User talk:Raine Valen/Archive 35

Alliance Battles

Naow. InfestedHydralisk 21:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No mouse; can't win GWs. — Raine Valen 21:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Go get one. InfestedHydralisk 21:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Kay. — Raine Valen 21:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I win GW without a mouse. →[ »Halogod (talk)« ]← 22:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I GW without a brain, it's called pve. --dark chaos 22:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No GWs; can't win a mouse. --Riddle 00:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Halogod likes this post. →[ »Halogod (talk)« ]← 00:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

From the Ghost Forge

I need an armor combination for my Ritualist that would be appropriate to Frenzy, Dismember, and Bull's people in. Alternatively, I need an armor combination that would be grossly inappropriate to Frenzy, Dismember, and Bull's people in.
For the former, I was thinking something along the lines of Norn (come on, there are bones around the ankles); for the latter, I was thinking something like Kurzick. What to do? — Raine Valen 19:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd believe starter armor is as inappropriate as it gets. --DANDY ^_^ -- 20:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This probably isn't your cup of tea, but if you could find out the IGN of the creator of this thread here: http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/need-help-visualize-your-perfect-t10389744.html, you could find the perfect combo. Apparently he has almost every Ritualist armor set (excluding a few non-elite ones, he has *I think?* all elite; he can display anything you wish per request). Otherwise this set seems cool for what you've mentioned:

(Appropriate)

-Dread Mask (Your enemy has no idea what is coming)

-Elite Imperial or standard Imperial Chest (The shoulder pad(s) seem to make one stand out as a bad-a** Rit warrior to me)

-Stone/Destroyer Gauntlets (Your KD'ing... is there anything more fitting? Stone doesn't stand out as well as Destroyer. If you're a real fashion stylist, you'll only use Stone gauntlets in maps where it would stand out, i.e. heavily lighted areas, not in areas such as Echovald Forest maps)

-Monument/standard Kurzick or Canthan(I attempted for unrestricted leggings (a not-dress), as you can't lay a Bull's if your dress is constantly getting in the way; however, the alternatives retain the bad-a**ness of the build you have in mind)

-Norn Boots (just so I could agree on something...)

(Grossly Inappropriate)

-[Any] Spectacles (Frontline wearing glasses? You'd look pretty stupid IMO)

-standard Luxon Chest (Only a bra= Xena the Warrior Princess? speaking of which, you could try looking like her in the above section)

-Chaos Gloves (While it struck me these are often a sign of being more pretentious than goofy/inappropriate, being melee'd by a Rit with these gloves on would make me quickly lose confidence, as 1. These gloves mean you are some high-end player who tends to know what they're doing and that makes me automatically assume your some really good caster, 2. When you Bull-Strike me with those gloves, I find you are MELEE caster who appears to know what they're doing, 3. When you Deep Wound me and I see your crazy DPS by means of Frenzy, I'll either 3a. Call you a noob and make fun of your build and then have a build war the entire match, or 3b. Panic while laughing embarrassingly at myself/others for being killed by a melee rit. Of course, I went off on a tangent here, so I'll just tl;dr wtf Chaos gloves noob= win?)

-Norn or Vabbian Leggings (because it seems as if you have zero mobility -> I don't see how you're gonna Bull me with that lousy dress on)

-Asuran/Monument (are those HIGH HEELS?)

Oh and I apologize if anyone finds this post too long.

tl;dr: read the first few characters of the dashed points. Aphotic 22:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, those are high heels. They're not exactly stiletto heels, fortunately, but holy shit, asurans do not know how to adventurer. -- Armond{{Bacon}} 05:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If someone with Chaos Gloves comes slashing at me with an axe, I'd bet my head the guy's some "allegiance rank is honorable and farming requires skill"-noob who can't PvP for shit :p --DANDY ^_^ -- 15:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ancient top, FoW skirt + leggings. Don't know what arm part, maybe blindfold as the headgear? InfestedHydralisk 23:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Both appropriate and grossly inappropriate would be a FoW headpiece to Bull's people with.

Appropriate: Obby headpiece, Vabbian top, regular Imperial leggings, regular Exotic handwrappings, Norn shoes. "I'd hit that. Oh shi-It hits me!"

Grossly Inapproriate: Obby/Asuran/Vabbian headpiece, Deldrimor top, Vabbian leggings, Monument handwrappings, regular Luxon shoes. "There is no way she can hold a melee weapon, let alone move in Frenzy... BUT SHE DOES!"

