User talk:Shard/Archive6

Ahhh...clean slate...peace and quiet

If you'd like to continue flaming me, the sysops, and/or various members of arenanet, the heated one-sided debate is at the bottom of archive 5. ~Shard 07:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

FURZT ^^ Lilondra *gale* 17:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

SECONDZZZZzzZZzzZZZZZZZ! Dark Morphon(contribs) 17:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The last time I flamed you, we got 2 weeks worth of favor.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 10:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Do Flames of Shard give 1k awesome faction? -Auron 10:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

someting tells me they do but then again if you are sarcastic about it then they proly wont Lilondra *gale* 11:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

oh man i saw that arbitration thing tough break yo Sup brah 23:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want to see it again, let it drown in gasoline. ..., just another random thought of mine xD. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 23:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems like less than a month has gone by and already time for another archive...*sigh* ~Shard 03:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Question about engines, graphics, and some tools.

I have a few questions: I am learning c++ now, but I can't find the commands to make the program recognize when I press a button, (e.g.:1) and not enter it's value.

I want to ask you: how do people create a game engine? How can I create 3d effects with the programming language?

My last question: How can I use the graphic tools of c++? and where can I find the list (and syntax) of it's commands?

Borotvaltgandalf 06:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

For the recognizing when you press a key, the simplest solution is to use getch.

int x = getch();
if(x == 48) { cout << "Hello"; }

The value getch returns is the ASCII value of the character they press, so in the above example, if I'm remembering ASCII values correctly, the program would print "Hello" if they press the 0 key. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 07:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The printf function is better.

1. jME has its own input system that comes with it, so I never had to write my own. I'm not that familiar with the C standard library for input.
2. Game Engines...depends what you mean. If you mean a graphics engine, there are quite a bit of them out there. I haven't actually written a renderer (the processes that handle putting flattening geometry onto the screen), so I wouldn't know what to tell you. Taking a graphics engine and creating a game engine from it (basically a game without any "stuff") is like making any other user interface...just a lot more complex. You put lots of geometry and crap in imaginary 3d space and tell the renderer how to draw it. Just to give you an idea how long it takes...I wrote my game logic in one year of maybe 3 hours of coding a day, and the engine in two and a half. RPG engines typically take longer based on their complexity, but any type of game takes a long time to make.
3. I'm not too familiar with the graphics tools of the c++ standard library. If you're an indie programmer (which i assume you are), you're gonna want to use an already existing graphics engine to make a game. A good C++ engine (from what ive heard/seen) is Ogre3d. I'm sure wikipedia has many others listed. ~Shard 08:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Edited your Skill of the Day to be a bit more accurate

If you don't like it, feel free to revert.

I rv'ed it, because Shard won't be unbanned for another week or so. --Riddle 01:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What did he get banned for?

Do you really need to ask that?-- anguard 22:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Skill of the Day? Skill of the Game!

0(with Attacker's Insight) Faster than EVERY FORM OF MELEE HATE IN THE GAME
Elite Scythe Attack. If target foe is not suffering from Deep Wound and Bleeding, they are now. If you are an Elementalist secondary, they also lose ~70 Health. If there is a Signet Mesmer in your party, they lose ~85 health instead. That foe suffers from Deep Wound as long as you continue to target them unless there is an RC Monk in their party, in which case the RC monk must spend as much Energy as you to keep things alive if RC has not been removed from the game by Signet of Humility. If there is not an RC monk present, the other team's monk heals for 20% less on everyone who needs it most. If this attack is blocked, it recharges faster than Guardian, and some other poor victim is dying by the time they get protted. If this attack does not inflict Deep Wound, then the other team's enchantment removal is entirely devoted to keeping you shut down. If your target was a squishy with less than 40% maximum health and not suffering from a Deep Wound, that foe dies.
I love this skill. You'll find that I'm not exaggerating at all. Raine - talk 02:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading more about you and some of the things you've been trying to accomplish, I've been sifting through talk archives, I've been looking... I do, very much, like what I'm seeing from you. I guess, yeah, you can be kind of a douche about some points sometimes; a lot of people resort to doucheism when they're not being listened to. What I'd like, what it looks like we'd all like, would be a place to be heard, y'know? No one looks at the skill feedback pages, from what I've seen... Kind of makes you wonder who, if anyone, cares. From the looks of things now, I'd say there's a clear-cut animosity between the people asking for change and those capable of bringing it about; what kind of organization can function like that, what community has ever been successful when the people and those in power were so separate? Who's being listened to?

Yeah, keep up the good work... Yell louder, maybe someone'll hear you. Raine - talk 03:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you believe that no one looks at the skill feedback pages. Just because the suggestions are not being implemented doesn't mean they aren't being read. Quite simply, many of the suggestions may not be feasible for any number of reasons that you have no idea of. Suggesting that Shard should yell louder is only going to result in him getting longer bans. I'm seriously hoping that his two week break will make him think really hard about how he wants to behave when he comes back because his previous behavior is no longer going to be tolerated. It has proven totally and completely ineffective for achieving any of the results he claims to want, and you'd do well to think about that as well.-- Wyn 13:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that they're being taken looked at because:

(1) There have not been changes.

(2) There have not even been responses in the vast majority of the cases.

I don't know what makes you, Wyn, think that the player base is being listened to. If every time someone tries to get a step in the right direction pushed through (because clearly, a lot of the people who should be pushing these changes simply aren't), they get banned and still no change happens, then maybe, yeah, we should all just roll over and stop trying. Maybe we should all just go on blind faith and say, "in spite of all of the things that should be done but aren't being done, regardless of how many times people have pointed out not only that they need to be done, but also why, we'll just have to assume that we're being taken into consideration at all because they told us that we were."

I don't see it, Wyn. Show me that someone's listening. Raine - talk 22:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

[EDIT]: For the sake of not being one-sided, I'll say that I've seen a very small number of posts from Izzy. However, it appears that the changes that have taken place have been not on the things that the player base has stated and proven need them (see Searing Flames, Wounding Strike, Avatar of Melandru, etc.), but on what "those capable of bringing [change] about" have decided needed to be changed (see Glowing Ice & Icy Shackles, for example). Tell me that I'm wrong about the "clear-cut animosity between the people asking for change and those capable of bringing it about", and I'll tell you that you're blind. Raine - talk 22:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite simply Anet isn't required to change anything, no matter how many people ask for it or desire it. They can leave the game as it is for as long as they want. There may be a plethora of valid reasons why suggestions/feedback can not be acted on, from a programming standpoint, a marketing standpoint, etc that no one but Anet knows, and they are not required to share that information. The fact that when they do comment on anything they get flooded with disrespectful, insulting comments from the small portion of the community that seems to think they are required to be listened to. You have a simple choice, play the game or not. Anet doesn't gain anything from your continuing to play, they've got your money already. So your assumption that none of the suggestions are being looked at is as false as me saying the moon is made of green cheese. Lindsey posts regularly, Izzy posts fairly regularly, and Kim has started to post (she was not aware the skill bugs page even existed until very recently). Of course, if you have been following Shard's posts, you know exactly how THAT turned out. And you wonder why they don't comment? We have a policy here on the wiki called Assume Good Faith, that I think needs to be extended to Anet as well as fellow members of this community. Just because you don't see any evidence they are reading the suggestions, doesn't mean they aren't. -- Wyn 22:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. "Just because you don't see any evidence they are reading the suggestions, doesn't mean" that I shouldn't take it on faith that they are? I think Shard's got the programming standpoint (see Backbreaker), I think that a well-balanced game would sell better (see WoW), and as far as "they don't have to tell you a damn thing", see a few posts above: "I'd say there's a clear-cut animosity between the people asking for change and those capable of bringing it about."

The fact is, they're getting flooded with "disrespectful, insulting comments" for not doing anything on these issues, too. People agree: [1].

"Anet doesn't gain anything from your continuing to play, they've got your money already. So your assumption that none of the suggestions are being looked at is as false as me saying the moon is made of green cheese." "They already have what they want from you, so your assumption that they're not still taking measures to make your experience better is obviously not correct." No. Just no.

"Lindsey posts regularly, Izzy posts fairly regularly, and Kim has started to post (she was not aware the skill bugs page even existed until very recently)." "Posts regularly" and "accomplishes anything" are two very different statements. Shard "posts regularly". He gets nothing accomplished (save being banned). You "post regularly". You get nothing accomplished. I "post regularly". I'm still not convinced that anyone gives a damn, Wyn. "She was not aware the skill bugs page even existed until very recently." I won't even go into that.

But, I think you did get one thing very right in that post: "Quite simply Anet isn't required to change anything, no matter how many people ask for it or desire it." Thank you for that, Wyn. Anet isn't required to do a thing, and they're showing it. I think you'll find that you just agreed with me.

Assume Good Faith? Okay, assuming that they're not intentionally doing so little, that leaves (1) ignorance and (2) incompetence as reasons for not making changes. Where do you want the Shardism user box on your page? Raine - talk 23:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

To quote you... "No, just NO." I don't agree with you or Shard or any like you. I have gotten MORE than my money's worth of enjoyment out of this game, and continue to play without being insulting and rude and attacking the employees of Anet. Shard's knowledge of programming for a game of this magnitude is minimal at best, so if you are buying into his claims that he knows what it takes to implement even small changes is simply your problem. And even if they don't give a damn about making GW what some of you feel it should be, it's not detracting from my and many others' continued enjoyment of this game. The reason Shard gets banned is because the way he expresses his animosity toward Anet is a violation of this wiki's policies, and is only leading to more animosity and will never ever achieve a positive result. Again, if you are so completely unhappy with this game and the company that owns it, your choice is simple - stop playing it, and go buy WoW if it's so superior (which imo it's not, the graphics are cheesy, the game mechanics suck... ). I for one think they are doing a fine job of implementing the changes that are feasible, and have been asked for by many. The simple fact that the some of things they do comment on are not what you and Shard want to hear is once again, your problem, so stop trying to make it everyone else's. -- Wyn 23:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm equally as entitled to say that everything is not okay as you are to say that it is.

His claims that he has the programming knowledge are more valid than you claims that the feedback pages are being read; there's absolutely no evidence at all of the latter. For evidence of the former, again, see Backbreaker (archive 5 of this page for more information); it's an easy example.

