User talk:Shard/Archive5

Youtubing?

Is this you on youtube? The suspicion was from the familiar icon and name. I will comment on the video later if I get an answer from you.--ShadowFog 15:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It obviously is :p he links to it all the time and the videos are about crusade his emulator Lilondra *poke* 16:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will take that as a yes. Shard, why don't you send this videos and other stuff like these one to a NC/Arena Staff. Stuff here(ANYTHING POSTED in wikis) is not read by high executives. Let's hope that their numbers that are reading off the activities of guild wars are those that are dwindling when you send it to them. If that doesn't tinkle your fancy, take this exploit to Izzy himself, and please, if you do, try to keep the letter to the theme of "ez kil aganst guil lor" since anything that smells like NPA will get removed or moved.--ShadowFog 16:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

wow that video is epic, srsly send it to arenanet for lols. --Cancer Angel 01:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ironically enough, he did and the reply from Anet was to send it to the wiki.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 02:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That's Hardball! This is limbo after all. Like I always said: GuildWars will suffer a Fury death. They forgot to make the game fun and this comes from a guy that used to play Fury, too serious, no fun value when making builds and skills that sucks so much you had to run gimmick builds.--ShadowFog 04:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yasmin: Wow, ANet fails so hard. 216.187.245.204 16:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Good thinkin sherlock Lilondra *poke* 17:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Shard, I'd really like to sign your 10 epic rules. However, I always contradict one rule: "Thou shallt not commit gimmickry". Gimmickry is not gimmickry. A Spoil Victor GvG team might be the one you dislike (and you have my vote there) - a Mark of Fury hammer warrior might be the gimmick you don't dislike, the gimmick I favor.. in the end the gimmick I play GW for. Noctarch 23:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A gimmick is simply a way of doing something easier than it's intended to be. Unfortnately, you have to run gimmicks in GW because they're so much stronger than strategy. ~Shard 23:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Creating a build is strategy, too. If you mean battle-field strategy I have to say that it strongly ties to the skills. If there weren't snares your strategy'd look very different. A pity that I'm a zealous MtG player - I do love BuildWars. However, those mighty builds should be hard to play, too (like Brainfreeze/Springtide is powerful but very hard to play) so no scrubs are gonna visiting PvXP c/p'ing and thus winning. They should have the skillz to use those skills ;) As you may see, I agree to a certain extend with you. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 23:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You actually agree exactly with me. Stronger builds should require more from the player. ~Shard 23:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think "bad" gimmicks are good for the game, too. Builds that are bad but fun to play, so people would use them once in a while hoping not necessarily to win, rather to have some pointless fun. Like the Signet of Illusions mesmer build for RA rellying on stealing skills from the enemies - that's a horrible build, but it adds variety to the game and is a way of having fun between "serious" PvP play. Erasculio 23:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Aww, finally one of those who create builds for fun =D. All in all a good moment to end this day. *fabricatingevenmoarrubbishonshardsusertalkpage* Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 00:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Eras I assume you mean builds like minion factory, 8 mending wammos, eoe bomb, etc? Those aren't gimmicks because they don't accomplish as much as other builds for less effort. Their playability and power levels are in line with each other. It's not like sway where you c+space, autoattack for 80 damage a hit, become immune to damage via escape, and have a midliner that removes all enemy enchantments on the map in 2 seconds. ~Shard 21:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And there's the point where I disagree with you. Only because you think gimmicks have to be uber builds that require about no skill it doesn't mean it is that way. However, this expression seems rather opinionated. :/ Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 23:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

[caps lock in a good way]YO SHARD! GUESS WHAT? THE GUILD LORD NO LONGER DOES CYCLONE AXE! WHO CAN WE THANK FOR THAT?--ShadowFog 01:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, arenanet shows how lazy they are. They can't even fix a bug, they'd rather just kill a skill. ~Shard 02:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think they're too inept to code amulet of protection properly. -Auron 02:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to give them the benefit of the doubt, recoding it properly would require recoding a significant portion of all damage aspects of the game - similar to one of the reasons why you can't have flying mounts in Azeroth. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 03:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between coding flying mounts and coding simple algebra. Mounts use different physics, controls, and handling for dismounting int he air. Making AoP work properly requires knowledge of 6th grade math and the duration of 1 second (hint: The duration of 1 second is 1 second). ~Shard 03:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the bad fix, though. I meant the proper fix, which could mean redefining "damage" to the system (and thus redefining "damage" to every skill and attack). -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 03:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You're assuming not all damage in GW is damage. Balthazar's Spirit disagrees with you sir. The order in which effects are handled is just bad, and Amulet heals instead of preventing damage like it is intended to do so. ~Shard 01:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Balth spirit triggers on life steal and health loss now? Because prot spirit doesn't. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 02:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, forgot SV was life loss. ~Shard 04:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Backbreaker

Quote from various arenanet employees "We can't scale a knockdown duration."