Proper matching likely not included. They might be terrible combos. - Infinite - talk 14:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This is why we need a dressing room or an armor sim. →[ »Halogod (talk)« ]← 15:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

+1. — Raine Valen 15:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I think anet should also remove the Exotic sin armor and give us something that is not ugly. InfestedHydralisk 15:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

When I heard exotic, I wanted exotic. Not fugly. →[ »Halogod (talk)« ]← 22:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

"I think anet should also remove the Exotic sin armor and give us something that is not ugly." As if the obby armor for sins is so nice to look at. They should redesign a lot of assassin armors, tbh. - Infinite - talk 11:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

how is your stepsister these days? --neshot. 17:56, 22 May 2011.

Kidneys are starting to fail from too much drinking. Lmao. →[ »Halogod (talk)« ]← 18:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

(RA)ge

This is what I'm talking about! →[ »Halogod (talk)« ]← 03:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That are a lot double kills... poke | talk 09:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Aww, hemad. — Raine Valen 13:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll explain what's going on poke. Basically, it's an assassin that has Critical Defense. Anyway, so we're all running away then we come back when his CD ends. He kills two of my teammates at once with Death Blossom. So he's telling us Double Kill to show how good he is. I killed him. →[ »Halogod (talk)« ]← 17:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Raine summed it up nicely. - Infinite - talk 11:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I had a dream last night

There was a random girl in my bed and through sheer force of will I exchanged her for you but you had a beard. And I was all like "Wat." elix Omni 23:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It's stress at work. All dreams mean stress at work. –Jette 00:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

For men it can also mean lack of commitment (whatever that is). Males-exclusive meaning. - Infinite - talk 12:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's always stress at work. Haven't you read the Good Book? Genesis 41: 'Then Joseph said to Pharaoh, "The dream of Pharaoh is one: God hath shewed Pharaoh what he must do. Thou hast been holed up in thine palace for many seasons with thine scribe and thine guardian of the underworld; thou hast not sewn thine metaphorical seed since thine wife broke up with thee. Yea, ye must go forth into the slums of Egypt and become shitfaced and find thee a new bride, lest thee becometh a male spinster."' –Jette 12:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That says a lot, Felix. Not anything that I wanted to know, but it says a lot. — Raine Valen 19:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You know, I think I would have been happier had you never said that to me ever. wtb mindbleach. — Raine Valen 23:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, are you capable of growing a beard? --Riddle 23:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure there's, like, a surgery or something for hair transplants. Other than that, no. — Raine Valen 23:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

They can do that with surgery, if they take skin that grows hair and place it somewhere, it will grow hair there. Some women have mustache problems though. InfestedHydralisk 01:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Not like there're anythgin rong withe girls whom has muststaches. Just saying, 04:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Except for when they're mistaken for men. --Riddle 06:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I laughed when I read your responses, Raine. dark chaos 04:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you still read game design articles?

A friend found this gem on teamliquid forums, written by progamer and caster day9. -Auron 01:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"The results were explained by subtle differences in their approaches to game play. The first player wrote a greedy program [...] However, the winning coder displayed even greater insight into the game: his goal was to have more stones after both players had taken a turn."

This is one of the fundamentals of strategy, in general. A friend of mine summed it up nicely, when he asked me, "What is your goal as a Warrior". Being familiar with Chiizu's writing, I picked the obviously-correct answer almost as a reflex: "To kill shit.

I was wrong, of course; the correct answer is even more obvious – blindingly so, apparently – it is "To win".

The "greedy program" excelled at its goal: to collect the most stones possible. However, mancala is not won by collecting the most stones possible; it is won by having more stones at the end of the game.

This emphasizes a point that I think is immensely important in game design: in any competitive game, a player should have more than one available strategy and that strategy should not remain the best strategy throughout the entirety of the match. In, for example, Words With Friends, scoring as much as possible is not always the best option: scoring 50 points and lining your opponent up for a delicious triple-digit play doesn't net you anything. Sure, you got a big number, but that's not what the game is about. On the other side of the same token, you do win by taking those big-point moves, but only when when you're not rewarding your opponent with as much as (if not more than) you gain by making the play.