"And even if they don't give a damn about making GW what some of you feel it should be, it's not detracting from my and many others' continued enjoyment of this game." It's good that you enjoy the game, congratulations. So do I. I would enjoy it more if it were balanced. Other people would enjoy it more if it were balanced. The imbalance may not be detracting from your play, but it is detracting from my and others'. I care about that, just as much as you don't.

"The reason Shard gets banned is because the way he expresses his animosity toward Anet is a violation of this wiki's policies, and is only leading to more animosity and will never ever achieve a positive result." So the users that don't violate the policies, like myself, are being punished through neglect for... what? Sharing the same beliefs?

I'm not a WoW fan. But from a "marketing standpoint", money is a WoW fan.

"I for one think they are doing a fine job of implementing the changes that are feasible, and have been asked for by many." Thet's good for you. I, for one, do not. "The simple fact that the some of things they do comment on are not what you and Shard want to hear is once again, your problem, so stop trying to make it everyone else's." The fact that you have no problem with imbalance is a tribute to your own blissful ignorance, but sadly, ignorance isn't something that you can share. I'll never tell anyone to stop trying, but open your eyes, Wyn. Raine - talk 01:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting: "I would enjoy it more if it were balanced. Other people would enjoy it more if it were balanced. The imbalance may not be detracting from your play, but it is detracting from my and others'. I care about that, just as much as you don't." To show the flipside, who suffers when a game in this current state of balance (or lack thereof, some would say) gets "balanced?" Also, just a reminder to attack and debunk the argument, not the user. --Riddle 05:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Those who would suffer from a mass balancing:

Those who currently enjoy the imbalanced state of the game today for its imbalance. The people who run bspike, SFway, etc, etc. Those who can't adapt to meta shifts (these would be the same people who have, in the past, said, "That nerf messed up my _______ build!"). However, there are many more people who think that these things are bad than there are people who abuse the lack of balance today (in some cases, they're the same people). For example, I play Conjure Wounding Strike Dervish with a Signet Mesmer, though I agree that it's a very imba build. Fun? Yes. Balanced? No. In the vast majority of cases, those who would see a mass balance as a negative change are the ones that are being complained about, like Conjure Wounding Strike Dervishes who don't understand that that build is imbalanced. Though even some of those who weren't being complained about would feel shorted somehow; remember this?

Of course, there will always be unhappy people. "To use that as an excuse to do nothing is ridiculous." Raine - talk 11:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Evidence that Anet listens to the players: they complained about title grinding. And see: the title grinding issue has been adressed. I know you won't agree with the following statement, but I believe you're overlooking one small possibility. Did you ever consider that you might be wrong? That you just don't understand the game the way Izzy (and Anet) do? And (this is getting dangerous for me, I know) that certain, common opinions, written by certain, high valued players, might simply be...wrong and biased? 145.94.74.23 22:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

When something is so powerful that it allows a group of players to easily beat better players (or even players on the same level), then it is not balanced. When a build, or something else, turns a form of play into "lol PvP" (or even "lol PvE"; see Ursan Blessing, Seed of Life, and consumable sets for easy examples.), like Searing Flames, Blood Spike, and Shitway have, then there's something wrong with it; please feel free to tell me what your interpretation of imbalanced is if you believe that to be incorrect.

When these things continue to exist, despite repeatedly being pointed out not by a select few, but by everyone who has come across them (in some cases, even the people that make use of these skills come to realize, "Okay, this is just too easy, something's not right."), it shows a neglect on the part of those who should be fixing these problems. Furthermore, there hasn't even been any sort of feedback to the player base on most of these issues, which is further neglect. I know that Anet isn't required to exercise common courtesy, but it's common courtesy. Again, if you believe that statement to be untrue, I'd very much like to hear your interpretation.

People have made the case that Anet wants the game to be as it is now. Are you familiar with Anet's Approved List of Skills? There isn't one on paper, you won't find it. But some skills simply are not at all viable when there are other skill choices; bringing anything else is a disadvantage to the player. Why take Reaper's Sweep when I could have Wounding Strike? Why take Disrupting Shot when I could have Distracting Shot? Why take any other skill when I could have pre-nerf Ursan Blessing?

I bring up that last example intentionally. Ursan Blessing was nerfed. It was long talked about, it eventually happened. That's good. However, the same thing simply isn't happening with a lot of the other things that need to be addressed. When was the last update to Searing Flames? When was the last talk about an update to Searing Flames? When has it been commented on at all?

We may be wrong and biased. If we are, a "You are wrong and biased" from Anet would be very much appreciated; we could stop wasting our time and effort trying to get things changed (for hesitancy to say "fixed") and start looking for new, better, more broken exploits.

I would rather play a Guild Wars where skill mattered more than skills, though. Raine - talk 00:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You know what would happen if they told people: you're wrong and biased. Even if they provided evidence, people would just flame them to no end. As for your examples of things that need to be adressed:

When something is so powerful that it allows a group of players to easily beat better players (or even players on the same level), then it is not balanced.

Well, that is open to interpetation. Maybe they're just not better.

• Seed of Life: has been nerfed.
• Ursan Blessing: has been nerfed.
• Consumables: some minor nerfs, so they're aware of your issues and working on them.
• Searing Flames: has had several changes, most of them focused on improving it for single characters and nerfing it for teams. Right now, it's probably where they want it. It helps the damage output of an Elementalist type that is meant to deal damage and it provides an alternative for the physical damage metagame, which, in my opinion, is very welcome. I don't want to turn this into a debate over a single skill, so let's just say that opinions on its overpoweredness vary.
• Blood Spike: they just tryed to to nerf it without removing it from the game -> again, having alternatives for physical damage dealers is good and they ARE adressing it.
• Shitway: again, it is imbalanced, but there have been efforts to reduce its power without removing the classes responsible for it from the game.

Why take Reaper's Sweep when I could have Wounding Strike? Why take Disrupting Shot when I could have Distracting Shot? Personal preference. To me, Wounding Strike (and Deep Wound for that matter) is extremely overhyped. Sure, it is good, but to make Deep Wound a goal in itself is just silly. It's a useful tool to take something down, nothing more. Reaper's Sweep would be a lot more useful in a spike, if timed correctly. The same goes for both D-shots: sometimes, you'd rather deal damage too and that's when you'd use the alternative. I am not saying that the skills you mention aren't good, because they are. I am just saying that some things depends on your point of view. Lately, the metagame has been getting more and more aggressive towards people that don't agree with it and thus reïnforcing it's beliefs because 'everyone uses it'. That is just my opinion, disagree with me if you wish. 145.94.74.23 09:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I plan to. Wounding Strike is unconditional +100 damage per target. In HA that's unconditional +300 damage. Why am I using Reaper's again?

Disrupting Shot is terribad - name me a single situation where you'd rather use it over dshot (the good one) without failing. This is one of the three basic premises of guild wars - utility wins out over damage, always. (The exception is dervishes in HA, or really, HA in general because the maps are designed so horribly.)

Your list of PvE nerfs is pathetic. Seed of Life isn't overpowered? Mimicry oath shot ursan isn't overpowered (completely disregarding, for the moment, the fact that he was talking about ursan in its prime)? Consumables have been touched at all? (A 5% nerf to one consumable is not significant in any way.)

Blood spike and searing flames aren't being addressed. They've had years to try to fix searing flames, and all they've done is change one thing and then revert it to its release stats (which, by the way, were overpowered). Blood spike was improperly addressed - they made two skills slightly less spammable without changing any of the other five lifesteal skills generally run on that bar, and the underlying problem (lifesteal ignoring all forms of prot) is now buried so deeply under a mountain of shitty code introduced since proph beta that we're not liable to get an actual fix.

Don't try to give us this bullshit of "opinions of overpoweredness" or "the metagame puts us in a downward spiral of play this or gtfo". There's no such thing as an opinion when it comes to overpowered skills - either something's balanced or it isn't. Wounding strike, as compared to eviscerate (the melee spike skill of choice for the past three years), is quite clearly not balanced. (Why waste 30 seconds building up adrenaline in the hopes I'll break through prot when I can spam essentially the same effect, plus AoE, every 3 seconds?) The metagame currently is "play this or gtfo" because everything else sucks - look up the term "power creep" sometime, and then look at everything introduced since Nightfall's release. Everything isn't run simply because everyone else uses it - everything that's run is run because it's so blatantly overpowered.

75.182.89.73 13:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly the reply I expected. I won't dignify it with a reply, other than this: blaming Anet for pre-nerf Ursan is stupid since they nerfed it. Maybe too late, but they did nerf it so it's ancient history. 145.94.74.23 16:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Wyn, "I enjoy the game" is relevant to the topic as "I like being sodomized with beer bottles". -- NUKLEAR IIV 17:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

TBH shard doesnt hate GW he hates the fact that Anet just lets one of the best games ever made rot.It might still be fun sometimes.And i'm sure its still addicting for a lot of people but tbh if so many people go from OMG GW LOL NEED TO QUIT THIS AND THAT FOR GW LOL LOL to ow gw again well another IRC clone something is wrong.I'm sure its a very good game still but it could be about 5 times better.Thats what shard is trying to say only he uses other words.Ow btw Hi nuke Lilondra *gale* 18:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

When r400 Guild X beats r50 Guild Y with Shitway, it's clearly because r400 guild is more skilled. Master of Whispers is way better than r50 players. And I'm not being sarcastic at all.

Anet is currently being flamed out the ass because they're not accomplishing anything significant; they acknowledge this, and I've posted the evidence of that previously. I'm flaming them now because they're not saying a damned thing, let alone anything positive. I'm not the only one who feels this way. If it comes down to it, I'd prefer a "We at Anet think the player base is wrong and biased" to "We at Anet refuse to comment on anything significant at all, so you've no choice but to assume that we're either ignorant of the problems or incapable of solving them."

Some skills are just bad; it's not even a matter of preference. People who "prefer" to run bad things are bad players. No matter how skilled you are, fail builds fail. Fail skills make fail builds, fail builds make fail players.

My goal wasn't to blame Anet for pre-nerf Ursan (though they should, very much, still be blamed for that, and for the fact that Oath Shot Ursan isn't being changed at all); read the argument, please. I compared Ursan to Searing Flames and gimmicky overpowered skills in general because it was clear for some time that Ursan was moving toward a nerf, but that process is simply not happening for other things at this point. "When was the last time Searing Flames was commented on at all?"