Quote from various people who disagree with me "Arenanet can't scale a knockdown duration."

Quote from me "Yes you can."

Quote from update notes "Backbreaker - Now knocks down for 2...4...4 seconds."

Shard > ArenaNet.

Shard > people who disagree with me.

Next time you think I'm wrong because arenanet said so, think again. ~Shard 02:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The sad part is that Shard knows how to code GW better than ANet does, and he's not even seen the code. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 02:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The most sad part is that he seems to think that proving yourself replaces the effort to brace for the next thing. Short: Only because you were right does not mean we heave to rethink next time we doubt you. That's untrue for everyon and every discussed topic. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 03:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

He was right this time, he was right in the past, and he'll be right again. Is that so hard a concept to grasp? -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 03:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Half the time ANet says they can't do something, it doesn't mean "we're totally incapable of doing so," it means "it requires so much time and effort that we probably won't be able to do it because we don't have the resources." I'm fairly certain it was that way in this case. Shard just lucked out. -Auron 03:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Izzy said something along the lines of "The GW code can't scale KD durations, it's hard coded to the skill." Search for it. ~Shard 18:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Tbh, you can code anything, it's just a question of time and effort and they finally decided it was worth the effort, except they did it wrong. If they actually wanted to nerf BB sins they needed to make it 4 seconds at 13 hammer, that wouldn't have hurt hammers at all and just slightly nerfed BB sins, you can still get the combo off in 3 seconds but they will be standing up for BoS. Misery 18:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The big problem is that BB sins have such high hammer anyway. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 21:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Shard...I believe in you. Now log in every so often so I don't kick you from the guild. Oh, and I miss you! <3--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 00:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Gale. Hrrrmmmm. Half the time, I think ANet says what they say for liability issues (see: Smiter's Boon. "We may fix it in the future" (paraphrased) instead of "this skill needed to die."). --Ezekial Riddle 05:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Gale doesn't scale. Sometimes, anet says things because they're too clueless as to how their own game works. ~Shard 05:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I fear the most wickedsome case that is to say they are aware and not clueless but decided to ignore the problem for laziness's sake. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 12:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Balance

Address your balance issues here. -- Brains12 \ talk 22:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

He's done so repeatedly. What prompted this post? -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 23:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to OTHER people's comments on Izzy's page. Apparently when I was blocked, it was for posting on izzy's page, not for being too right about arenanet's staff being incompetent. ~Shard 01:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

3rd place

You got 3rd place in Create A Profession! You have gotten 50 points to spend on prizes! Please name which prizes you want on the Prize talk page. To see the other winners, have a look at the Create A Profession page! --Shadowphoenix 18:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Skill of the day is epic win

I completely agree with you Shard, scythes have needed a nerf ever since they were made.

• High critical damage. Best maximum damage easily bypasses abysmal minimum damage.
• Scythe attacks are mainly 5 energy, making them spammable with critical strikes(and a little luck) or expertise.
• They do not have any special "restrictions" like mandatory skill chaining or adrenaline. Their skills can be used on demand. Sort of like bow attacks, but without almost every skill being 10 energy.
• Scythes are overpowered when used by any fighter class that isn't a paragon.

--The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:71.174.21.250 (talk).

I was looking at your balances...

And I read "If I'm talking about you for spirits, let me know." Now I did do an extensive rethoughtout active spirit system. Not sure if it was me though. Click my userpage...> Then under "Skill Balance Suggestions-Ritualist".--Lancy1214 00:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

SHALALALALARD

Where you be???--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 01:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