At its prime, Guild Wars was a strong example of this. Back when a warrior, the steel-clad offensive beast, could choose to forsake some damage in order to lineback and be effective at it, they had more choices. This ties in nicely with another strong point:

"Second, a quality competitive game should have a variety of techniques that can be employed in order to win. That is, if a player performs strategy A, the opponent should have more than one reasonable response as an option."

The more viable choices that a player has at any given time, the more competitive the game is. Take Starcraft, for example: the number of options present at any point in the game is enormous, and so it has a huge skill curve. For that matter, take a look at Go: there are a billion options at any moment, and the game is enormously competitive with an enormous skill curve.

Conversely, look at Dervishes 2011: their only viable choice is often to spam-skills-get-kills. Because damage is so absurd in the game, teams don't have options like "take a tactical death" – at some point, "winning" became, clear-cut, having less death penalty than the other team.

In one of my favorite GW matches of all time, one of our warriors chose to 60 himself in the other team's base as opposed to falling back, because he knew that, if he'd chosen to fall back, there was no way that he could get onto an offensive split, and we were already pushed back into our lord pit, so 8v8ing them wasn't an option for us. However, by dying and staying in their base, it let our ranger (me) dip out of our base while their ele rejoined the main team – by the time they realized that our warrior wasn't ressing and, hey, where's our ranger, we were already dropping the second knight. Shit was epic: tactical 60, come on.

That doesn't happen anymore. It's not a viable choice anymore, which is becoming the case all throughout the game. Tactics and strategies that once worked don't, and there are no new ones springing up to replace them, so the game grows less competitive and stagnates.

More options, more emphasis on skill: competitive games must always give many options.

"A good competitive game should test a player’s skills and minimize the element of chance or luck. Ideally, the probability of a weak player defeating a good player should be as close to zero as possible."

This is also a strong point. Randomization directly counteracts skill (though it does add something to the game; whether the blunting of the skill curve is worth what is added is the designer's call). When I Guardian myself and get smacked by 7 sin attacks in a row (read: 1 in 128 times), it's not "fun", it's bullshit. There's really not much to say on that subject.

The only point that I disagree with is that, while "The marginal advantage embodies the notion that one cannot, and should not, try to “win big.”", this presence of a potential marginal advantage is crucial to competitive gaming. In fact, I strongly disagree: I think that players should be encouraged to try to win big, as long as those wins are net wins (not lining up your opponents to win even bigger, at the very least). Why? Because this creates more options: if more effort and more risk is always equal to more potential reward, the entire risk spectrum becomes viable, and you don't end up with turtling strategies and rawrspike, which are boring. This ties into another point made by the writer of that article:

"First, there is no such thing as a good competitive game that has an obvious optimal strategy."

Let's use rawrspike as an example, because I just mentioned it: the build evolved so defensively because the optimal strategy was to gain small while losing nothing (one barely-lethal spike with a low frequency) (funny, how this "marginal advantage" is an optima strategy, when competitive games should not have them). In a way, it's similar to hammer chains in that there is no reward in killing an opponent with Hammer Bash (and I see warriors do it all the time; it bothers me); there's no reward in having a spike that does more-than-lethal damage, which makes fucktons-o'-defense-way an option so amazing as to eliminate others.

Consider a mechanic that allowed you to apply additional DP to a dead enemy by attacking their corpse; suddenly, the play is much less binary and fucktons-o'-defense-way with a barely-lethal spike isn't automatically better to a similat build with less defense, but a stronger spike: in creating more options, we're preventing the metagame from stagnating and broadening the skill curve – when Hammer Bashing a target with 3 health is something else to consider, it creates more room for players to excel (or not) in.

Good read. — Raine Valen 2:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"Consider a mechanic that allowed you to apply additional DP to a dead enemy by attacking their corpse"

Goes to testkrewe Flux suggestion thread ~Shard 02:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Shard don't do it! (I didn't know you were still in the Test Krewe?) InfestedHydralisk 12:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Overall it does seem like the GW meta recoiled a bit TOO much from the original hour-plus-long GvG battles; sure, bringing things down under an hour may have been a useful goal for encouraging non-hardcore GvG play, but at the same time, that plus the overall power curve increasing swung things way too far away from a good damage balance. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 19:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember GvG ever lasting one hour, at least not every time. The damage increases over the years didn't push the balance the wrong way. The addition of too many skills did that. For example, bloodspike (a build I have particularly good experience with) was mediocre at best because you could only pull off one spike every 10 seconds, which was the recharge of Shadow Strike plus the cast time of Vampiric Gaze. Once Factions came out with a second Shadow Strike that limited our spike time by vamp gaze's recharge, which is 5. No buffs or nerfs were applied to existing skills, but the build became twice as fast, offensively. With the single spike, you had to be perfect because if infused, enemy monks had more than enough time to regain energy, and the other team had a lot of time to kill you. Once we got to spike twice as much, even unsuccessful spikes gave us an advantage by reducing the energy of the other teams' monks drastically.