Reaper's Sweep does +40 damage every 8 seconds and maybe inflicts a deep wound. With WS, in 8 seconds, you can have 3 people Deep Wounded, 1 of whom will have been suffering from bleeding for 8 seconds, another for 5, and another for 2, totaling 180 bleed damage. Even if the bleeding were dismissed off on recharge, it's still ~6 seconds, totaling 72 damage. Even from a damage standpoint, WS > Reaper's.

Don't try to pull this "I'm not going to even dignify your counterargument" crap. There's just nothing further that you can say; you are wrong and biased. You lose.

If you've got anything further. Raine - talk 19:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I can say you're wrong too, but there is not a single argument I can give you that you will accept for truth, simply because you're too close minded. And I don't want to start a flame war on someone else's page, so I'll just say that you're great and all-knowing. Is that ok? You feel good about yourself now? I hope I made you feel good. 145.94.74.23 22:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The difference is, you've said that I was wrong several times now, and I've seen not one valid reason why. I'll tell you, again, exactly why you're wrong, because you don't seem to be catching on. Hold my hand as I walk you through this like a small child.

There are builds that allow players to win matches against more skilled players. For examples, take Critical Scythe, Shovesmite, Triple Smite RaO, Conjure WS + Signet Smite Mesmer, Shitway, Searing Flames Way, and Blood Spike. These are PvP builds. Because the skills utilized in these builds are so powerful in combination that they allow less-skilled players to win against more-skilled players, these builds are imbalanced.

The player base largely agrees on this. A lot of the players that run these builds agree on this.

These issues have been submitted to the development team numerous times, in the appropriate places. However, on the vast majority of these issues, the development team has not made changes to the builds in question nor have they even responded. This leads myself and others to believe that the development team is neglecting the opinions of the portion of the player base that has submitted the arguments against these builds.

Again, I bring up Searing Flames, because it is widely considered to be one of the most broken skills in the game. Searing Flames is today what it was when it was released. There is, currently, no discussion at all (that the player base is aware of) of any planned changes to the skill. This case is one of many similar cases. See also Wounding Strike, Avatar of Melandru, Vampiric Spirit, Depravity, Savannah Heat, Shattering Assault, Shadow Prison, Mend Body And Soul, Vengeful Weapon, and Motivation.

For the sake of contrast, I brought up Ursan Blessing earlier. Before it was nerfed, there was a lot of talk about the upcoming nerf. That talk has been absent in the case of the vast majority of skills that are currently considered imbalanced, and the absence of said discussion causes players to believe that there are not planned changes to these imbalanced skills or builds; this is a logical assumption.

I, being one of the aforementioned players who believes that ArenaNet is not making modifications to the said mechanics, have posted several times, in the appropriate places (the skill feedback pages); nothing has changed.

I repeat, for emphasis, nothing has changed.

That, 145.94, is overwhelming evidence that those who have followed procedure for expressing their discontent are not being listened to.

I really can't make it any more linear than that. If that's not plain enough, the best I can do is tell you to go to HA and see for yourself. Raine - talk 01:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that the 'good' players can't come up with a single argument that doesn't include a variation of: I am better than you, you are a *insert variation on bad player* here? As for those valid arguments, I have made several, but like I said before, you simply won't accept them as being valid.

There are builds that allow players to win matches against more skilled players. it is easy to call them less skilled if they beat you, but that doesn't mean they are. Rank/titles/fame in the metagame doesn't say everything. I bring up Searing Flames, because it is widely considered to be one of the most broken skills in the game. You did, but it isn't. It is very healthy for the game to have alternatives to the physical damage dealer (this is where you don't agree with me). To spam SF, you need 3 skills slots + the skill itself, and you still deal less DPS than a scythe's base damage. It's AoE isn't that large (large enough that spreading out will work) and any spike will be totally killed by armor (damage drops dramatically). I, being one of the aforementioned players who believes that ArenaNet is not making modifications to the said mechanics, have posted several times, in the appropriate places (the skill feedback pages); nothing has changed. I repeat, for emphasis, nothing has changed. That, 145.94, is overwhelming evidence that those who have followed procedure for expressing their discontent are not being listened to. So because you say something is broken, it should be changed? Or just because a handful of self-appointed experts say something is broken, it should be changed? Maybe they DID listen to you, but just don't agree with your suggestions. My final argument, to counter all your Anet-doesn't-listen-to-us-arguments is this: in the end, they DID nerf Ursan, they DID nerf spirits, they DID nerf Bloodspike and they DID nerf title grinding. It just takes them a while sometimes. 145.94.74.23 08:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

For you argument that To spam SF, you need 3 skills slots + the skill itself, and you still deal less DPS than a scythe's base damage., I will address this one point, when were scythes ever balanced (think about it:insane dps, hits 3 targets at a time, not that slow attack speed). I for one believe that physicals get far too much damage compared to casters (except in gimmicks and hex-stacking, which is kinda a gimmick), but that doesn't change the fact that SF is OP. And your calculations also don't take into account that a SF team will bring more than 1 SF nuker, which means that damage increases exponentially, since more and more SF casts will cause damage instead of burning. Damage for scythes don't increase exponentially with more scythes you bring, do they?

Yes, I also agree that sometimes it takes a while to fix things. However, that is also the point. Usually when someone fixes something, they actually tell their clients that they are fixing something (unless they want to surprise them, and I see no reason why they need some surprise fixes when so many players want to quit). However, there has been no discussion in any of the above "broken skills". A-net neither says: "No, we think that is perfectly balanced and adds diversity", nor have they said "Yes, we think we have to change that, but we need time to test out possible changes and their effects on the meta". Instead we have a big, blank space. We give them feedback, and its like a black-hole, nothing comes back, we gain no enlightenment. Crimmastermind 09:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've beaten players that are better than me with Searing Flames. I'm not QQing because I've been beaten by gimmicks before. I never claimed that I was one of the better players. But, in all honesty, I have been beaten by players who I don't believe are as good as me; RaO hammers that run up to you and use Crushing Blow while you're standing up aren't great, IMO. But to claim that that statement is invalid because I'm making it out of a superiority index that I never claimed is fallacy.

"...being one of the aforementioned..." It's not just me. I never claimed that it was just me.

This "handful of self-appointed experts" is the only expert corps we have. Please note, also, that the numbers of people arguing against these changes is significantly smaller.

Caster damage is a fun concept, but there's one huge problem with it: there aren't enough caster counters. There are some, but compare it to the methods of hampering melee; there's a double standard, indeed. Compare Blind and Daze: what if Daze just caused 90% of your spells to fail outright? Because of this lack of caster counters, caster damage cannot be the primary damage source in the meta. Of course, one could say, "just buff caster counters." But you can't, because Monks are casters. With more effective Monk counters, they would become less and less able to heal, and the game would turn into a damage race. Hence, melee is the primary damage source, and has been in every stable meta.

SF. Cost: 3 slots on each of 5-8 team members. Reward: Auto-win in HA due to insane damage and poor map design. I think that's worth it.

They may, in actuality, just be very, very, very, very slow at balancing. Glowing Ice and Icy Shackles were changed not longer than two months after the real advent of FC snare. Searing Flames? Wounding Strike? Years. No feedback, no discussion. That they "may" be working at an absurdly slow pace is just as much of a guess as they "may" not be doing anything at all.

I hope that gave you some insight; feel free to post again if you've got more questions. Raine - talk 09:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"Caster damage is a fun concept, but there's one huge problem with it: there aren't enough caster counters."

The best counter against caster damage is armor, because most of the Elementalist's spells aren't armor ignoring. When you use a skill on a physical, you will always deal that amount of bonus damage. SF's damage drops a lot when you use an +10 armor vs. fire damage shield. Even Stand Your Ground would protect the entire team against a lot of damage, and that isn't even specific. Combine the 2, and you have cut SF's damage by more than 50%, by using a shield and 1 skill. Seriously, how many physicals can you make half as effective with just 1 skill and a weapon swap? And that's a counter that already exists, takes little effort, is a-specific and doesn't hurt monks in the slightest way.

"which means that damage increases exponentially, since more and more SF casts will cause damage instead of burning."

I disagree. It's basically "once every 7 seconds, 1 SF doesn't deal damage but burning". Scythes don't suffer from that either. It's not as if SF deals more damage with every one you cast. I think you're mistaking it with Savannah Heat. That is damage that increases after each hit.

As long as scythes exist (and, to a lesser extent, Axes and Hammers too), that deal 100 damage twice during the same time it takes SF to deal 112 damage once, I fail to see why SF should be nerfed. 145.94.74.23 13:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

They don't. Searing Flames gets better as you add more of them to the team...melee weapons get weaker as you add more. You're also assuming that scythe, hammer, and axe builds that do more than 119 damage every 2 seconds are balanced...they probably aren't. ~Shard 00:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

In a SF team, they use this. +16 armor v fire is gone; your monks is still a squishies AND they lose whatever utility they had on their offhand. Your mesmers are still squishies, they also use their extra utility. Your warriors still have +26 AL against fire, your rangers are either using bows (so no shield swap) or some gimmicky shit, in which case I'm not going to try to defend them. Your Dervish is using a scythe; no swap.

Scythes are OP, hammers are OP (though they're less complained about. But really, complete and total shutdown for 6-9 seconds? Dealing hundreds of damage at the same time?), SF is also OP. There aren't teams with seven Dervishes and a monk, or seven hammer warriors and a monk, though; they'd never get anything done. Why? Bsurge, Guardian, etc. Okay, +damage is armor-ignoring; that doesn't matter when you have to hit with the attack in a block/blind/blurred meta. Again, melee counters are a lot more abundant than caster counters. Kiting is a melee counter; cast Icy Shackles on an ele and things still blow up.

Against a RaO Axe Ranger with a fire shield, who would have +98 AL v fire after Weaken, SF would deal half damage; seven SFs still deal 300 damage to the ranger. That's just obscene.

Armor is the biggest caster counter, but the problem is, there are quite a few armor counters that casters have easy access to. Raine - talk 23:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You just hit the nail on the head there Raine. The current meta can't deal with them. That is huge difference from being overpowered. 7 SF eles can't hold a candle to 7 melee characters, who would deal a lot more damage, even if a few were blinded/blurred/etc (however, I don't see why they couldn't just bring stuff like Mending Touch). However, a Dazed/Backfired/interrupt-locked SF Ele couldn't do anything either. The problem is the melee orientated metagame. Not SF Eles. Your comment on Cracked Armor is a valid one, but there are other ways to fix that (Ward Against Elements for example, is grossly underpowered and could be used to counter caster damage as an alternative to destroying alternative ways of dealing damage). You're probably shouting POWER CREEP now, or TO NARROW TO USE, but I am giving that as an example of another way of balancing caster damage. 145.94.74.23 08:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Melee characters don't do 100 ranged aoe damage per second a piece. Next argument please. ~Shard 03:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't just me that loves you

I found this on a person's page. You are loved!

