safari. — Why 01:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I use IE myself, as Fire Fox doesn't play very well with quite a few sites I go to. — Jon Lupen 02:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wub hater

-- Wyn 23:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't see that one comming. :P The only thing I have wrong with wub is when people just use it excesively with no reason. It's always fascinating when people construct large and elaborate banners and such on the other hand. :) — Jon Lupen 23:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol! I'm the only one that really ever uses it excessively (or those around me) and it's been awhile :P -- Wyn 23:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW... Vili suggested I name my broken heart template {{lupen}} -- Wyn 23:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Ouch, that hurts a little bit right there *points*</sarcams> Just trying to prevent someone from being a super excessive wub spammer XD Your wub use falls under the "humorous and tolerably high" level of use. ;) — Jon Lupen 23:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Libel

Only if it isn't true. False accusations of libel fall under libel, by the way. --216.241.108.106 21:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

False assumptions fall under untrue, and so does twisting words and missquoting. — Jon Lupen 21:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither of which involve the intent necessary to be libel. Please stop diluting my perfectly good legal words with your dirty peasant fingers. --216.241.108.106 21:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering a good number of Shard's comments are in the "I hate Anet" category, and so are a good many in his FAQ, hate-spreading is considered malicious and would categorize his comments under libel. — Jon Lupen 22:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Opinions do not constitute libel. The hate-spreading is all in your interpretation, which for the purpose of this exercise is worth about as much as the electricity it took to type it out. --216.241.108.106 22:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

How good of a lawyer you have on the case is what decides what constitutes libel and what does not, as they are the ones that proove intent. I'm just calling them as I see them, and from my end (and from a rather neutral party) this looks like libel. Whether or not Shard's comments are libel or not has nothing to do with it, as they are still NPA violations. That many NPA violations (even one) constitute a block. Case closed. — Jon Lupen 22:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No, see, it isn't libel if it's true. By definition, it isn't libel if it's true. Hate-spreading doesn't even fall under defamation, let alone libel. There is no interpretation to be done here except if ANet has done their job or not, and that answer's pretty clear. --216.241.108.106 22:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Jon and I have already come to an understanding on this topic. But I'm going to reply anyway just to clear everything up nicely. Let's ask Mr. Webster what "libel" is: "1. A tort consisting of false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person." "2. Make slanderous statements against;".

Let's look up "slander" & "defaming" as well, while we're at it. Slander: "1. Words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another." Defamate: "A malicious attack."

So, looking at those definitions, we can concur that Shard does attempt to defamate Anet, however, he uses arguments, events, quotes, and backup to substantiate his attacks, therefore it cannot be considered "libel" because it is not outright untrue. Now lets look up the word "propaganda": "1. Information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause." All right, now that sounds more like it, as Shard's arguments are not about showing what Anet did right, but rather what he sees as effectively wrong making them onesided arguments. Onsided arguments can be considered the definition of "propaganda", making Shard a propagandist. Not all propaganda is bad, btw.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 21:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Goal #1

1. Chess.
2. QQ about skill changes.
3. Just for fun and creating random templates for the lolz.
4. Me.
5. And just cause there's nothing else to do.
   

-- Halogod35 12:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps something a bit more constructive... — Jon Lupen 21:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you really need something to do...

1. Document the HA, JQ/FA and DoA cinematics for us here. We're nearly done, just too lazy to finish.
2. Capture some skill animations here. It doesn't look like I'll be able to start doing the warrior animations any time soon.

You asked for it.. :P — Why 23:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do in the ways of Warrior animations, when I find some time. — Jon Lupen 23:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Go find a build that's fun. -- Halogod35 01:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I already have a good number of those in store. — Jon Lupen 01:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol have you gone dervish bombing? -- Halogod35 02:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, sounds gimmicky to me. — Jon Lupen 02:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol it's fun. -- Halogod35 11:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

[1]

Guild Wars was built from the ground up to be a PvP game. PvP hardcore > PvE masses. --75.71.67.5 01:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Lesson number one in any company that is based around delivering a product to a consumer base, you always catter to the majority. The PvE masses VASTLY outnumber the PvP hardcore, and that's all there is to it. What the players have to say about that changes nothing. — Jon Lupen 01:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

ArenaNet set out to create a PvP game, but because a bunch of carebears are too cheap to pay a subscription fee for a game that is actually built for PvE, ANet should abandon the core ideals they started out with in order to better cater to an audience they never had the intention of seriously courting? That's a fucking stupid thought, and you should feel bad for having it. --75.71.67.5 02:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

ANet also initially set out to create new campaigns every six months, which should be pretty indicative that they intended their game to be played by both PvP and PvE enthusiasts. --★KOKUOU★ 02:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Anet also initially didnt have balthazar faction. The only way to unlock skills and items for pvp, was through PvE, thus pretty clear it was never aimed at solely being a PvP game. FYI Historical facts > baseless comments. -- Salome 02:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The youtube link has one of the founders of ANet stating on video that Guild Wars was designed to be a PvP game. Just because they stuck in a PvE aspect doesn't mean PvE was intended to be equally (or anywhere near) as important. --75.71.67.5 02:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Intentions have nothing to do with who turned out as your majority, and you always catter to your majority, whether they were your target or not. — Jon Lupen 02:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a pile of shit and you know it. Their game isn't made for PvE. The only remotely PvE-esque thing they have are a billion grind titles, but they have no especially hard dungeons nor are they adding anymore ever. Throwing PvP in the trash when it's the only thing your game really does well is a stupid fucking idea no matter how you look at it.