Not every time, certainly - it was just a possibility; it did happen though. You're right about the extra skills, though - the original skillset was much more evenly distributed such that it was hard to stack a particular thing on a skillbar. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The same thing applied for touch rangers. It was a joke build when only one vamp touch was out. When the second one came out, touch rangers were farming every arena, even gvg, because the only way to stop them was to keep all 8 of them snared forever, or to Dshot/Diversion all 16 of their skills, which no build could do.

Once, Arenanet countered power creep by introducing insignias. With insignias, the max health of template characters went up by 40, an increase of 8% (without runes).

If I had to pick a single thing they could have done better, it's introducing too many skills without playtesting them. Some skills were so broken when released (wail of doom, searing flames, and shadow prison come to mind) that 100% of teams would bring multiple copies of them. ArenaNet obviously never tested these for competitive play, and it took them far too long to bring them down to a reasonable level. By the time they did something about them, people had already made builds out of them, and Anet was too afraid to take away those builds, even though they were too good.

I agree with pretty much everything Day9 said. This stuff comes up for all games. There's a good talk by Richard Garfield (the creator of Magic the Gathering) here where he talks about randomness vs player skill and how to use both in games. ~Shard 22:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I love that guy, I watch almost every daily. They are entertaining to watch and also very good learning material. (Don't know him?; let's get to know him!) <3 InfestedHydralisk 22:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I keep hoping someone will re-write a crappy stick-figure version of GW that's closer to the original game's feel rather than the analgesic state of play it's currently in. I'd do it myself, but honestly, I don't give a crap.

As I read these competitive gameplay articles and realize how grossly out of touch with competitive game design that I am, I become frightened at how precise my understanding of addictive game design is. I have no idea how to make something fun, I only know how to force people to keep playing. –Jette 01:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Which is sadly just as profitable. --ஸ Kyoshi 01:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

When you say "when [Wail of Doom was] released", you mean when it was buffed to remove target foe from the game, right? -- Armond Warblade 02:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Some guys at a medical university MRId a World of Warcraft player's brain while he was at rest and later while he was told to think of playing WoW when he got home. Apparently the patterns displayed looked nearly identical to those of a chronic diamorphine addict thinking of shooting up.
Then again, that sounds a little sketchy. MMOs don't sound like an excuse to use a two million dollar nuclear imaging machine, so it's possible I dreamed reading that report. –Jette 03:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Using a two million dollar machine is a good excuse to use a two million dollar nuclear imaging machine. "Hey baby, I use my two million dollar machine daily." --Riddle 04:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You would be surprised how low the level for "excuses to use a two million dollar nuclear imaging machine" really is. Like, ever wanted to measure a dead salmon's brain activity? --Xeeron 12:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Video game addiction has been in the DSM for a while. -- Oiseau | 05:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus thing

→ moved from Talk:Battle Isle Iced Tea

This is not a democracy. — Raine Valen 18:42, 17 Jun 2011 (UTC)

That'd be cool if it mattered here. -- Armond Warblade 23:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

When people are saying, "The three of you are going against consensus" and they actually mean "The three of you are going against a consensus that only exists when you're not considered in it", I think it's a point that needs to be made. — Raine Valen 3:42, 18 Jun 2011 (UTC)

Its a wonder anything ever gets resolved round here. --BriarThe Spider 04:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't mean unanimous approval either. elix Omni 04:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it doesn't; it's much more accurately summed up as a "lack of open dissent", where one can elect to stand aside rather than to oppose the views of a majority. Here, we even take it a (reasonable) step further: there's strong precedent for pushing aside non-arguments (and/or arguments not based on logic) in the consensus-garnering process.