This user watches Shard's Skill of the day page for the lulz.

--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 19:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an account here, but I have this page bookmarked for sure.

I enjoy it... when you're not banned. Raine - talk 04:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Vent plox

Get on vent tonight...I have something hilarious for you to hear.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 17:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a present for you... a Skill of the Day

I made one for Foul Feast. It's a really imbalanced skill and I made it in the style that you would make a skill of the day.

Looking forward to 11/20 so that we can see more of these.

The reason why your suggestions (on izzy's page) didn't reach fruition.

First: There is not enough buffer zone between the community and the developer team. Regina gets so many letters that it takes weeks to watch any single ones. AND the gw live team consists of two people who have got so many things to do...

And I didn't see you offering any help to arenanet... Borotvaltgandalf 17:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Because he never suggested anything on the feedback pages and all also i'm shure you're comment will have a lot of use when the matter has already been discussed Lilondra *gale* 18:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to me, the entire point of the skill feedback pages was to "offer help to arenanet" by creating a buffer zone.

If they need more than that, then they can hire another person.

No one's talking about letters to Regina, we're talking about feedback on the feedback pages.

I'm not sure if you have, but you should read the thread headed "Skill of the Day? Skill of the Game!". Raine - talk 18:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, after a long sleep, I see that Shard is helping them by the skill of the day section, which shows under-or Overpowered skills compared to normal-level skills (the staple is Flare). And all my letters were not in vain, because she could pass the complaints to the live team... so we sit back and wait gather the problems. Borotvaltgandalf 06:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I also forgot the second part: Your trolling didn't help, but only increased the ignorance of arenanet's members to your page, which has many useful material in it. (and more compressed than the original suggestion pages. Borotvaltgandalf 07:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'm not trolling, for one. Again, see the above section titled "Skill of the Day? Skill of the Game!" if you'd like more information on that. I posted on the skill feedback pages asking for change, I posted here saying that there wasn't any, and I updated my posts (though, sadly, they're becoming more and more repetitive; I wish everyone would just read the blocks of text) in response to questions that were raised or claims that were denounced by other users.

Also, the page on my userspace is nice, but if the skill feedback pages aren't being looked at, then what reason have I to believe that a page maintained on my userspace is? I wish it were, because the information there is quite a bit more organized. But that's wishful thinking.

I think skill feedback has turned into PvD (Player Versus Development), and that's rather saddening considering that I've done everything that I can (which isn't much, honestly: post a suggestion here and there and hope someone eventually sees it, then hope even harder that someone actually acts on it) to help the development in every way they've asked. But the fact that I've done everything in my very limited power toward improving balance in the game, and to no avail whatsoever? No, that doesn't equal a happy player base.

"We are hexed with Vocal Minority!" Raine - talk 08:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

@lilondra, who are you talking to? I have tons of suggestions on the skill feedback pages. ~Shard 06:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

the second part was adressed for shard... Sry I forgot. SrySrySrySrySrySrySrySrySrySrySrySrySry. Borotvaltgandalf 13:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok ill say it again /opensarcasm Because shard never ... /endsarcasm Lilondra *gale* 16:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to Raine's first comment on this page. The major problem in the skills feedback pages are that people don't realize that their suggestions are overhauls. making an underpowered skill overpowered doesn't balance anything. In fact, these overhauling ideas made Arenanet members off from those sites. There should be a sign/link/something on the suggestion pages encouraging people to read shard's long and detailed article about balance, (no I'm not placing the shardism userbox on my userpage) and try suggesting changes according to that. (Mend body and soul nerf for the people or orison buff). Or an admin who is in charge of keeping the suggestions reasonable. Borotvaltgandalf 20:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Center of Attention

I think your page gets more attention with you banned than when you were here. See you tomorrow when your ban is up.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 22:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it might have been my fault, a little bit. =x Raine - talk 00:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Meh, people just liek shard. Dark Morphon(contribs) 16:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Double SWAY, Dancing Dagger/SOJ Sin Spike and SF Spike weekend!

Tag, you're invited to attempt to farm your Pigeon and Adrin's tiger during this fantastically fun weekend event. Lets not suck plox...I need my fame too. I'm very close to my blob.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 20:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

GET ON VENT NAO!!! LFG HOH!! GO GO GO GO!!!--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 02:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I could go... R1 and my name is: Kaszas Elddim. Borotvaltgandalf 15:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll remember that. Are you going to be on tonight? We'll be going again.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 17:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well: I'M online-able between 7:00 and 20:30 UTC213.134.31.228 13:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC) also I'm borotvalt *** Borotvaltgandalf 13:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Games Give You Two Options

Adapt or die. The human approach to life does NOT work in these situations. — Wolf 22:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Umm...adapt or die IS the human approach...what universe are you living in? Also, what does your comment have to do with my talk page? ~Shard 01:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The human approach is to adapt everything else to you. That's what we do. Something doesn't work for us we change it. Main point is, this goes for every ideal, opinion and change you front on the wiki. You've been building a pretty negative reputaion for yourself amongst the people your trying to get to do something. Your alienating and distancing yourself from just the people you want to listen to you, to the point where I'm sure they don't even listen to you, or take you seriously, or give your opinions fair say. Adapt or die. From the looks of it, you're choosing to die. To relate this to the game, your advocating all this change to the game (taking the human route to resistance) and skill rebalance when, from the looks of it, something new has come up that's better than your current builds, and you don;t want to change, or you think it's gimmicky or imbalanced. Might be true, might not. The meta changes, and you feel like everything you have going for you atm has been thrown out the window, but rather than adapt to changing times and circumstances, you try to adapt everything else to your-self. I notice a trend of egomania and arrogance and an all around "I'm better than you" or "too good to do this" attitude that runs rampant amongst the "pros" of games. They won't use simple and sometimes the most effective means to success because it's "cheap" or "unskilled" or "gimmiky" or "imbalanced". What's it matter how you achieve your goals if you still achieve them in the end? You fight to win, and fight no matter the cost, by any means you can. There is not skill in throwing together a build in GW when it comes down to it. The people running it in the end make or break a build. Strategy and planning are pretty much out the window as soon as the bullets start flying. True skill in GW is not whether or not you play balanced, but if you can pull of any build under any circumstances. When crap hits the fan, it's the skilled players that make the best of the moment and pull through no matter the cost, no matter the means, no matter how underhanded or cheap it is. Adapt or die. From the looks of it, you have chosen to die. The human approach does not work with games. Period. — Wolf 01:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Some people don't resign themselves to declining standards that easily.

"You fight to win, and fight no matter the cost, by any means you can."

Maybe you should take that to heart, instead of just accepting your lot because "that's just the way things are now."

This is off-topic: if Anet doesn't plan on nerfing the overpowered builds, then at the very least buff everything else into an absurdly powerful state; we'd at least have variety that way. As it is now, the choice really comes down to "play gimmickway or lose to gimmickway". Yeah, great teams can beat bad players running Shitway with Balanced; why should it take great players to beat bad ones? That's not balanced, IMO. Bad players shouldn't be able to compete with good ones.

We advocate change because we are discontent.

We don't run Sway because it's degenerate, in our opinions. I don't care how much you starve me for balance, I'm not eating that shit. We don't run Sway because we have higher standards.

Maybe that's idealistic.

I'd rather fight for an ideal than give up like you have;

"From the looks of it, you have chosen to die." I'm not going to be that easy. Raine - talk 02:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wolf, your argument is only valid if you assume that the metagame is balanced and is adaptable. News flash: It's not. ~Shard 03:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line is still this. The meta changes, adapt to those changes, because they will not adapt to you. — Wolf 03:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

@Raine: I haven't given up, or resigned, or degenerated to their standards, I found my own ground. I make my own builds and tweek them to my liking and until they work. I don't go to PvX for any reason. I don't run w/e everyone else is running, be it balance or some gimmick.

If you wanna advocate change, that's cool. By all means go for it. What I will not stand for is it out-right abuse and bullying, and shard's general methods for advocating this change. I would probably agree with at least half of his ideas and such, if I actually cared enough about PvP and took it more seriously than I do atm. — Wolf 03:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you run for GvG? HA? TA? I'm curious as to where your own grounds are. Raine - talk 03:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Anything and everything. Most of them are pretty bizzare and don't work, but I have a heck of a good time giving them a good run even if they fail. I'll have to have a run through my build collection. I'm not claiming to be a pro or anything. I PvP for a fun time and not to realy win, although I do like winning, but that's more of the joy of a build working. So as long as there are skills and I can whip together hair-brained builds on a whim I'm cool with things. — Wolf 04:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Then you're not even in the same player class as me. I don't mean that as an insult; I merely mean to say that you're not going to understand the issue as I do because you simply don't have the same viewpoint as I do. When you go in not caring, it's very easy to miss what others consider a problem. There's nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but how can you construct an argument for balance in a system that you're not even really a part of? Casual PvP is PvP, but casual PvP is not serious PvP. It is the latter around which I base my balance objectives.

Don't get me wrong, I do occasionally like to run off-the-wall builds (YAA Dervish and RtL Dervish, yeah, those are signature Raine), and it's fun as hell. But would I base a balance decision on how something affects a niche build? Of course not. To create a balanced meta, one must balance according to how things affect the meta. For example, take Sway. Kappaspike beats Sway, because Sway relies heavily on melee and Kappaspike has unholy melee shutdown power. So, of course, Kappaspikers wouldn't see a problem with Sway. Is Sway balanced because Kappaspike has no problem with it? Not in the least. Because stance monks could lol at SP and BB sins, does that mean that SP and BB sins were balanced? Again, not in the least.

While the meta does change, it should not be caught in a degenerate downward spiral. It is the balancers' job to ensure that this does not happen. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if HA turned into 7 E/Me SF eles with CoF and a HB monk, continuing down this path. I'm not exaggerating. When people "adapting to the meta" equals people "running the single most broken build that they can create or copy from PvX Wiki", then it's a problem. The game continues to move toward that point.