On yahoo messenger talking to someone. Where are you? ~Shard 01:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Link your yahoo messenger to MSN imo. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 01:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Did something happen the other day? You logged out really fast.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 01:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine. I'll play with you guys tonight. ~Shard 01:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Dude, that sounds like something I would say, which means something happened. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 03:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily something bad ;) ~Shard 06:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that what she said? -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 14:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL aww cmon thats mean :/ ~Shard 20:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm making Adrin clean today...if you catch him on GW, let me know asap because he will be in BIG trouble if the closets aren't clean and organized when I get home. Oh, and are we HA'ing tonight? BTW braveway--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 20:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, braveway tonight..well, not so much. I wanna try something. I broke imbagons today. It's funny. Imagine a backline that can't die. Ever. Thanks for making paragons invincible izzy. ~Shard 20:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I want in. Can I be in? -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 21:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

want do you think

About this sealed deck : http://www.pvxwiki.com/wiki/User:Lilondra/Sealeddeck ? Can ya spot any OP gimmicks ? the idea is to create a balanced tourny Lilondra *poke* 17:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Vampiric spirit is not overpowered

It's in a weak attribute and the damage is not all that much (only 5...41...53). Perhaps the regeneration could be nerfed a bit, but this is supposed to be elite. Toxic chill/toxic shock is way better for spiking.

Read User:Shard/GWBalance and read the part about what "elite" means. You obviously don't understand yet. ~Shard 04:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Already did. It's just healing breeze + small damage + small heal. Perhaps nerf it a bit but it is no good for spiking. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:96.233.11.131 (talk).

Hint: it's life-stealing. Hint#2: people bring 6 copies of this + follow up life stealing skills. Hint#3: Necros have infinite energy. --Riddle 13:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hint #4: It has like a half second recharge. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 14:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. The recharge is 5 seconds. There's aftercast of .75 seconds plus the 1 second cast for the follow-up skill. If your monk cannot infuse that, get an AI monk.

Like half a second isn't half a second, just means really short, even 6.75 sec's isn't that long. And like the build shown above, it's the 6x Vamp Spirit at once that's the issue. Life stealing, being armor ignoring (with health gain to boot), makes for a good spike in general. The ease and speed of this skill for the damage it gives makes it overpowered. And that's still ignoring the +5-10 regen. I have to agree with Shard this time, this skill is a bit much. |Foul Bane| 16:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue is to nerf bloodspike without nerfing the skill. Another possibility is "Target foe takes 5...41...53 damage. You gain 1 health for each point of damage.

The real problem with that build is the spammability of the life stealing, along with unholy feast's AoE. You can easily run that with Cry for Charge, a few Wails for Vamp Spirit, a bhaze necro with something like Return just to be annoying, etc. (Most people - as I saw yesterday - were bad enough to kite when they were dazed regardless of the fact that I was spamming vamp gaze and angorodon's instead of wanding, but that's a different story.) -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 19:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I need to write a section about why having identical skills effectively cuts their recharges in half. ~Shard 22:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a good thing you brought that up. I was thinking the same thing too. That's why clumsiness, wandering eye, and ineptitude get nerfed-there is the OPTION to bring "echoes" of the same effect without using arcane echo.

At the cost of a skill slot, sure. Unless you're talking about things like vamp spirit or cripslash. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 22:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Skill slot limitations matter to gimmicks? ~Shard 22:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - you can only bring eight overpowered skills/combinations. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 23:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Remember back in the day when 8 skills couldn't accomplish every possible thing imaginable? ~Shard 23:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Tbh, my first character was an assassin and I didn't get into PvP until the dawn of Nightfall (ups). It's my dirty little secret - don't let anyone know. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 00:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's ok, my first character was an ele/mes whose biggest damage came from Conjure Phantasm. ~Shard 00:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You think that's bad? When I was still a noob, my R/Mo used orison of healing as a self heal

Neverwinter Nights

GW is giving me headaches...I'm going to take the week off to play NWN. I'm sure that will make you smile :)--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 02:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool, cause I'm taking the week off to make a better game than GW :) ~Shard 02:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I have so many ideas right now for your NWN module...I need to play with the toolset more.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 23:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Come on vent tomorrow...I have questions about scripting and waypoints for the toolset.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 04:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I won't be on until later in the night. BTW I finished crusade's sky system and it's hawt. If my sky system was a chick, I'd do her. ~Shard 19:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back from your ban. I found some "how-to's" on scripting...scripting for dummies lol to a degree. Are there any you reccomend? I downloaded script generator...it had a lot of good reviews on it. Have you heard of it or used it?--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 22:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

the tourny

would you participate ? Lilondra |*Tourny* 17:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's

HA. Gogo. Also, give me a more reliable way to contact you, as you're barely ever on MSN and rarely on GW. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 01:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Pick me! Pick me! Awesome, sexy, pro Mesmer LFG HOH--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 04:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Bloodspike with Wail of Doom x4. Tomorrow night. Y/N? -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 15:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Chilling + splinter > Istan. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 16:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yasmin > Evil Mime...that was hilarious. Seriously, last night was the funniest GW Halloween ever.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 21:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

We can bea it tonight.

