User talk:Tennessee Ernie Ford/Archive07

Talk

Suggestions

Builds

Rants

Tools

Encyclopedia GaileGrayica

Guides

Farming

Price checks

Projects

---

Previously on TEF

---

• Join – May 2010
• May 2010 – Nov 2010
• Dec 2010 – Feb 2011
• Feb 2011 – May 2011
• Jun 2011 – Jul 2011
• Aug 2011 – Aug 2011
• Sep 2011 – Sep 2011
• Oct 2011 – Nov 2011
• Dec 2011 – May 2012
• May 2012 – Dec 2012
• Jan 2013 – Dec 2014

---

Smee again

guess what :D

Once again I released my testing fury and produced that stuff, you may want to take a look. – 05:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw that earlier! Impressive. I was going to ask how you tested armor (especially in light of the various anomalies associated with how the game calculates it). Other than that, it looks pretty solid. (I was gonna post that you should give ppls a week or two to comment, but otherwise updating the data in the articles seems like a good thing...and probably worth posting on the official forums, so that ANet can decide if that's what they expect or not.)

Good stuff. Thanks for making sure that I saw it. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Since my data is almost perfectly linaer skaling, I don't see a reason to post on the forums, except for maybe getting the perfect formula. But since I don't expect them to find it quickly, it rather uses their precious time for kind of nothing. I'll post data at the minion talk page.

Btw, talking of good stuff, did you see this (though I managed to screw up dots with commas – being mentally stuck in german that moment). I had that sort of breathtaking second once I realised it. – 08:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

On that topic, how did you figure out it was 1.09 instead of 1.1? --JonTheMon 13:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

My idea was what I wrote into the summary: "I am pretty sure it is "meant" with mastery ranks since the special scythe crit factor is 1,09 ≈ 2^0,125 = 2^(5×1/40). That last one is the extra rank and a 4 for other weapons."

Proofed by hitting a level 1 Iboga before Kamadan with a customized scythe with wild blow for a crit. Beforehand I checked the armor with Snowstorm (30 stated, 76 dealt, means 6 armor → 76.47). Damage dealt with scythe was 137, which is indeed 41×1.2×2^(54/40)×1.09 = 136.7, while 1.1 is 137.95.

I also think my edit was correct since the way it is actually calculated is (as far as I have seen) not definitely known, so "damage calculation" only describes a probably handy method or view. The threshold malus might be a factor which lowers the term after the full mastery value was used. To split the mastery into a 0–12 and a 13+ factor is not the only way to calculate. – 14:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, at those values 1% becomes easier to notice. As for crits, having it say "increase by 4 ranks (but not 13+ ranks, you get 4x 1-12 ranks)" Is too complicated. Having it say "reduces enemy armor by 20 or your attack rating by 20" is clearer and easier to understand. --JonTheMon 14:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thats right, but not what I meant. Saying "increase by 4 ranks" alone is not wrong, it's just not the way it is presented at damage calculation. Instead of having "AttributeLevelsUnderThreshold" and "AttributeLevelsOverThreshold" one could also use "AttributeLevels" and "AttributeLevelsSkilledOverThreshold" and calculate a little different. In that case the first general factor can always be raised by something while the second one is a correction value for the skilled amount. A raise by 4 is simply counted into the first one and thus always gives 2^0.5. However, instead of dealing with mastery ranks one can also use 4×5 armor and 1×5 armor as reduction values, thats also an option to present the scythe factor. – 14:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

AttributeLevelsSkilledOverThreshold? Like, are you talking points assigned over lvl 12? 'Cause you could think of runes/headgear as being bonus rather than assigned, but points that can be subject to the threshold (or is it the assigned points that are subject to the threshold?). Also, TEF, if you want us to take this elsewhere just say the word. --JonTheMon 15:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It's about the attribute value you see when you look at the k-window. Basically I think of the general mastery value rather as a function to regulate the damage which is not limited nor 100% bound to what you see when you press k. So speaking of a +4 raise means a change to that function, not skilling from e.g. 9 to 13. What you actually put into your rank shown at k is what determines the correction value, theoretical raises stand for a factor only. There are a bunch of 2^something factors which can be merged or taken seperate, and like in this case it's partially up to you to interpret their function or to convert maths into language, so to say. I personally like the rank idea pretty much, but I am handling the gw formulae for several years now and I study maths, so I am in a pretty different situation than most users are. Lots of people probaly hate maths and won't even look at this page, others are happy if they get an easy step-by-step without background information, etc. I totally do not want to force that extra description, it's just that this specific one made me see it much clearer, or better to say it seemed more natural to me, so I wanted to share. Handle it however you think it's best though. – 15:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we're going for most natural and well-known, you'd say it gives -20 AL to the target, since armor and its correlation to damage are the most documented/prevalent. --JonTheMon 16:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