I could simply accept that, and run Gimmickway, and hold Halls, and win GvGs...

But would that even be fun? Winning not because you were better than the opposition, but because your build was just so much more overpowered? Can you even feel good about that? Or would it be like playing tennis against a blind man? Or entering the July MAT? I guess you can get some lolz out of it, but pride?

Or is that even important anymore?

To each his own, right? No. That's not right, because there are other people involved, too. When you get that feeling of "lol we win because you have no way of stopping our skills with yours", you must realize that there's another team, too. Their thoughts probably read more along the lines of, "Fuck this shit." Not, "Wow, this team is pretty tough." Not, "I should learn something from this match; my opponents are more skilled than I am." Not, "gg". That's the problem with overpowered builds:

They make more players discontent with the state of the game than they make happy players.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, there are builds that suck. I'm sure you've come across these people in RA, AB, TA, HA (Randomway FTW), and maybe even GvG (bad BYOB). Does rolling them into the ground feel good? Is there any sense of accomplishment? Or is it, "Can we please get a real team next time?"

Overpowered builds make their users happy and the receiving end discontent, underpowered builds make the winners bored and the users... well, honestly, I can't say what they'd feel like. But what about fighting against players of similar skill with a similar build strength? I'm sure you've come out of matches, both won and lost, feeling, "That was a great round." I assure you, you won't find anything unfair in those matches; whatever factors will level the playing field, more or less. These ggs are fun for both parties. People say "gg" afterward, and not out of obligation or sportsmanship.

Now, the question is, "How do we create more games like that?". Well, if these games are the result of equalized team ability, then the answer is simple: put teams of equal ability together in matches. The Ladder exists in GvG and HB (I believe that it should be implemented in other forms of PvP, as well) (yes, even RA) to put players of equal skill against each other (though gimmicry has somewhat thrown that off), the other variable is the strengths of the builds that both teams are using. Balance this and the game will be better. Nerf builds that are too powerful; this will make more other builds viable (so players who enjoy running new, off-the-wall things can enjoy that aspect, too). The Ladder will correct itself to better better player skill. People will say "gg" and mean it more often.

I think that's something worth advocating.

Again, if you feel that I'm mistaken someplace, feel free to point it out to me so that I can elaborate. Raine - talk 09:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I need to make a distinction. I PvP Casualy in the fact that I don't do it on a regular basis and don't make a big deal about it. On the off chance that I am PvP-ing, I take it seriously. If I'm PvPing to actually get somewhere, we run balanced. If I'm out to just have a good time and screw around, I run something fun. I'm going to chew on that for a bit and put my thoughts together before I comment further. — Wolf 23:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That's why people disagree whether gimmicks should be allowed or not. People who don't like to be challenged (aka: bad players) like gimmicks because its fast and easy. People like me who enjoy a challenge (aka people who cant stand GW anymore because challenges don't exist anywhere in the game) don't like playing that way. ~Shard 02:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"If I'm PvPing to actually get somewhere, we run balanced." Raine - talk 13:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I admire how people are now just coming on here in an attempt to provoke you Shard. And I might add, with the above quote, Raine just won this topic.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 17:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) What I was getting at was that there are other viable options besides balanced and gimmicks. Balanced, while being the most dependable and versitle, is very bog standard, and allows no room for creativity. Playing balanced just feels so lifeless and boring. I PvP for the fun of it, not to win or for the bragging rights, although winning does make it more enjoyable. I've put together some pretty off-the-wall builds in terms of how they do things, but they still pull elements from balanced teams, and in the end, it gets things done, and has the crazy, unexpected and fun element that I love so much in PvP. Half of what makes Balanced so boring to play is if you come across a team your not prepared to face skill wise (kinda like eleball), your pretty much screwed from the get-go, unless your just plan better players then them. Give balance some variation, because dang it, it just never changes. I've run balanced with some very good players, and once in a while, I say "Hey, lets do this, take these skills, and trade this guy for a different prof with this build" we give it a whirle, come back, fine tune it, and run it again, do pretty well, and have a good time in the process. No body seems to be able to find the middle ground between balanced and gimmiky and broken builds, and I would like to see people go for that more. Make things a little more fun and interesting. Because honestly, I stay out of PvP because it's so uninteresting. Facing balanced and gimmicks are not good enough options. There used to be a good number of fun, and rather creative builds around, but people cried gimmick, and they got nerfed, when it was just as balanced power wise as balanced, they just didn;t think out-side the box, and make small adjustments for it, or want to change their beloved balanced. It's HA for cryin out loud, you cannot, and will not ever be prepared for EVERYTHING. Don't get me wrong, I having nothing against running balanced, and yes, there are some pretty gimmicky and broken builds out there, but just because it isn't balanced doesn't mean it's a gimmick. I'm pretty tired of the "If it's not balanced or close, we aren't running/it's a gimmick" mentality that run rampant in PvP. — Wolf 21:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I never said !balanced = gimmick. Gimmicks are "A way of achieving a goal using less effort than intended for that goal." In good strategy games, gimmicks exist, but they are so weak that they don't even see serious play in competitive environments. Guild Wars is the opposite - gimmicks are the ONLY thing in competitive play because they overpower everything else and they more than make up for poor strategy. ~Shard 00:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

So your basically saying the motto of "work smarter not harder" is wrong? — Wolf 00:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

[throws self into discussion] But aren't the two options: to play or not to play? Saying its "Adapt or die" is over-dramatic, thats also not exactly the human approach either, maybe part of them

Adapt to it.

Adapt it to you.

It destroys you

or you destroy it.

Just my two cents--000.00.00.00 01:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What I mean to say is, if skills were, more or less, balanced, then there would be more viable options; running something different wouldn't mean gimping yourself. I'm not sure if I said this before, but Balanced is an extremely powerful build; not many other (non-gimmicks) compete with it. From what I understand, a guild could come up with an original build and win back in the days of Prophecies. That's not really the case anymore. BYOB typically isn't as powerful as the standard Balanced build, and gimmick teams lolBYOB (then again, they can often enough lolBalanced, too). With better skill balance, it would be easier to "Give balance some variation because dang it, it just never changes."

It's not that you shouldn't work smarter than harder, but you shouldn't have a team so blatantly powerful because of their skills that it eliminates the need to be smart. If you've ever run Sway, you'll agree that it's mind-numbingly easy to win with. It would be one thing if teams were somehow required to come up with their own builds, but PvX sais hai2u. Got an OP build? "Share it with everyone else!" At the very least, strategy should be required to win in a strategy game.

Eleball is a gimmick.

To sum it up, let me restate: "Nerf builds that are too powerful; this will make more other builds viable (so players who enjoy running new, off-the-wall things can enjoy that aspect, too)."

In that post, I also forgot to advocate buffs. Some skills just suck and are not at all viable. That also needs to be fixed, but that's not for this topic.

I apologize if this post isn't of the quality that I usually put out; I'm sleepy. Raine - talk 02:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Eleball is a situation all it's own. It takes a specialized build to take it down. Every other gimmicky build can be handled by balanced if your a compitant player and can listen. I'm going to challange your word choice a little. Nerfing things is rly the last thing you wanrt to do from your point of view. If you nerf a build into the ground, or enough, people will just take up the next thing out there. And believe me, as logn as their are skills, people will find ways to make gimmicky builds. The thing about perfect balance is that it requires so much minute fine-tuning that it takes an increadible amount of time to find, and with the amount of skills GW has, thats going to take quite some time, as you have to find that middle ground to where a skill looks useful (and still should be) but it doesn't reach the gimmicky point. Heck, I've seen a build that was 6 W/As with 16 strength, hammers, a shadow step and power attack, and seen it do rather well. As long as you can do >100 dmg with one skill, you will have spikes, and by shard's def of a gimmick, you will always have them. In a way, GW1 is a lost cause when it comes to achieving perfect balance (but it's far better then just about every other MMO out there....), as Anet backed themselves into a corner in a way. When you have to re-invent the game every 6 months to a year, and add a whole new set of skills, with as few diplicates as possible, things get strained, and it gets much harder to hold that balance. I thik they have it on the mark for GW2 when they say "Less and more simple skill effects that do something slightly different depending on the circumstances they are used under." Your best bet if to advocate for the slight tone-down of some skills, and for Anet to make a few other's a bit more beefy. Remember our elite buff update? Some gimmicks are unstopable without breaking the game. As long as you have wards, and can spike, your going to have eleball. it doesn't use a single truly over-powered skill, yet it's a magic compination that works. It will get you fame, but will it ever hold halls or even get there? Not a chance. If your of the mind that "We must stop all gimmicks and make balanced the only way to win (extreme but w/e)" then your never gunna get what you want. It's impossible. but if your of the mind that "We need to minimalize the power of gimmicks, but still make them look useful, and still work if in capable hands" then your actualy going to get somehwere, and probably get there. It think you've mostly got the right idea, but shard's seem a bit too radical, and will utimately destroy the game. — Wolf 18:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

To put it comicaly, gimmicks are like the cockroach of GW. — Wolf 21:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It will only destroy the game for what I call "lowest common denominator" players...the ones who aren't interested in the actual challenge or development of game play, they just want fast, easy, mindless, instant wins with out communication, planning or thought. You know who I mean, the people who instead of investing funds wisely, planning a nestegg or making good financial choices to be well off later go and buy a dozen lottery tickets every week or blow all their cash on one spin of the roulette wheel. They can "adapt or die" as you say.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 21:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

To build on my roach comparison, to elimate gimmicks form the game (eliminate a house's roach infestation) one would pretty much have to destroy the entire skill system and build it back from the ground up, (burn the house to the ground and rebuild it) and even then, there is no guarrentee you've killed them all. Roaches can survive an atomic bomb if they are 1 foot or more underground and not with-in the initial blast. All a gimmick takes is one skill. Your best bet is damage control. People have to think their gimmicks still work, but they still shouldn't be able to win easily, and create more options for balanced play, and for some more off-the-wall styles of play. — Wolf 21:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying for 3 years, but without the unrelated metaphor. ~Shard 03:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's eleven o' clock. In the morning. I'm tired, so please forgive me, again, if this post is of substandard quality.

Most gimmicks are built around some single broken skill or mechanic (Sway is built around many, and I respect it for that. It's not a gimmick in that sense, it's just obscenely overpowered and not at all balanced. But not technically a gimmick.). By changing the skill or mechanic, one could effectively eliminate the entire gimmick, and, theoretically, other gimmicks that are based on the same concept, assuming one could identify the underlying problem, the foundation for brokenness. In Dianetics, the underlying problem, the aberration, which causes one's mental state to be sub-prefect is called "basic-basic"; I'll use the same term.