Mad King Says FIX THE GAME!!!

Now nerf sway! (izzy gets a bag of treats as it didn't read "mad king says")

Aww man, all of anet just died... ~Shard 22:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I like how Adrin tied and lost and I won first try. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 23:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well, that's what rock paper scissors is. That's why top guilds lose to sway. ~Shard 00:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Obvious conclusion: I > Adrin. Get on vent. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 00:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I tried type /ROCK the second time but he used Wail of Doom on me. All my keys would type 0 --Adrin 01:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Obv you want /RAWK. Typing in "/RAWK ,,!,,(-_-),,!,," gets you an auto-win. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 01:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I typed /woundingstrike, then thorn died and I got 40 faction. ~Shard 04:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Shard <3 Izzy

Shard you must really like me or something my name shows up on this page like a billion times. Izzy @-'---- 01:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hehehe. I like you as a person, but you really need to care more about GW1 balance. ~Shard 01:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW I'm still on your ignore list. I wanted to invite you to play with us one night, because chances are you're better than every pug in HA. ~Shard 01:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

As Shard's better female reason, and his GL, thanks for giving him and Armond a few moments of your time Izzy. It was definitely exciting around our GH last night while all this was happening. The offer also stands that we'd love to HA with you guys, you're welcome at my hall anytime.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 18:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to add...I'm sorry that you were caught at a busy time with your family last night.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 18:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

My sensible guild leader wanted to know if you dressed up as Shrek. ~Shard 02:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Its true...I did lol.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 05:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration request

Guild Wars Wiki:Arbitration committee/2008-11-01-User:Shard. -- Brains12 \ talk 01:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

So much drama, it's touching... Dark Morphon(contribs) 16:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Its certainly making Shard famous...and definitely helping his "rebel" ideas get across to the masses.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 18:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to sound bigheaded, but everyone who reads that page already knows who i am. ~Shard 06:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol and I'd say infamous is a better word for it :P -- Wyn 06:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You know that you are basically making the same mistakes as Shard. Just because someone trolls doesn't make you right to troll that person back, especially coming from a Sysop. I am disappointed.Pika Fan 06:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

yh the pokemonhugger is right Lilondra *gale* 07:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, wyn is a huge wikitroll. Glad you pointed that out. -Auron 08:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Why sarcastic on a sarcastic comment ? Lilondra *gale* 08:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trolling, Shard knows how I feel, and seriously, infamous is a much better word for it than famous. I have not attacked Shard in any way, I have not insulted him, I have not come here making snide comments about his balance ideas. So just how is my comment trolling or doing what Shard does? -- Wyn 09:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Lilondra, I was responding to Pika fan's comment about a sysop supposedly trolling and being disappointed or some shit. I stopped paying attention after it departed from reality. -Auron 13:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

lol lol

so youre online then :) will add you on GW ^^.Also i fucking lol'd at that picture of WS Lilondra *gale* 07:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

get online NAO Lilondra *gale* 08:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Vent

You're bad. 64.59.99.130 23:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

THAT MEANS GET ON IT 64.59.99.130 01:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

HA gogogogogoggogogoggogogogogogogo!!!!--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 01:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yas raged HA. Halp with NWN. 64.59.99.130 02:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Monking blowwwwwsssssssssssssssssssss--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 18:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Just stop.......

For the love of god, just stop.. your rants are annoying and what you claim as truth is really irrelevant. We've had the discussion before about your trashing Anet and Anet employees. Regardless of how you may perceive it is is a violation of NPA, and I'm so tired of repeating myself I'm about at the screaming point. Stop with the rants on Izzy's page about his incompetence.. and that of the rest of Anet's employees. -- Wyn 05:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

For the love of god, just stop.. your rants are annoying and what you claim to be NPA is really irrelevant. We've had the discussion before about your carebearness. Regardless of how you may perceive it is is obstructing your duty, and I'm so tired of watching you do stupid stuff I'm about at the screaming point. Stop with the rants against other users about NPA.. and just ban vandals. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 13:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You've been blocked, yet again, for your incessant whining, misuse, and attacks on Izzy's talk page. Take Wyn's advice, and if you can't use the wiki properly, don't use it at all. If blocking for disruption means I'm corrupt, by your definition, then corrupt I shall be. You need to understand, even if they're remotely true, that this isn't the place for your ranting, raving, and attacks on ArenaNet.