misleading, at best

was it really THAT bad? D: nice work reworking the article, though. i guess it was a bit jumbled before... —ZerphaThe Improver 15:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It was misleading. Although what drew me to the article was noticing an user interface instead a user interface (one of those weird rules)...and then I couldn't make heads or tails of the contents without re-reading (usually a good cue for deciding the page needs a revamp).

Thanks for the compliment (and taking the time to post). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

So by misleading you merely mean confusing than wrong in substance, right? And it said "an user interface"? Whoops, that was really dumb :P You have a good point with the thing about re-reading things. There are of course texts you'll heave to re-read either way, but the content in this wiki should usually be simple enough to understand it in one go. I should break my habit to try to put too much information in one long entangled sentence :P —ZerphaThe Improver 13:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to say to Markisbeast that it was my fault that he was lead down the wrong path about which character would see the box re-appear. Specifically, in this edit, I wrote that the unclaimed items window would reappear after switching characters. At best, that can mislead people into thinking that Character B might see the box for Character A. At worst, it suggests that is precisely what happens.

So, Markisbeast removed the note (correctly noting that this couldn't be true, as phrased). When I restored the note, I added the appropriate context.

As you mention, the article was a bit jumbled, if only because it had too many dependent clauses, which I tried to clean-up by distinguishing basic behavior from appearance and re-appearance. Grouping similar ideas allows the article to avoid repeating behaviors, especially with regard to exceptions. (As you might have noted, I'm a big fan of less is more.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 15:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah i did notice, and there's nothing wrong about it at all as long we have a concise and non-ambiguous text :D

I essentially misunderstood what you refered to with "misleading". I thought you refered to the previous content because of your summaries, as seen in this particular edit you just mentioned. (I'm relieved to finally figure out you found the article jumbled, and not misleading, at best :P)

But if you refered to the note about switching characters, i think it's still not your fault. Contributory fault, maybe^^ Because that particular imprecise note about the window staying when you log out (without mentioning that it only appears for the accordant character) was already part of the article for the longest time. If anything, you just failed to see the possible misinterpretation at that point - just like any other contributor that edited the page. Someone could theoretically already have come up with that before Markisbeast. In fact, you merely solved that problem and did not create it ;) —ZerphaThe Improver 21:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You're too kind. I might not have written the original sentence, but I definitely chose to include it in the supposedly overhauled article. I take responsibility for leading others astray (and I'm grateful that Markisbeast noticed, so that we were able to fix it). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, a wiki is a collaborative effort after all :) If one or more people miss a detail, another one will eventually figure out the flaw and correct it, or make them notice - maybe even in form of a question, as in this case^^ —ZerphaThe Improver 21:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

like two ships passing in the... internet

My apologies, I think I rather out-did you in terms of GuildWiki inactivity; I've just noticed.

I'm not here to bother you and whine and moan and beg and plead... it's tempting, but I reckon you've made up your mind and all I can do is respect that. I just want to say that you will be sorely missed and you're a truly incredible asset to any community you see fit to become a part of. I hope you have the opportunity here to have much the same impact as you did over there, and hopefully you will greater enjoy editing here.

I think history has shown I'll never be active over here. Do you intend to purchase Guild Wars 2? Will our paths cross once again on the official wiki of same? Your companionship - I daresay friendship - is something I'd lament losing. While we may not talk often, I do truly enjoy exchanging words with someone who understands both the science and the art of speaking English. I could live with knowing we will likely not speak again until such time as GW2 is released - but I'd be saddened if this was 'goodbye'.