The basic-basic for Searing Flames is the fact that it creates tremendous, stacking pressure through tremendous, quickly-recharging damage. One Searing Flames Elementalist is a problem. Seven of them is a disaster. Change the damage, change the recharge, or make it non-stackable. Any one of those would alter the basic issue with the skill, killing the gimmick.

As far as gimmick killing, that's what I'd like to see: gimmicks destroyed by solving the basic problems.

Sway is not a gimmick. It's an OMG overpowered build based on several overpowered mechanics. The frontline is immune to elemental damage because of their armor and immune to melee because of their skills. Their offense is impossible to kite, and deals OMG damage because they use scythes. They have no energy management issues because of Expertise. The backline uses overpowered Ritualist heals with no energy issues because of overpowered Soul Reaping energy management. There isn't a basic problem, it's a whole myriad of blatant overpoweredness. Solution? Tone down the power of the things that make it too powerful.

Gimmicks should be killed, overpowered builds should be weakened.

Skills that can't compete with balanced skills should be buffed, in smart ways. I believe that every skill can be balanced, without changing the effect at all, by changing the cost, damage (anti-damage), effect duration, sacrifice, recharge, AoE, potential utility, casting time, and ease of use. To be honest, I think that were all skills basically balanced, allowing users to tweak these on a local level (my Flare casts in 1/4 second, but costs 10e and has a 3 second recharge; my Orison heals target and allies in the area for 500, but costs 25e, takes 3 seconds to cast, and recharges in 30 seconds) would be fine (and fun), provided that (1) the balancing factors were weighted properly against one another and (2) skills were balanced by default, before allowing user modifications. For example, if Searing Flames were based on its current state, it would be OMG damage, big AoE, lolrecharge, reasonable cost, no utility, reasonable cast time, and mindless to use; a user could make it OMG damage, no AoE, no recharge, reasonable cost, no utility, lower cast time, and just as mindless to use. It would still be OMGodly. Mark of Protection is OMG anti-damage, no AoE, :( recharge, reasonable cost, no utility, reasonable cast time, and takes some sense to use; a user could make it reasonable anti-damage, no AoE, reasonable recharge, high cost, no utility, fast cast time, and same use. It would still be not-so-good for an elite. If a skill is too good, make it cost more or make it less numerically effective. If a skill isn't good enough, make it cost less or make it more numerically effective.

I just got epically off topic.

Kill gimmicks by fixing the base problems, kill OP builds by making them less powerful, buff stuff that sucks.

I'm going to bed... Raine - talk 12:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem about gimmicks, is that (tieing back to my roach example), for every one gimmick you squish, there are atleast 5 more waiting in the works. Stompign gimmicks is not the way to go, as you can easily break perfectly good aspects fo the game that are just horribly abused (i.e. wards in eleball) Gimmicks need the same treatment that OP builds and Ursan need(ed). You tone it down enough to make it less effective and reasonable, but it must still work so the dedicated gimmickers won't just go looking for a bigger and better gimmick, they will sit with one that is known to be reletively harmless. Who knows, they may end up discovering something worse and more broken than before, and that's not a chance you want to give them. But yes, I'm with you on the fact that there are plenty of skills out there that could use a good pumping up. — Wolf 22:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

GWW:NPA

Guild Wars Wiki:No personal attacks prohibits any personal attack towards any wiki editor posted anywhere on the wiki. There is no exemption for attacks against ArenaNet employees and no requirement that the target complain. Please tone it down or find another place to vent. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not attacking people, I'm attacking what they do. Take your complaints somewhere more deserving. ~Shard 04:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

that's not a complaint, that's a request. — Wolf 04:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

A request for...? Is it a request for me to read the NPA? I've read it. I know what it means. I think the sysops need to read it. They ban you for attacking negative actions. They'd probably ban me if I said Truman's idea to bomb nagasaki was bad, oh wait, they've already banned me for that, except instead of "Truman" I said "Kim Chase," and instead of "bomb nagasaki", I said "not do her job." ~Shard 04:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That's an attack on character, and is pretty base-less and serves no purpose and only does harm at best. Plus, I can't exactly say your intensions seem honorable. You've built a reputation for yourself, and now your reaping the results. — Wolf 04:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What you need to display now, Shard, is a bit of common sense. You try (and fail) to wikilawyer your way out of your personal attacks by claiming they're not personal, they're factual, etc... point is, nobody cares. If you have to wikilawyer-defend every comment you make, you're doing it wrong - you're too far over the line. Pull yourself together, realize that we've had it, and decide what your best course of action is from here. -Auron 05:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Decide? Was that a joke? ~Shard 05:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Decide how not to attack anyone personally, but still being able to tell the Arenanet staff what and how do they make things wrong. Use pure logic, and less names. They will have to agree. Logic is not something they can argue with if you have a good standpoint (like Wounding Strike is OP, and mark of protection sucks baad...) So you won't get banned, and arenanet will have to realize that you are actually helping them to improve GW. Borotvaltgandalf 17:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

because they realised that the 3500 other guys where trying to help to when they said WS was OP and why ow look it got buffed Lilondra *gale* 17:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I really wasn't going to get involved with this section until you said, "...tell the Arenanet staff what and how do they make things wrong. Use pure logic, and less names. They will have to agree. Logic is not something they can argue with if you have a good standpoint."

I haven't personally attacked anyone, I've been logical in my evaluations. I've not been argued with.

Nor have I been agreed with, nor has anything changed.

Have I simply not been noticed? I can't call people by name; the PR at Anet is very sensitive and would probably interpret anything directed at a particular person as an attack. So what do I do to make my purely logical contribution into reality?

I'm very lost on this matter, I'd very much appreciate any sort of advice. Raine - talk 01:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

OMG is this argument still going on?? Shard, you're going to have 3 archives full of this. Lets talk about something else. Simon Le Bon or John Taylor, who is cooler? Discuss.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 02:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

How could you forget chuck norris ? Lilondra *gale* 06:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If I forgot to say then I do it now: I'm with shard. Also there is no skill balancer for guild wars (Izzy is on GW2), and from what I have been read from you you'd make a perfect one (you=shard). Borotvaltgandalf 08:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be "perfect," but I'd be better than what we have now (nothing)...which isn't really saying much :/ ~Shard 08:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Just let me say: "Optimal" , because you know what are the imbalances, and you are in the game more frequently than the GWLT member. So you have more Experience, and there are many people to help you. Also the whole echo idea of having finales is an abusable one. It's either OP or ineffective. there should be Soldier skills to replace finales. (like renaming them and changing the effect.) (like Soldier's restoration: Heals for an x..y..z/seconds if under the effect of a shout or chant) problem solved! Borotvaltgandalf 09:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I support Shard for skill balancer if he promises NOT to nerf bow attacks even more.

I'm shure theyll listen to you,the totally listned to auron,shard,nuclear and well every half decent pvp player when they said WS,WoD,<insert obviously imba shit here> was imba Lilondra *gale* 20:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Shard, if you would make such a good skill balancer, then why aren't you working for Anet? — Wolf 20:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Similar reason to why they haven't hired Ensign. --Riddle 20:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Those reasons being? — Wolf 21:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, IIRC they didn't even really listen to him, though he knew the game balance better than anyone else (wouldn't be too much a stretch to say he knew how to balance better than Izzy). Perhaps the main difference between not hiring or listening to either Shard or Ensign is that Shard is way more volatile. --Riddle 21:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

yeh i herd ppl posting their opinions and knowledge on forums usually gets hired. --Cancer Angel 22:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Yeah, but with Shard's current record, I wouldn't hire him. — Wolf 22:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

What current record would that be? The one where I'm always right, or the one where I know when things suck? ~Shard 00:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The one where you're a total douche about presenting your opinion and insight. — Wolf 00:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's "you're," and personal attacks are a violation of policy. Avoid them in the future or risk getting banned. -Auron 01:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Damn it, faster than me. --000.00.00.00 01:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

@Auron: Yes, that is "you're" XD According to shard's definition, that's not an NPA. But it seems we don't go by his def (thank God). If the sysops want to ban/block me now for it, that's cool. I'm prepared to accept responsibility for my actions. I knew what I was getting into when I posted that. I'm actualy surprised that no action was taken. — Wolf 18:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

First time offenders get warned. Hey, look what happened, you got warned. --Riddle 21:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

*shurgs* — Wolf 21:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Getting hired at a certain job or company sometimes has nothing to do with a person's ability to actually perform the task at hand. The factor of how cheap you will work, who you know and such are heavier factors than being qualified. But there are times where a person's work ethic looks great on resume paper, or they happen to interview well--but putting them on the job can be a different story. Terminating people from a company can be very difficult and costly due to unemployment policies, payment, and termination lawsuits. Most companies most will not terminate unless the violation is extreme (stealing, sexual harrassment and so forth) due to the cost of terminating an employee being too costly, they will normally transfer the person somewhere else to make them another person's problem...that is, if they can find a spot filler. Lots of times, terrible employees stay around due to no one else being able to fill the spot.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 21:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Two things you may find interesting/infuriating

1. In most cases, the trade-offs when turning in Luxon and Kurzick faction points are just a part of aligning with one of two warring factions. In hindsight, with this set of retroactive rewards, we should have done a better job accounting for characters who had completed both campaigns, and for accounts with multiple characters who had completed different campaigns. Unfortunately, now that this has gone Live, we don't believe there is a fair or reasonable way for us to change this, so the issue will not be addressed further. [source]

• You may have all ready seen this, but ANet admitted their blunder, though it was only for Kurzick and Luxon titles, and lolthose.

2. File:User Ezekial Riddle Dumb.jpg

• This one stuck in my craw. A guildy said this and I almost started to cry.

--Riddle 20:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

My warrior can do 135 + 5 vamp with power attack. I win ^^ ~Shard 00:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

How do you pull that? Scythe + 15 Str + Crit + ??? *edit* nvm, I found it. You run a major on your war in PvP? How awesome are your monks? --Riddle 01:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

They're so awesome, I don't have to monk for my guild. ~Shard 04:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty damn awesome. --Riddle 06:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is getting them on at the same time.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 21:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Anet takes one step forward

Now, instead of hiding behind false, made up excuses, they actually admit to their mistakes...but they still don't so anything about those mistakes.

