User talk:Raine Valen/Archive 2

Three days of relative calm.

My posting habits

I actually probably spend equal amounts of time being useful and constructive and being useless and destructive unfortunately. There is a kicker in my personality to stop the universe from becoming unbalanced. I am curious to see whether or not I am ever going to finish my guild halls project, I actually played a little GvG today for the first time in a long time, so that is progress. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Misery (talk). 00:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but there's the rub: to prevent the universe from becoming unbalanced, one with ability like yourself must be as constructive as possible in order to offset those who are intentionally and unintentionally destructive. Some people don't know any better, and it is the charge of the capable to counteract their innocent failage. Raine - talk 01:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You cannot balance the universe without balancing yourself first. Vili 01:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality only creates balance when everything else is neutral. In any situation that is already unbalanced, a weight on the light side does more to create balance than a weight in the center. Though, ideally, everything would be balanced and so everything else could afford to be balanced, that is not the case. Until the world is so, unbalanced forces are required to create balance overall.

That argument completely aside, should not a wiki (and, for that matter, anything) be unbalanced entirely in favor of the constructive, under ideal circumstances? Raine - talk 02:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you been talking to Izzy lately?

Of course not. Otherwise I wouldn't be here. D: While trolls and vandals and spambots generally are a nuisance, no wiki would be complete without them. Besides, sometimes trolling can be constructive, or at least get attention. Vili 02:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Constructive trolling is constructive. Raine - talk 02:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Truth be told, if I spend all my time being purely constructive I burn out or get bored. That is why my Guild Hall project has floundered. Bored. Trolling and destructive behaviour is what used to keep the PvXwiki RC so busy which strangely meant that vandals were caught very quickly because there were so many people sitting on RC waiting to add the next link to a /wave chain. Various initiatives have reduced the amount of trolling/useless behaviour and now RC on PvX is about as dead as it is here. Luckily this means I get more work done during the day and I'm at quite a busy period right now. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Misery (talk). 11:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that is why I have been "catching" the vandalbots for hours now, instead of working on my long-planned projects :p Also, RC here is a freight train compared to what I'm used to, so I would hate to imagine what it must have been on PvX. Vili 11:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have rewritten parts my balance laws. Dark Morphon(contribs) 12:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

your dervish rework

Ive read to pretty much all now and excluding some exeptions that might be OP I must say I just <3 the changes Lilondra *gale* 19:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

TY very much. ^^ Raine - talk 19:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Reduce the cripple duration of WS to about 3 seconds though enough for a spike or to do some serious damage but also this way the monk might even wait out those seconds (atm he would just mend touch as DW is a pretty dangerous condition) Lilondra *gale* 07:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Would 2-5 seconds be better? (5 seconds is enough for 3 normal-speed attacks with an IAS; 6 seconds was enough for 4) Raine - talk 08:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and that's assuming that the target isn't kiting, and with no IMS. With kiting, we're looking at about 2/3 of that, 3/4 with a 25% IMS on the Derv. Raine - talk 08:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

3 attacks should be more then enough especially when dervs go chilling 91.177.234.244 11:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

3 attacks is typical for an Eviscerate spike, but that has a huge difference: KD-lock. With that take into consideration, should the duration still be dropped? Raine - talk 12:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think yes.The thing is the cripple should allow to be INCREDIBLY powerfull for a short term and after that its just powerfull.Most dervs will go chilling + mystic for example after that.If they use more attack skills they will be dropping utility and what promotes skill ? utility so what is supposed to be played ? utility Lilondra *gale* 15:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Izzy's page

→ moved from User talk:Isaiah Cartwright

Valid question, but history dictates that a response is somewhat unlikely.

The following is all conjecture, but that is all I, or anyone else save the balance team itself (which has been largely nonextant on this wiki as of late), can offer.

I think that Arena Net believes that the skills are balanced, because they have been tested extensively. Now, I think that "tested extensively" means "tested extensively for functionality", not "tested extensively for balance". However, the active wiki community dictates that these skills are, in fact, imbalanced; their continued existence in their current state seems to say that Arena Net either (1) does not listen to these players, (2) does not care what these players think, or (3) does not have the resources to remedy these grievances. None of the three previous items are exclusive.

To try to answer the second half of the question, I'll say that I believe that we are, in fact, wasting time calling for nerfs (or balances at all, for that matter). I say this not necessarily because I believe that Arena Net thinks these skills balanced, but because there is little evidence to show that Arena Net uses this wiki as a source for balance suggestions.

Though saying that we should be more patient is very debatable, given the state of the game, we really don't have any other choice at the moment.