Armond, you've been told multiple times (both in IRC and on the wiki, namely by Tanetris) to troll less. I don't understand why you're doing this, but it's unhelpful, annoying, and simply non-constructive. I don't want to have to block or lecture you two about this, but your contributions don't leave me any choice. Start being more constructive. -- Brains12 \ talk 17:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this isn't a problem I can solve. Until there's a place where we can tell Izzy the shit he needs to know without you moving every goddamn thread every five minutes, sysops are going to be stupid about "don't whine on izzy's page etc" and Shard and I are going to bitch and whine - both at Izzy, because he kinda needs it, and at the sysops.

I don't agree with Shard calling you corrupt - you're doing your job - but I don't think you're handling this the best way you could, either. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 18:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you suggest I do? Let you flame him on his talk page non-stop and call his team incompetent and dumb? Because that, it seems to me, is what you think is the "shit he needs to know", and that is why you get banned. You need to realise that the wiki > (your perception of) balance. Your "shit he needs to know" will achieve nothing more than him being driven away from his own talk page. Not to mention the fact that he's been getting told this "shit he needs to know" by players for ages, and he's not going to suddenly fire his team and do things he's not paid to do just because it's now two guys named Shard and Armond telling him. You seem to think your bitching and whining will actually achieve anything more than annoying and disrupting the wiki. Excuse me for trying to stop that. -- Brains12 \ talk 21:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that Its not just Armond and shard,Its every half decent player that doesnt want to exploit every single gimmick izzy creates that want(s)(ed) to say it.Its not the perception of 1 person its the perception of few thousand of people (if i'm not mistaking that is ).He gets paid to balance the game.So I dont get why he would be doing other then what he gets paid for then.Anyway I know this is a hard situation to judge and you have no choice but to choose the side of the developpers but for what it's worth you got my opinion.Lilondra *poke* 15:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Lilondra, Shard, and Armond on that. Perhaps I don't agree with the way they are going about it (for example, flaming Izzy's talk page) but they do have a good point. I don't even agree with some of the skill balances that Shard wants(for example he wants to nerf rangers into extinction) but most of his suggestions are at least somewhat worthwhile. The wiki would not gain anything by blocking Shard.

Yes but many more players get on the wiki/forums/w.e voice their opinions about what they don't like then the players who iether don't care or like it the way it is. I primarily do PvE, with some PvP, and from all the time I've played, the vast majority don't share the same opinion of how "bad" GW has gotten. Obviiously I've only talked to a tiny number of players compared to the whole, and they were also mostly PvE, but like you said, it's only a few thousand players who are unhappy with GW as it is (or as it's becoming). That is out of several million people who play GW. ANet, as a company, is trying to get the most money out of their products. They are trying to make GW appeal to the largest amount of people possible. So far, the biggest selling point is its casual, pick-up-and-play style. If the majority of people want just a game they can play w.e and have fun with with no online fee, thats where they are going to focus on. Generally, people who enjoy casual play tend towards PvE sides of games, or large scale PvP. The high-end PvP is obviously going to come second if it doesn't have as high an appeal to the majority of players. And of the high-end PvP, there are a number of players who aren't up in arms over how Izzy runs balancing. Again, the majority of players who voice their opinions at izzy or anet are usually the ones upset, many of the perfectly content players don't bother saying anything, because they are having fun playing.

As far as Izzy not doing his job, thats complete BS. He is doing his job, and trying his best IMO. He is spending most of his time balancing GW2, trying to get it ready. When it comes out, people will pretty much switch from GW to GW2, so if he spent 75% of his time on GW1 instead of vice-versa, we would have a better GW1 until GW2 will come out and be crap. Then, everyone who was already done with GW1 will quit because GW2 sucks; people who just start will quit because GW2 sucks, and then all that will be left is the small GW1 community still playing, and whoever decided to stick with GW2 and wait the next year or two until Izzy gets back to balancing 2 instead of 1. I would honestly be dissapointed if I knew Izzy was spending his time on GW1 more then 2, because then I know that even when GW2 comes out, I have nothing to look forward to. He is doing the best with what he has, what more can you ask? For all the idiots who say he should be fired or w.e to change the people involved, then you'd have someone without near as much experience trying to work on two games at once, one that still is a long ways off from completion. He didn't get his job because he was a terrible game balancer, and I seriously doubt they'd hire some random wiki-poster to do the job instead.