In hindsight, with this set of retroactive rewards, we should have done a better job accounting for characters who had completed both campaigns, and for accounts with multiple characters who had completed different campaigns. Unfortunately, now that this has gone Live, we don't believe there is a fair or reasonable way for us to change this

If you paraphrase... "We didn't think, and now we don't have to. Leave us alone"

However, we decided not to allow players to purchase the pages of missions that were completed prior to the update. This was a difficult decision to make, but an important one.

Important...why? How would giving people credit for missions they've already done ruin anything? Oh, they put a reason:

We monitor the economy closely...

Interrupting to say LOL

...If we allowed players to purchase those pages, any character that had completed all three campaigns in Normal Mode would be receiving 18 platinum and 42,750 gold for Hard Mode completion for a grand total of 60,750 gold. In light of how much the economy was affected by just 10 platinum, the inflation caused by giving out 60 platinum per character was too significant for us to allow.

Let's play a game now. It's called "What's the reason people would get so much money from this?"

Is it

1. Too many people have all campaigns and have beaten all of them.
2. People wouldn't have to waste their lives doing every mission in the game two more times. (nothing to do with money at all)
3. Completed books give a ridiculously high amount of money.

If you have trouble deciding, go through and read that quote again and look for the bold upper-case part.

(plays jeopardy theme)

If you picked number three, YOU'RE RIGHT!! DING DING DING DING DING!

I guess it would be too hard (or too logical) to just change the outrageous book reward.

Discuss ~Shard 02:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The hit the economy would take from the massive influx of gold would be devistating, in one form or another, and would very well have more lasting effect than Shadow Form. We are talking about BILLIONS of plat suddenly dumped into the game. How can that NOT have an effect? The only way to be safe would have been to slowly trickle it in, or not at all, and I realy don;t think they could slowly trickle it in, and even that would still have some very adverse effects. Have you ever checked Ecto prices around the time TRPs are added? Ecto prices go through the floor. A friend of mine makes 500k+ every month from this flux on top of the obscene amounts of ecto he gets traking 2zkeys for 3 ectos imediatly afterwards, and compounded with the obscene amount of zkeys he gets. Multiply this by 10 people in my alliance, some pretty heavy amounts of money are thrown into the game each month. I've seen them, 10 people bring ambrace prices down 10 ecto for a week. I think in the end, they made the right choice, be it unpopular. MOX my have a rediculous reward, but that still doesn't change the fact that story books being retroactive was a bad idea. This comming from me, and I was (and still am a little) UBER pissed when I found out ther weren't. — Wolf 03:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, my two main points were:

1. If it was going to ruin the economy, lower how much it would impact it by changing the quest.
2. The requirement for the reward is "beat the games." which many people have already done. They're punishing people who have owned the game longer. I've already done the requirement fully on two characters, why should I have to do it all again? ~Shard 03:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, lets see:

1. They didn;t know MOX would crush the economy, and they leanred from it
2. See 2nd half of point 1. On one hand, kill the game economy and piss off everyone A LOT, one the other, piss of half the players. Decision should be easy. — Wolf 03:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I lol'd. Your posts are always a hoot to read, Wolf.

Shard is right once again. ANet failed majorly, probably due to laziness and ineptitude, and tried to pass it off as an official decision about the economy, which has been in the shithole for over a year now. They don't closely monitor anything or they'd have removed Shadow Form from the game. -Auron 03:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

WHAT?!?!?!?!?! you can't just REMOVE A SKILL FROM THE GASME! You have ANY IDEA how much of a mess that would cause? Yoour logic is flawed, and broken. — Wolf 03:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wolf, maybe you missed something. Quests can be changed after the fact. They should have gone into whatever tool they use to make quests, lowered the reward, then gave everyone who already earned a full book a full book.

Skills like Shadow Form should never have been put INTO the game in the first place. Shadow form negates the purpose of every single part of the game - staying alive. Removing it would be the best thing for them to do.

Is it technically possible? Yes. Ironically, that's the same answer to my next question. Is arenanet lazy? ~Shard 04:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Those are skills that where removed before their respected game officialy went live. The last time a company removed skill(s) form a game, enough people quite to put the game under. Yes, they can lower the reward for MOX, but why when the damage is already done and gone? It's not the fact that players have easy access to easy gold, it's that there was a massive influx of gold suddenly added to the game. (see earlier example about TRPs being added and ecto prices, and guildies making insane amounts of money.) It's simple economics. When you have a massive amount of people all doing the same thing, and creating a massive influx of money in or out of the system, bad things happen. Also, if the economy is already in the hole, are you are really going to put it the other 5 feet under, or drive it the rest of the way to Hell? — Wolf 04:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Real life economics do not apply to this game, for a myriad of reasons, all of which you would understand if you had a remote grasp of the concept of economics. Bringing the great depression into this shows that you haven't the first clue about what economics means. -Auron 04:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, all those skills are labeled UNIMPLEMENTED CONTENT. And yes, I do have a clue about realy world economics, and yes, they do tie inot the game economy just fine. — Wolf 04:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Let's see here, examples:

• Massive over-farming of ecto, more supply then demand drops prices
• Jade/Amber suddenly become scarce, and what people that happen to control all the stock can charge outragous prices, as people that rly want it, have no other option to buy it but from them. More demand than supply raises prices.
• Rare skins suddenly become much easier to obtain/Over-farmed, sudden and mass influx of supply, supply greater than demand, people try to sell thiers, and fast, so they under-cut the current market price, which in turn leads to other people under-cutting them, and prices go through the floor.
• Shadow Form gets nerfed, people go into a panic, thinking ecto proces will drop, and start to sell like crazy, other people see prices falling fast, and know/think it will recover, and buy em up like mad, sending prices on a rebound.
• UW get's changed essentialy hindering previous Ecto farms, and (along with for-mentioned shadow form nerf) most Shadow Farms no longer function, shortening the supply of elite tomes, ecto, shards and other farmed items, and prices take a small hike.
• Massive amounts of gold suddenly appear in player's pockets, which means they now have the cash to buy previously out of reach items, and goods, shortening supply, and increasing prices.
• (Hypothetical situation) Players suddenly have 60-300k from books, super inflation. I think we are all smart enough to figure out what would happen here
• (Hypothetical situation) Anet nerfs every available farm and run, suddenly no/little money is going into the system, the system dies, grats, you no longer have an economy (cue the Great Depression)

Even in with simple supply and demand, real world economics still apply, except GW has a much more sensitive economy. There is a reason Anet allows a certian amount of farming and runs to go on. They are a much smarter group of people than you guys give them credit for. — Wolf 05:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me Wolf, but I didn't see MOX crash the economy. What part of it did it crash? --000.00.00.00 05:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It didn't crash it, but it did some messing with it. Still wasn't good. — Wolf 05:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What parts? I didn't notice anything change, I'm interested in knowing what was effect by the introduction of MOXs. Surely, saying it did damage someone will be able to inform me on what I missed.

Its always what I said in Regina's talk page after hearing inflation was the boogie man for not making books retroactive: like deflation is a wonderful thing too. Actually doesn't deflation have more to do with the Great Depression than inflation? --000.00.00.00 05:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wolf, you're not getting it.

Arenanet could have lowered the MOX reward ON THIS UPDATE to solve every problem all at once.

I'm not talking about the MOX update. I'm talking about THIS ONE. ~Shard 05:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

@Zero: Yeah, the Great Depression was deflation. I noticed some temporary price hikes and slight shortages of things at the traders, and for a bit, it was kinda hard to find some cheaper things on the streets. It wasn't as massive an inlfix as everyone was playing it up to be. In fact, most of my guild didn;t capitalize on it at all, and neither did a good number of my friends. I did a quick run-through pull of my guild, and we would rake in 15 mil for my guild of around 20 people if the books were retro-active. I, myself would rake in 120k. A lot of people passed up the MOX quests as they could make money faster, and realy didn't see it worth the effort. It was pretty minimaly exploited and still was not good for the economy. I took in around 30k so far from MOX quests. I should probably pull a user-box of my page, as it's no-longer true. XD — Wolf 05:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

@Shard: All the damage came from the INITIAL mass influx of money from the MOX update. How many times do I have to say this? THE MAJORITY OF THE DAMAGE IS NOT CAUSED BY PLAYERS HAVING AN EASY SOURCE OF GOLD, IT'S CAUSED BY A SUDDEN AND MASS AMOUNT OF GOLD SUDDENLY ENTERING PEOPLE'S POCKETS! The damage from the MOX quests is already come and pass, lowering the reward now will do nothing. Players have plenty of things to sink easy-earned money into, but the system get's FUBARed when it's all happening at once. What do you think caused the Great Depression? Because the stock-market taking a down turn didn't exactly do it, but it did cause the true cause. — Wolf 05:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wolf, where's the economy now? Balanced? In a state of deflation, is it bad? In a state of inflation, is it bad? Going by just the material traders, rune traders and dye traders I'd love to see bit of inflation, I am sick of everything deflating in value with nothing there to really help stem the tide. If that sounds retarded to people, I don't get economics, but I do get the notion that I'm sick of seeing everything just devalue. --000.00.00.00 05:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow, I just looked up everything, and I see that anet used the MOX quests as a separate and unrelated excuse as to why they didn't let people get full books. See, even their stupidity has gotten to me now. Sorry for the misunderstanding :P

At least I can still carry the same point by saying "book reward" instead of "mox reward". ~Shard 05:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe my point still stands that the books being retro-active would have been a distaster, and it was a wise move for them not to be. You have yet to prove that the books being retro-active wouldn't crash the economy. To me it looks like your bitter about lossing some quick and easy cash in your pocket and have yet to prove me other-wise. — Wolf 05:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

1. I don't pve anymore - money means nothing to me.
2. I have already filled up my book (done the missions), it's just not filled up because anet fails at logic.
3. The economy matters? No. That's why every material is at an all time low and only 4 or 5 item skins are worth more than 5k. ~Shard 06:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

gotta love deflation, its best for all. --000.00.00.00 06:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I do believe those skins are HoH skins, which you can't farm. --Riddle 06:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well... Arenanet isn't monitoring the economy. your example: LOL explains all, but I have to tell you other lolwtf farming facts.