They made a mistake assuming that there were more PvPers than PvErs. They realized their mistake too late, and they have never done anything to make the PvE content more fun or enjoyable. I'm not entirely sure they even know what to do anymore, since they don't have enough people to add real PvE content - so their only option is to add waffle and bullshit and hope people buy it long enough for them to announce GW2 beta in 2020. Their adding waffle and bullshit should not get in the way of them balancing the game, since honestly, fixing the PvP is easier because there's more of a framework for it to begin with. -Auron >8< 02:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Compared to the PvE content of games made for PvE, guild wars has jack shit. Look at WoW - flying mounts, quests that have you pilot tanks and cannons, plant mines to blow stuff up, and a ton of actually high-end content to do when you reach 80. Guild Wars has only ever had a dungeon or two that were ever worth doing, and those are completely compromised by the presence of shadow form.

ANet should not be catering to a PvE audience because their PvE is a piece of shit. You hit 20 and there is nothing to do. It should be the opposite - you should still be questing to get equipment or money, should still be doing dungeons for the best equipment... GW has none of it.

Like the IP said, GW was made as a PvP game with all of the PvE content leading up to PvP. At some point they realized there were more PvErs than PvPers (years too late, naturally, since they've never had even remotely competent community reps), so ANet ditches PvP entirely while trying to prop up their basically PvE-less game in the eyes of PvErs. It's a sad state GW is in, but instead of destroying the only good thing they've ever had, they should be trying to salvage it. PvErs are easy to please, just put in a new weapon skin every month or two and they'll mistake that for actual content and grind for it. There isn't so much shit on their plate that they can afford to completely forget about balance.

@Kokuou; you're only half right. Their campaigns were originally intended to swap - one would focus on PvP, the next on PvE. Both player bases weren't expected to play the same campaigns equally. Factions was obviously a PvP campaign for so many reasons I won't even bother rehashing them, but before Nightfall came out, they realized they couldn't keep up with their original plan, so they threw the last few PvP ideas into Nightfall (a primarily PvE campaign) and called it a day. It wasn't their good planning that made GW what it is today - it was more their lack of planning.

@salome - you're also half right. Your basis is correct but you draw the wrong conclusion from it. People were supposed to do PvE before PvP, but that's all it was - a lead-up to the actual content. It was never intended to be a standalone product, or they would have included... y'know, actual content in PvE. -Auron >8< 02:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really Auron. I agree with your post, just not with the "half right" comment. The conlcusion I drew was that they never intended the game to be solely PvP and they didn't. However initially PvE was supposed to just be a training area and introduction for PvP. The high end game was supposed to be PvP itself, however that never came to be unfortunately. :( -- Salome 02:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Jon, there's a phrase for that. It goes "selling out". Maybe you're just a whore at heart, but most people tend to expect a little integrity in other people. Everyone who isn't Jon, please ignore my post and discuss Auron's. --75.71.67.5 02:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Selling out, saddly it's what companies do. It's all about making money, as much as I hate the fact that it is. — Jon Lupen 02:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

ArenaNet is a privately-held company, they aren't beholden to anyone. They don't get to use that excuse. --75.71.67.5 02:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

@Auron: I suppose you're correct about Factions being intended as mostly a PvP campaign, but the fact that many people play the game for its PvE aspect must mean that those doing so are satisfied with the amount of content, for the most part. Sure, games like WoW may have more content and be geared more toward PvE players, but I know many people that just want to play a casual MMO (I realize technically that GW is a CORPG, but in any case...), and GW fits that bill nicely. Your opinion that there is no actual content, while valid as an opinion, is just that--an opinion. PvErs are obviously satisfied for the most part and make up the majority, so for ANet to ignore that sector wouldn't, as I said above, be a sound financial or economic decision. Not that I agree with PvP skill balances and voices in the PvP community going unheard--I agree they are or feel that they are to a large extent--but it's unfair for people to hold them to and judge them for changing their business plan when we all know stagnation leads to death in a business. --★KOKUOU★ 02:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

@Auron: The goal is to stick around long enough and give themselves enough time to fix the PvP. From your point of view, PvE may be in the horrible state it's in, but it's still selling copies of the game, and keeping Arena Net afloat. You can only work on PvP as long as you have the funding to continue developement. That's what choosing the content update over one month's balance was about. They have to keep selling copies, and making money if they want to stick around long enough to finish Guild Wars 2 and/or balance PvP in Guild Wars. — Jon Lupen 02:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)