Shard, I honestly think you're pretty good on skill ideas and balancing. I personally agree with quite a few of your desires for changes to GW, but your ideas are lost in the all the insults. If you are actually concerned with how Izzy does his job and how GW is in general, try to be constructive. Even if you are 100% right on everything you say regarding balance, it means nothing if you are saying it as an insult to someone. I enjoy reading many of your skill ideas, and like the skill-of-the-day you do, but if you are completely unwilling to contribute positively, then please take it elsewhere... *sigh*

I appologize for the long rant. I realize it was probably unneeded, and I don't contribute a whole lot to the wiki or know as much as many others here.. But I as well am getting tired of all the crap Anet and Izzy get in general, not just from Shard. If people truly wanted to do something constructive, you are going to get no-where by trolling and insulting. All the crap that gets said on Izzy's page just defers him from reading it. I would be hard-pressed to take advise (which relates to my JOB which I'm being paid to do) from someone who frequently tells me how horrible I suck at balancing. If all someone is interested in is flaming, do it elsewhere. If someone actually wants to improve something, then just say how. Don't add in crap that we have to cipher through to find the actual point.

Kudos to anyone who actually reads all that. I'm tired and kranky, and probably could have made my point alot simpler, but w.e. I hope I'm actually listened to... |Foul Bane| 16:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I want to appologize if I sounded like I was just trying to gang up on you Shard. Most of that is directed at people in general and not you alone, but you are one of the most heavy commentors against Izzy. |Foul Bane| 17:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the difference is Foul, Shard is coming from a strictly PvP perspective on his rants. The PvE side of the game isn't really bad in the balance dept., at least I don't particularly think so. He, Armond and Liliondra are coming from a perspective of people who do high end PvP 100% of the time they play, and have done so for at least 2+ years. In most PvP only groups there is a division between people who are of the newer breed of top players who are ok and adaptable to the current state of GW and those who are from the older days who are angry, hurt and disgusted by the recent changes. Shard is one of those from group 2...though he is not a representation of all players from group 2.

Knowing Shard as I do (we've been friends for 3 years) I see his posts from a different area than a person reading them without knowing him would. He makes good points, but it is the anger that comes along with his points often removes the validation for many people reading them, provoking offensiveness in the reader which turns them off from the point he may be attempting to make. I know I've had to get on him about it after GvG and HA matches, and I can sympathize with Wyn and Brains on their choices. Shard means well, but he's angry at Arenanet because he really does like the game--its difficult to watch something that is fundamentally great self destruct. I have similar feelings to his, but we differ in the way we project those feelings. I have accepted the game as it is, and I am still willing to try and enjoy it or adapt too it in a way which refrains from the blame game...as hard as that can be sometimes. But back to the point at hand...Shard is Shard, and he will always be true to his belief system and he will continue to be forceful in his approach. He's a renagade and an extremist, and that is how he will always be. Love him or hate him.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 20:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Easy for you to say. I wasted $100 on the first 2 chapters before figuring out that Anet as going to throw Build Wars into the trash. And I'm not buying any more until Anet can actually be competent for once. Shard's probably purchased ALL chapters, which means that he's waste more money than me on Build Wars.

He has all of them, yes.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 15:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I would already like a refund. Since Shard has paid more than me, he obviously has the right to be angrier at Anet than me because they ate up more of his money.

Yasmin, I don't PvP 100% of the time, and PvE balance is probably worse than PvP balance (consumables, PvE skills, bad enemy AI, etc). -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 22:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Lies! The other day you were in GvG when I pm'd you. JK. Shhh! Armond! Now I can't justify Shard's torrent of rage! Lol. Anyway...by me saying Pve isn't as badly balanced as PvP, I meant that it doesn't make most people scream and want to rip their hair out like some of the PvP situations do and the basis of the arguments made by Shard and such are from a PvP perspective...particularly those he directs at Anet staff. I think I was defining "broken" and "balance" in Shard terms...and those directly relate to PvP. Sorry for not working that better, I suppose. IMO PvE isn't "broken" by the same definition I meant when discussing Shard, I define it as not challenging or motavaiting and I do agree with you 100% on the AI and the PvE skills...most of them defeated the originality of the game and removed the usage of each classes specialties from the game, worse still eliminated the 100+ skills created specifically for each class, and just left a void of armor level and cosmetics behind in their place. The broken nature of PvE that you mention--pve skills consumies--, I feel, are a result of some of the items Shard often mentions being direct changes to the PvP aspect of GW, before the separation of skills update. And all the damage done prior to that update are done and done. But you get my drift on it...so yeah, I guess its broke too.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 23:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

PvE is just as badly balanced as PvP due to permanent invincibility, spammable non-elite energy-based knockdowns on demand with no downside, imbalanced scythe damage, and spammable damage through armor.