If you must have an answer from Arena Net, though, I recommend asking one of the other developers; some of them do respond on a regular basis, and may be able to provide you with better information than I can. If you've any other questions, feel free to use my talk page (or continue this conversation here, if it's not deleted). I hope this clears things up a bit. Raine - talk 10:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Since response from anyone but Izzy or the balance team is not likely to 'clear things up' I don't understand why you continue to put forth your speculations as they are virtually meaningless to the majority of the community. It's been said repeatedly that Izzy's page is not for skill feedback, or balance discussions. Use the many forums that are designed for it. People have really lost sight of what the wiki's purpose and function is, to encyclopediacally document the game. Debates regarding anything other than the content of the documentation is beyond it's function and purpose. -- Wyn/talk 10:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I'm not discussing balance at all, nor am I providing skill feedback here. You could, I suppose, argue that "the active wiki community dictates that these skills are, in fact, imbalanced" is skill feedback, or "given the state of the game" is balance discussion", but I don't think that that post reads as if my intention was to provide skill feedback or to discuss balance; not only is it prohibited on this page, but it's also utterly pointless here. I could either argue that on technicalities or you could just take my word for it and make it a non-issue.

The issue with forums is that they are equally as neglected as this page (and reasonably so, unlike the feedback pages on this official wiki). The wiki's function is to document the game, except for the areas designed for feedback, which are also typically not addressed (Read: lack of things being addressed).-

"Since response from anyone but Izzy or the balance team is not likely to 'clear things up' I don't understand why you continue to put forth your speculations." Well, because "history dictates that a response [from Izzy or the balance team] is somewhat unlikely"; I already said this, and I apologize if that was worded in such a way as to imply something different. Since the user that originally posted the question is probably not going to get a response from Izzy or the balance team, ever, the speculation of other users is the best that he or she is likely to get here. Furthermore, I see no hostile response to the user-posted responses above; if you'd be so kind, I'd like to know why I've been honored so. That aside, if you've a more appropriate response, no one's stopping you from posting it.

Now, if you'd like to make this belligerent (I'm just inclined to argue that "your speculations... are virtually meaningless to the majority of the community"; that was pretty tactless and equally as baseless), then this certainly isn't the place for it; if you are so inclined, though, my talk page is always open to the hostility of other users.

Thank you for your constructive feedback. Raine - talk 12:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Simple... if you are not Izzy, or a member of the balance team, your response to the OP's questions is unasked for and unnecessary and has little actual bearing on his questions since as you admit, it is all speculation. People don't post on Izzy's page to hear your speculations, or anyone else's, they post in the hope of getting an answer from Izzy. If they don't it's not required of anyone else to provide them with one. I'm simply saying that if you are not Izzy (which you aren't) and are not a member of the balance team (which you're not) stop answering questions on Izzy's page. Be offended all you wish that your opinions and speculations mean absolutely nothing. -- Wyn/talk 12:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Wyn has a point. IMO, the difference between your comment, and the other comments on that page, is that you are not really commenting the question, you're rather replying to it. Using an example from Isaiah's talk page: someone asked if it's viable to give scythes adrenaline based skills, and then people began to discuss the idea. No one said "Yes, it's a viable idea and something Arena Net could implement"; rather, the comments were about if the idea is good or bad. In other words, no one was answering the proposed question, just commenting on it. The question about power creep above wasn't (mostly) someone trying to answer why there was power creep, it was at first someone asking what does the expression "power creep" means (and when someone tried to answer the question, a sysop mentioned how the discussion was in the wrong page).

You, in other hand, were trying to answer the question asked for Isaiah. And while your conjectures are good ones, that's not really the point of the question - we won't know the answer unless Isaiah or someone like him states it, so your conjectures don't really add that much to the discussion. Erasculio 13:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Gordon Ecker: "Would it be feasible...? Could a weapon type's...? Could critical hits...?"

~>Sins WDB: "Yes."

Raine - talk: "I'm not thoroughly convinced that anyone is listening, at all, to the player base."

145.94.74.23: "I can answer that."

Napalm Flame: "I don't think r5 is gonna happen tbh"

NUKLEAR IIV: "He can always farm it like all people do."

Mini Me: "Why have you not been active in over a month?"

Silverleaf Don't assume, Know!: "Ehmmm...Iz is working on GW2."

Those all look like Q/A to me, and I think all of the Qs there were directed at Izzy.

(E.C.) That aside, I don't think "your conjectures don't really add that much to the discussion" is true when said conjectures are the only response that said user is likely to get. Even if they don't, in fact, add much, adding little is much better than contributing nothing. Or am I wrong in that?

I could understand the removal if it were a rude, insulting, or NPA-violating post, but it wasn't intended as any of those, and if it were construed as such, it is through an error in my prose; I'd gladly rewrite it if that is the case. But if it's naught but informative, then why is is bad to answer questions directed at Izzy like the users above have?