However, that lack of open disapproval is not present, here – instead, people are calling the majority opinion "consensus" and shooting down naysayers because "we voted", which kind of defeats the purpose of a consensus-based organization. — Raine Valen 5:25, 18 Jun 2011 (UTC)

So what exactly is this wiki? Is a Consensus Democracy; or a Direct Democracy? --108.38.126.227 04:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The wiki is only a direct democracy in bcrat elections. — Raine Valen 5:25, 18 Jun 2011 (UTC)

No it's not. elix Omni 05:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess you could say that the bcrats that actually promote the elected bcrat act as a representative body, but I think that that'd be a silly technicality. This, though, is a tangent that doesn't really belong on this page. — Raine Valen 5:32, 18 Jun 2011 (UTC)

Why the hell are you guys bringing politics into a discussion. Now get back to the topic, political discussions don't belong on a game wiki. Damysticreaper 10:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Why would we be discussing wiki politics on a wiki? Seems kind of inane, right? — Raine Valen 16:23, 18 Jun 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that this page is so full of pointless insanity that by the time I got to this portion of this discussion page, my head literally exploded. I'll soon be suing the lot of you for my reformative surgeries. Alcyone 12:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

v. csb. — Raine Valen 16:23, 18 Jun 2011 (UTC)

AFK 3 months.

Off the motherfucking grid, pzzzzzz! — Raine Valen 6:48, 28 Jun 2011 (UTC)

Your Highness

When did they change aura of thorns according to your suggestion? 24.130.140.36 18:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I can only be so right before someone notices. — Raine Valen 4:01, 29 Aug 2011 (UTC)

Official forum suggestions

I had an idea to incorporate the feedback suggestions into the official Guild Wars forum. As you and a a small group of others love to suggest things, and the feedback space pretty much dead, it would be a better place to get our ideas visible and a better fit than the wiki. I posted a a topic here, https://forum.guildwars.com/forum/forums/web/Would-it-be-possible-to-incorporate-Wiki-s-suggestions-into-the-forum and if I could get your support, thanks! I think the idea will go nowhere but if enough agree maybe their stance will change or they can humor us! What do we have to lose!? Previously Unsigned 00:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

sup

howyou? -- Armond Warblade 19:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to wait another month! InfestedHydralisk 23:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Haha, nope! I'm back and shit! :D — Raine Valen 2:39, 29 Aug 2011 (UTC)

That's great! Now you should log into Guild Wars sometime so I can give you these numerous gifts that I've had sitting around for months.

Also, hi. Vili 点 02:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Holy shit, it's Vili.

Also, wb Raine. --Riddle 03:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Not on laptop as of yet! I've still got some traveling to do, but I'm no longer severed from Internetland. — Raine Valen 3:59, 29 Aug 2011 (UTC)

Hehe. That's fine; your presence is more important than my presents, anyway.

News updates in case you haven't heard already: everyone left [Syn] and went somewhere else. Your Lily even joined for a while. There were fun times and we (by which I mean everyone else, because I'm a a bad player) did well in some GvG, but I guess it wasn't meant to be. There hasn't been too much else exciting while you were away...the first installment of Winds of Change came out and people whined about Guild Wars PvE actually requiring effort again (lol), but the second part still hasn't come out. Vili 点 04:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys. elix Omni 08:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Winds of Change doesn't really require effort honestly. You can Heroway it soooo easily. InfestedHydralisk 18:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I know that and you know that, but the PvE whiners don't know that. Vili 点 19:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

So

Once, in game, you asked me for one of these: ♥ (don't ask how I remember this random shit). However, I figured out how to do that finally. There you go. -- Tha Reckoning 05:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

yorfat--Silven 02:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

My feelings are hurt. I still remember that time you raged at me in alliance chat because I couldn't weaponswap mid-strike to cancel my dhammer when I saw shield bash. Fyi, I still think that shit is impossible. -- Tha Reckoning 13:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

kids these days don't just hit escape? -Auron 14:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't ever get that to work either, lol. I was a mega noob warrior, it was bad. -- Tha Reckoning 17:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

To cancel attack skills, you have to swap weapons from your inventory. I CBA. — Raine Valen 19:38, 2 Sep 2011 (UTC)

I know, you guys told me that when I was trying it, but I could never drop them out of inventory fast enough, lol. Is that how you do it, or were you guys just clicking on like, a sword in mid dhammer swing? -- Tha Reckoning 09:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Pros rebind cancel action to a mouse button. Alternatively, q is acceptable if you move with esdf. -- Armond Warblade 17:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That requires work, I'm just gonna go hop on a bsurge ele. -- Tha Reckoning 20:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)