Lol carebearism.

Lol failures.

Izzy is a failure for not being able to balance like a sane person.

Sysops are failures for their ignorance and the acute case of head up the arse.

Foul is a failure for commenting when he knows zilch about the issue. Fuck off.

Yasmin is a failure for trying to defend shard.

Shard is a failure for even trying - this place is lol fail.

Wyn (fail of a name) is a failure for being such good troll bait. Yum Yum.

Wyn is further a failure for being a fucking carebear.

Wyin is further a failure for trying when he has failed (lulz) in the past.

Brains is a failure for trying and waving the banstick around when he can't reason.

Brains is further a failure for blocking my for this post because he is a sensitive asshole.

Armond is a failure for caring.

God, that felt good.

So, can anyone tell me exactly what rule Shard broke? Or is it just that you are not allowed to say anything negative to Anet because it hurts their poor feelings? Dark Morphon(contribs) 18:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

NPA I'd guess... but imo anyone can complain without attacking izzy, u know it only drives him off and doesn't give anything, being oh so emotional about a game doesn't get u anywhere, shard, even if ure right. wyn have her own opinions as she doesn't play pvp or know how izzy ruins it, but well, she also got a point, i just think this wiki is getting immature... (yeh i know im the wrong person to say so, but wth, these discussions are so gay and pointless by now...) --Cancer Angel 18:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently admins can call NPA on something even if it's completely true. If I said "Michael Jackson molests boys" I'd probably get banned for that too. Truth on wiki is overrated amirite? We don't want facts on a wiki. That would be too logical. ~Shard 19:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's just that in your mind, you've somehow convinced yourself that your personal opinion is the same as truth. Kind of like how compulsive liars can eventually come to believe what they say (and no, I'm not calling you a compulsive liar, I'm just commenting on the psychology of the situation). Kokuou 19:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny, but a good chunk of other people seem to be convinced of the same thing, especially given the, y'know, logic involved. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 19:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the number of this people on this wiki that believe this "truth" I could probably count on both hands, if not one. Still, even if the number that you know is, say 100 or even 1,000, that's still an incredibly minuscule amount of people compared to the game's playerbase. Still, the point is that you can be as right as you want, but when you start getting nasty to people, they're not going to listen to you, no matter how blue in the face you get from yelling obscenities, which is the point of this section. Kokuou 19:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The truth changes based on how many people believe it? Shit dude, the world must be flat and is the center of the universe. I guess all those pictures of earth are fake

Kokuou, truth is based on facts. Fact: Balance in GW is bad. Fact: People have quit because of how bad pvp is. Fact: Anet doesn't maintain their game well.

Conclusion based on facts: Izzy fails and anet doesn't care enough. ~Shard 01:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

There, fixed the fail list so it doesn't fail and doesn't violate NPA.

(Reset indent) No, truth (today, at least) is based on scientific experimentation and results, or when it's accepted as the general consensus. Even then, it's only true until it's proven to be false. When it is, we have a new "truth," hence why people did think the world was flat once, and now don't. You can't scientifically test the theory that "Izzy fails," nor do you have a general consensus (as much as you think you would like to have one), and as such any statement made pertaining to Izzy "failing" is pure opinion and nothing more. Sorry to burst your bubble, but as I said before, no matter how right you think you are, no one's going to listen to someone that's berating them. Try not to forget that's the entire point of this thread, and not, in fact, whether Izzy fails or not. Kokuou 05:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You are so bad it's not even funny anymore. Try to keep my headaches to a minimum, wouldn't you? -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 05:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Kokuou; you would have a faint semblance of an argument if GW was balanced. However, it is not. There is nothing balanced about invincibility via shadow form or SY, about nuking 50 hard mode monsters from full health to death in two seconds from cry of pain, or about winning pvp instantly by bringing fire eles. A long time ago, it seems, we had to bring something called "player skill," but that time has long since passed.