• Voltaic Spear farm: Total wtf, Perma assa taking all damage, Cry of pain players (all caster profs with 4 energy regen) just spike down Thommis, and if any damage would befall on the team, then the HB monk heals it.
• UWSC: for a total investment of 750 +(entry) gold and some materials, you get fixed ectos and other farmed things in the end. Abuses perma sin and soul reaping. lololimba. they do it HM.

Borotvaltgandalf 18:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Adrin is going to kill me for saying this but....Giving out that kind of book money I have no problem with due to the fact that you are getting said money for playing the game and completing the game as intended. There's nothing wrong with being rewarded in that regard. You think Shadow Form farms were stoped? Hahahaha nice joke. Are you playing GW? And I say this due to the fact that I have made disturbing amounts of money with my 25hour old assassin over the last few days. It started with the UW perma sin, which is still do-able just not by the lower common denominator players. Besides, we have the VS farm, and that renders the same results. Shadow Form is a joke, and it isn't that funny. I just made an assassin, and with Shadow Form and the help of a certain dwarf in a special area in Norn territory I think Shard, Adrin and myself will single handedly destroy the economy with amount of golds and materials we farm in this area. The fact that Adrin could solo vanqish all the Norn areas for us using his sin and dwarf in less time than it would take us to do 1 area as a team with a normal balanced build. He solo'd all the Norn areas while Shard lay dead in the snow because he's baed, our pal while Gye AFK'd and played Street Fighter and I read In Style and yammered on the phone with my friends. The power to farm in this manner is what is bad, is what ruins the economy and is what Anet should be controling more actively. Now, while I have no problem with some farming, I used to 55 Gates, and 2 or 3 man UW, but those farms took about the same amount of time as playing the areas. UW in particular required working with someone else who you trusted (most of the time), you had to actually run a build and do things a certain way, it required some thought and coordination, you were never 100% invincable and took a long time to do. The VS runs and all sin/Shadow Form farms are waaaay to easy, fast and are too user friendly. If you're so worried about the economy...if Anet is so worried about that, getting 60k in rewards for playing the game properly, is not going to break the game in anyway. In fact, its more than fair for 3 years of interest on the campaigns I completed on all my girls. I don't know where you have been, but the game's economy has long been inflated, all the materials are worthless, runes don't sell for anything more than a gold ID these days, tomes are a joke--(I have stacks wasting inventory space, you want the left overs after I finish my Skill Hunter title?), dyes...ha ha ha. 6k for black isn't that much...not compared to what it used to be. For Shard, money isn't the issue, if you see his characters, you'll know that. He, Adrin and myself have done well with our halls chest drops over the years (post your legendary Sigil hax Shard) and we've done quite well exploting our PvP faction to PvE players by selling Zkeys. His issue is, again (and I sound like a record with a scratch) with Anet not taking all factors into consideration before making a significant change to the game--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 17:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Like I have said multiple times already (are you people even readaing?) It's not the fact that players have quick and easy ways to get gold (although, that is a mess) The shock damage alone that Suddenly introducing Billions of plat into the game in one hour alone would be absolutely devistating. It's that first day the build went live that Anet was worried about. — Wolf 18:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Dude, dont give away my farm. i need 1,400 more gold id's and getting 3-5 golds and 10-20 holiday drops in 2 minute farms is awesome. Shadow Farm is a retarded skill. i used to farm on my monk but now i ditched her until they nerf shadow form. anet always nerfs the wrong thing. the only good sf nerf was nerfing the guys in the chaos plains w/signet of disenchant. and even then it didnt do much. but having invincibility with permanent upkeep is worse than ursan. i love it cuz it's the quickest and cheapest way imo to get high wisdom titles without having to buy them. i can farm about 300 holiday drops and 60 golds a day before i get bored or asked to do something else. .... omg i posted on wiki WTF? --Adrin 18:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wolf watch what I'm about to do. This is an exaggeration of the talk that happened when anet made this decision.

Hmmm, how big should we make the reward for finishing the books?

Umm, let's make it 60k for NM and HM combined.

But, then people who have already earned the reward will get the equivalent of 2 hours of farming.

You're right. Let's lower the book reward so too much money doesnt get infused into the already broken economy.

No, that would make too much sense. We're anet, let's do something stupid and unfair instead. Let's punish people who have spent the most time in the game by giving then nothing.

Herp a derp, good idea.

Now do you see what they should have done?

Also, here's why I don't need more money

~Shard 22:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I love how everyone is dodging around my points and failing to address them, and going off on tangents that aren't realy relevant to the original discussion. I also love how you cry broken and such on SF and that it makes things way to easy and crap, and yet you blatently abuse it yourself and openly admit it. — Wolf 22:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

This discussion isn't going anywhere useful. Give it up. -- Brains12 \ talk 22:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

When does any discussion with Shard get somewhere? — Wolf 22:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

They always do; straight to hell. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 22:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. — Wolf 22:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

So...If I use it, it can't be broken? Have you read anything I've ever said in the past few years? Since I'm one of the people who abuses it, shouldn't I be more aware of how overpowered it is?

You see, wolf, 90% of the human race is selfish, they are biased on things that they can make huge benefits from. You obviously think that way. I, however, am not one of those people. I don't know if you'll ever be able to understand how I can hate something that I exploit.

What points are we ignoring? ~Shard 22:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

dat wail o doom is so op winnin mad gold capes — Skakid 22:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Funny how you're assuming gold cape players know what they're doing. ~Shard 22:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Shard, you're so much better than every guild to win a gold cape. You are an unbeatable Guild Wars adversary, never losing a single match (unless you're faced against erm... "broken gimmicks" such as the mighty Searing Flameway and Wail of Doom). Your knowledge of skill mechanics and balance is far greater than every other player in Guild Wars, and with you leading the balance team the game would be such a better place.

You're a joke and a tool, the shit you spew out daily while you brown nose your own asshole is hilarious. — Skakid 22:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's see, all of them. Also: "This discussion isn't going anywhere useful. Give it up. -- Brains12 \ talk 22:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)" Done. — Wolf 23:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) guys how about we agree to differ on this one and just let it rest? -- Salome 23:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol skakid. You're funny when you're wrong and don't know it. I like you a lot more than I used to :) ~Shard 23:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

ITT; wolf has no idea what he's talking about yet spews bullshit regardless, 000.00.00.0 tries to point out flaws in wolf's logic except is completely ignored (because paying attention to him would require wolf admitting the huge flaws in his logic), Shard spews bullshit as per normal, Skakid trolls and violates NPA, and pling comes in to mediate. Yep, average wiki thread. I'd suggest everyone follow Brains' advice - especially you, Wolf, seeing as you're the biggest perpetrator here. -Auron 23:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What about me? Nothing sweet about me? Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 23:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Skakid: Shard is right in the storybook point. if they had given us ... 10 gold for the title, people wouldn't have complained. It's online game phylosophy. If I get any reward, then I get happy. Also for the guardian: 1k for the title wouldn't be a large change.

You only need to set another variable to the character:

//let's name it

bool ProtTyriaRewarded = False;

//then if Protector of tyria is earned, you give a reward, and set rewarded to 1:

if (protector_tyria && !ProtTyriaRewarded)

{

Gold=gold+500;

cout << Gordon Ecker[Tyrian Loremaster] gave you 500 gold for fulfilling the Flameseeker prophecies. To be properly rewarded,

bring a book with you next time.";

ProtTyriaRewarded = True;

}

so hard? Borotvaltgandalf 06:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

They wouldn't need to do that, they'd only have to see which missions you've done. ~Shard 07:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well... the operator is now functional. There must be a variable somewhere deep within the source of GW wich tells us whether we completed or not all the missions. then replace the protector_tyria with that variable... Borotvaltgandalf 09:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Only if they want to waste storage space. They managed to do it with the Factions alliances...we already know they can do it, they just chose not to for these books. ~Shard 09:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

In the Hall of Grind, you can visualize accomplishments like Completing a campaign, so there is the variable or the expression which tells the game that we had completed the campaign.Borotvaltgandalf 10:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

They retroactively gave Lightbringer and Sunspear points for each Nightfall mission, so they have some way of knowing which missions a character has done. Erasculio 10:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's called pressing M. 69.109.186.239 15:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Basically. They just ask the game "has player A beaten mission 1 and mission 2 and mission 3 and mission 4...etc" Having a variable for that would only take up, idk, 20 million bits of space on whatever server stores the characters and would have no real purpose. Why are we arguing about game code that already works? The issue was about anet ripping off more than half its players. ~Shard 21:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think somebody is learning about The Great Depression at school this month and is apperently really excited about what he/she has learned in 5th period history.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 21:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I said a variable Or expression. Borotvaltgandalf 07:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I would...

Appreciate it if you could make some time to look at my balance pages: Over here. Also, if you feel anything needs improvement, please tell. Thanks in advance, Dark Morphon(contribs) 19:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This is hilarious

STOP!

hammertime!

Can't Touch This

--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 18:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL wow that's awesome. ~Shard 22:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not getting GW2

This article changed my mind about GW2.
http://www.wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_2:_The_Status_Quo
Bleh..."Inspired classes" ok yeah...whatever. Crafting my armor...great, I get to be ugly. Thank god NWN had the toolset so I could be pretty. Hours of level grinding...yay! Epic win. I love grind...oh wait, thats Adrin. Honestly, Warhammer is looking really appealing...I mean, since GW2 is going to be a WoW/Warhammer clone, I might as well play a game made by the some company that made my beloved Sims. At least this way, I spend my money on a game that I won't have to wonder, or even question about being worth my time. I just don't trust Anet at all...I think this kind of game, while awesome coming from anyone else...Blizzard, EA, Bioware...for Anet and their track record, its just not an investment I'd want to take as I think its beyond their scope and capabilities to excute correctly when they could barely maintain a game that did not have this level of scope and detail. --*Yasmin Parvaneh* 23:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not as pissy today. But man, if they don't let me be a mesmer again, then my above statement will hold 100% true.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 21:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You can aso try out Chronicles of Spellborn, which actually has skill-based gameplay (like, how GW used to be) -=-Koda Kumi 21:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I downloaded 9Dragons yesterday, still waiting for acclaim to fix their account creation page so I can try it out. ~Shard 22:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Fewls, if you are so bloody intrested in getting a 100% skill based game, get jk2 (star wars jedi knight outcast 2, dont ask). It's no mmo, but its all about skill and its fuwn. And hell, gw isnt a mmo and yer spent years on it ;o.Oni 17:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)