I did get off on the wrong foot with Wyn, and I do regret that; she's shown to be a very respectable person on numerous occasions. But things like this... I, as I believe anyone would, wonder if there's some lingering animosity. Raine - talk 13:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And all of those topics were stopped by Brains12. -- Wyn/talk 13:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. We also have Brains saying the same thing Wyn has been saying, like...

The question was to Izzy, so no one else should be responding (because you're not Izzy). -- Brains12 \ talk 18:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The question was asked to Izzy, and I'm pretty sure he's the only one here, if anyone, who would have an accurate answer; the rest is speculation and doesn't really answer Gordon's question (simply because you don't actually know). -- Brains12 \ talk 12:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

And so on. Erasculio 14:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I see your point after re-reading further into the text, and I do think that it would be valid under normal circumstances. However, Izzy's talk page isn't a normal talk page in that the owner of that page hasn't (to our knowledge) even read the page for months now. Given the nature of the page, some response is appropriate (I refrain from saying "required") to the concerns raised there. Because a response is appropriate and the person who should be, under normal circumstances, providing those responses is absent, who should be allowed to contribute through addressing the concerns of these users? "Ask a game question" wouldn't be an appropriate redirect for questions of this nature, and "ask a balance question" and "ask an Anet question" don't exist. The current system (Izzy's talk page) simply isn't working, and there is no substitute: speculation is the only thing that any of us have to go on.

Should a page be created, with a similar purpose but a different nature, that allows users to discuss concerns like the ones raised but not addressed on Izzy's page? Raine - talk 14:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, if Isaiah is not going to reply, then there's no point in having any part of that discussion on his user page at all. The question being there becomes void, since the point of "there" wouldn't really exist. Plus, Isaiah has mentioned that he doesn't know how to use the wiki properly, so the more people who edit his talk page, and the more he has to read, the less likely it will be for him to reply. Keeping the page "clean", with nothing beyond what is meant directly and exclusively to Isaiah, is a way to make it more likely he will reply. IMO, it's all a waste; I think we should just lock his page until he gives us a sign that he's reading it. But I'm the minority in this, apparently. Erasculio 14:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive it for him(?):

• Balance Issues (Discussion)
• ANet Issues (Discussion)
• Misc. (Discussion)

Original posts on the archive pages themselves, user responses to said posts on respective discussion pages. That's just a suggestion, though.

As far as locking the pages would go, we'd end up with the exact same problem: lots of content not being addressed. The difference would be that the content wouldn't be addressed because it couldn't be posted, not because Izzy's disappeared.

If someone were to archive it for him, who would that be? Raine - talk 14:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I feel silly now. Even when the information is organized and neat, there's still a problem: the concerns will continue to accumulate faster than Izzy can address them. This seems like it should've been obvious a long time ago, and so should the solution:

Don't make Izzy the sole person responsible for doing that job. It's simply too much for one person to handle.

He's sitting on a wealth of players who'd be eager to assist; that resource is going to waste. Pick some people (Controversy? No problem! Let Izzy pick some people, then) (I mean, as soon as we can contact him). Let them help Izzy balance the game, or at least respond to the flood of concerns. Raine - talk 15:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ya know, when someone stops you for doing something saying "You didn't stop all of these people!" is a pretty poor argument. It may be as simple as they weren't there at the time and retroactively removing comments wouldn't achieve much. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Misery (talk). 14:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I did Edit Conflict on that; the examples were't an argument, but indirect support for the argument immediately following the edit conflict. Raine - talk 14:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

My point is that your only relevant point is whether or not your post is relevant and that should be your angle, not that other people haven't been removed. It's like when you get a question wrong and your friend gets it right in school and you go "Miss! I deserve extra marks, Cindy wrote exactly what I did and she got it marked right!" and the teacher goes "Wow! You are right! Pass me your paper Cindy, -2 marks, you are wrong too!". Direction of logic should point to your comment being valid not that other comments, possibly valid or invalid, haven't been removed. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Misery (talk). 14:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The way I meant it was more of:

"I think Wyn has a point. IMO, the difference between your comment, and the other comments on that page, is that you are not really commenting the question, you're rather replying to it."

"No, that's not the difference at all; much of the content is of the exact same nature. Evidence: (insert block of quotes as counterexamples)."