I'm not condoning Armond and shard's attack fests, but their arguments are valid. And, yes, what shard is stating is pretty much fact. Ensign has already shown proof that ArenaNet doesn't understand balance. If you don't believe Ensign has a better grasp of balance than the entirety of ArenaNet, there's really no point in discussing this matter with you. -Auron 05:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't play much PvP, but from what people say (and from my limited experience), I do agree that perhaps it's not even close to optimal. I'll give you, Shard, and Armond that much. However, just because that may be the consensus doesn't mean that all of a sudden Izzy fails, nor does it give anyone the right to tell Izzy that he fails. Yes, he's made mistakes, I'll give them that, but he's only human. However, unless they have secret hidden cameras in ArenaNet's offices and can view them as they go about their work, they have absolutely no idea how ArenaNet works as a business, and how Izzy and the skill balancing team go about their daily jobs. Software changes (i.e. bug fixes) take a long time to thoroughly test out, not "15 minutes" as some might believe, especially if Izzy were to make all of the changes that his haters request. Especially now, what with the entire team being busy on a completely new project.

However, none of this is the point, which is say it without flaming, or don't say it at all. It really is that simple. They can say that the skill balance itself fails, that they hate how such and such a skill works, or that a certain skill is broken beyond belief. However, they cannot say it with personal attacks on Izzy's character, or they face being banned. I really don't know what's so hard to understand about that. Frankly, I'm surprised that they're both still around. Kokuou 05:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Now Ensign is an example of voicing frustration to ArenaNet without resorting to personal attacks. You can clearly sense the frustration in his analysis, but not one time does he say that Izzy or anyone else at ArenaNet fails. If Shard or Armond could do this, and consistently, perhaps they'd be more listened to. Or perhaps not; how ArenaNet wants to run its own game is completely their prerogative. That said, as it stands now, they could be right until they're blue in the face, but until they learn how to say it constructively, like Ensign did in that passage, then they'll get very little respect from a lot of people here. Kokuou 05:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt anyone at ANet will listen to Shard or Armond, partly for the reason you stated, but also because of general inexperience with balance. However, neither Shard or Armond care, and they're probably going to keep posting. When gw2 comes out and is a huge shitfest, at least two people will feel good about their efforts :) -Auron 07:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I freely admit that at this point I'm just in it for the lulz. (Mostly, at least.) -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 07:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Anet hasn't fired izzy because many people (and I do not blame them for this) don't understand game balance at all. It's hard to see "He's balancing the game well" compared to other jobs where employers get something tangible from a worker. Game Balance is part art, which some people can't see and thus don't know how badly izzy is doing. However, when it gets so bad that you can place parts of the game into "overpowered" and "useless" with nothing in between, something's very very wrong.

I've given up all hope of anet acquiring any brain power at this point. I'm here simply because starcraft2 and diablo3 havent come out yet. The sad part about starcraft2: It's more balanced than Guild Wars, and it isn't even out yet. ~Shard 08:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Then come play NWN with me. Last night was hilarious.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 16:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

So if you made every skill either overpowered or horribly underpowered you did not fail your job? If you never, EVER listened to the community you didn't fail your job? I wouldn't say Izzy fails as a person because this is probably false, but stop denying that he fails at his job. It's simply the truth. Dark Morphon(contribs) 16:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

For people that believe he did listen to the community, look at how much effort we have to do to get something under his attention. We aren't even allowed to say most things, because otherwise we get banned. Is that a good way to communicate with the community? I'd say not. Judge for yourself, I have spoken. Dark Morphon(contribs) 16:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I hate to play Sargento to your Simplicio and Salivati, but seeing as I hardly know anyone on the wiki, can I be a third party to this? Okay...Shard, I think you're being a bit too hard on Izzy and Wyn is being a bit too carebeary. Most people feel Izzy isn't very good at his job, and it's okay to say so, but on the other hard Shard's way of showing that has been a bit too...enthusiastic? I hope not to make any enemies with this, but I think Shard has to tone it down and the admins have to be easier on everyone. Please don't hurt me! Chfan 12:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't know me,I don't know you :)If you want to get a point across Shard,try being a bit nicer about it,the "squeaky cog getting the most grease",doesn't work here.I do however agree with you with most of your balance suggestions.It's merely how you put those idea's across thats lead to arbcomm and this section.Also agreeing with Chfan (Hi btw) the sysops in general need to stop carebearing the anet staff soo much.It's like treating them as kids,which they aren't.The overbearing protectiveness over those staff members isn't helping matters either.Let feedback,discussion and documentation happen and intervene should it get out of context"contribute on the article not on the contributor".Isn't that the purpose of this wiki?BlackBlood - talk 13:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)