With that point invalidated, there's less irrelevance to argue. Though, because there was a string of replies between the start and end of that post, its purpose got rather mangled. Raine - talk 14:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Given the nature of the page, some response is appropriate" The nature of the page is that it is Izzy's talk page. The only appropriate response is from Izzy. No other response is going to appropriately answer the questions the OP was asking. He's not asking for your opinion or speculation regarding whether the changes were a mistake or your speculation about what Izzy believes about the balance situation. -- Wyn/talk 14:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant, it's also the only page we have to directly voice concerns about skill balance not exclusive to a particular skill, and the only way we have to attempt to speak directly to the balance team. Unfortunately, that page is a user page. Which is why I asked if there should be another page with the same function but of a different nature. Raine - talk 14:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

ArenaNet:Skill_feedback/Miscellaneous? --JonTheMon 14:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(E.C.)Currently the closest we have to Izzy's talk page (other than Izzy's talk page), isn't it? As... um... wonderful as that page is, I personally think that "Balance Concerns" shouldn't be with "Random skill-feedback-ish pages that don't go with a profession." Raine - talk 15:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You kind of need to accept that in a public forum where people can contact developers anything worthwhile will be lost in a sea of shit, because as a general rule people are terrible at this game and don't understand anything about it. When you let everyone have a say, stuff just falls apart. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Misery (talk). 14:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That, I wholeheartedly agree with. I herd wiki was good at elections? I think a nomination -> vote -> screening (by Izzy) would work well enough. There are plenty of people who would help him. For free. Raine - talk 15:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

He actually has that already, it's his private balance forum. You and I are not invited. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Misery (talk). 15:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been stated repeatedly by various ArenaNet staff that they do frequent many of the Guild Wars forums on a regular basis. So here I'm back to my original statement "Use the many forums that are designed for it. People have really lost sight of what the wiki's purpose and function is, to encyclopediacally document the game. Debates regarding anything other than the content of the documentation is beyond it's function and purpose." The wiki should not have a place dedicated to those types of discussions (and it does not) because it's beyond the scope and functionality of the wiki software to appropriately deal with them. -- Wyn/talk 15:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(E.C.) (R.I.) Screenshots or it didn't happen. Who are these people, where is this forum, where is this balancing taking place? What happened with Mark of Insecurity on the last update? Can we watch the forum, if we can't contribute? Is it still active? Where are the results?

I'm not saying that there isn't a private balance forum. But if there is and there are still problems, then he needs more support. IMHO. Raine - talk 15:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Which forums do they read? I mean, where does Izzy get his material? Where can I make a post and be assured that Izzy will be read it? Raine - talk 15:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the last leaked screenshot I could find. It's from early in the balance process and a lot of stuff changed as you can see. Other leaks in the past have been more accurate. There is a video on youtube of Joe Hostile and Izzy beating the shit out of Norad at a party when they found out he was leaking. Previous leaks have been more accurate. No, you cannot see the contents of the forum. It is still active. That was for the December update. I don't have access so I can't answer your questions further. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Misery (talk). 15:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Screenshots or it didn't happen" is an expression, not to be taken literally! But, for taking it literally, and then actually having a screenshot, I love you like, eleven times as much. Could you, by chance, answer that second question, too? :D Raine - talk 15:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Short answer, you can't guarantee that Izzy will read what you write anywhere unless you talk to him directly one on one, which isn't easy to do. I'm hardly a famous player, best I've ever gotten one on one with Izzy was about a minute and I probably didn't use it that well. If there was a place you could be guaranteed Izzy would read your post it would be flooded and become useless. General opinion from people I have talked to is that arenanet staff spend at least some time reading through GWG forum posts because retarded things that have been suggested there have sometimes ended up in game. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Misery (talk). 15:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Regina, Linsey etc. have all stated they go through the various fansite forums on a regular basis. I don't believe any have stated any exacts but you could bet that GWO and Guru are both frequented by Anet staff. As Misery says there is no way for anyone to guarantee your post is going to be read, if you feel your input is that vital, the best way you have to communicate it would be to email them directly. Posting on a wiki talk page is probably the LEAST guaranteed way that they will see/read stuff because there is so much and it's so unorganized and topics get side tracked very easily. The forums are moderated and kept in relative order by people dedicated to do that, which is what make them a much better mode of communication. I can't tell you what Izzy's habits are since I'm not Izzy, but I do know he dislikes the wiki as a form of communication. -- Wyn/talk 16:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Emailing Izzy directly would be nice. What's Izzy's email? Raine - talk 03:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Try Isaiah.Cartwright@guildwars.com seems to be a fairly common corporate naming protocol. -- Wyn/talk 03:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

He has an email address set in wiki preferences. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 20:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't really expecting a response, tbh. But a pleasant surprise would've been pleasant... Raine - talk 06:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

huge huge huge

update on my balance page feel free to comment its not finished yet but well its nearly finished :) gz Lilondra *gale* 19:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)