Hope all is well with you. A F K When Needed 20:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh no! Am I gathering what I believe I'm gathering?

Well, it's true that neither Guild Wars nor its community is young enough to appreciate really good changes to its wiki these days. If you had been here in the formative years, perhaps your experience would have been more rewarding for your tireless effort. | 72 | 22:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been happily corrected. | 72 | 20:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

i'll agree with 72. Although i barely know you TEF (if i can call you that), i think your contributions are great. Your edits on articles i've seen so far are really smooth, and your userpage is nice and well organized as well. —ZerphaThe Improver 09:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Ohai, AFK. Long time no see. Howzzit?

Lessee, in no particular order:

1. Yes, I intend to purchase GW2
2. Will our paths cross at GW2W? I hope so.
3. Thank you for the compliments (both implied and actual). (Also: thanks, Zerpha. I appreciate your taking the time to say so.)
4. There's no reason we can't continue to communicate via email (although you have to do it through logging in here).

I do want to clear up the possibility of misconception by others reading this (I think AFK got it, but it might not be clear from reading above). I absolutely enjoyed contributing to GWiki...and I expect that I would still enjoy it if I was willing to devote the time to both wikis. I stopped contributing there because I felt that my efforts were redundant and I needed to focus on one site or the other. I chose GWW because I feel that GWiki no longer has enough active contributors to compete with GWW in terms of thoroughness.

I would happily have continued contributing there if anyone (besides me) had been interested in discussing how GWiki could adapt to the changed circumstances...but it appears no one has an appetite for thinking about change (let alone spending the effort to transform). (Left to me, I would have liked to see GWiki concentrate on those things it does better, e.g. presenting data so that it provides usable information, e.g. offering more creative approaches.)

– Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh... busy busy.

I'll certainly be on GW2W; I already am there, if infrequently. You'd certainly provide an extra incentive to bother investigating what the community has done in the previous 24 hours, which I sometimes do, and sometimes don't make the time to. Oh, and as it happens, you're incorrect; I was cheeky and saved your e-mail address. My inactivity here will most likely continue.

Even a month ago I'd likely not have said this, but... I do see your point. GuildWiki focuses ever more on user talk pages and less and less on actual content. It's not easy to say, but I will at least admit it is dying. Hopefully I'm not the only one who will choose to remember the glory days instead of mourning their passing. I do have a strong desire to carry some (though not all) of GuildWiki's little quirks over to GW2W, which at the moment is threatening to devolve into GWW2. I've never been a fan of the way this wiki handles... anything. Hopefully you can serve to be a positive influence.

An e-mail from you is always a welcome surprise. ;) A F K When Needed 19:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, so that's what 72 meant with "I have been happily corrected", since he seemingly thought like me at first that you'd leave this wiki, but then realized AFK was being literal about that GuildWiki. Well, unlike 72 i did not realize this and to my own annoyance once again caused some confusion on this talk page :P (Duh, that also explains why TEF had quite an amount of contributions in the past days here!)

I guess i should feel ashamed now though, because i already gave up on the old wiki years ago once GWW was somewhat etablished although i could at least have uploaded image files on both of them :o

I'm overall quite content with GWW as opposed to AFK. But there are also some things in GuildWiki that i think "would be nice to have here". So I'm not going to support either wiki side without knowing the details, but GW2W will probably become a "GWW2" since most GWW users came over to GW2W, so it's likely to be more like GWW than GuildWiki. But now while GW2W is still in its earlier stages it should still be possible to persuade the community to adopt some of GuildWikis good ideas, shouldn't it? (Although i admit, "good" is in that case likely to be mostly subjective...) —ZerphaThe Improver 21:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

What things do you subjectively like about GWiki over GWW? (I agree that there are several and I'm interested in whether I am seeing the same pluses and minuses as you.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If you'll excuse me for injecting myself into a conversation randoly..."The people" and "the culture" are what I miss most from GuildWiki. Although I guess those are two faces of the same thing. GuildWiki was always a wiki that knew how to have fun. GWW in comparison has always been more sterile to me - but I guess that has to go along with being "official" and whatnot. I also thought it was heartwarming how, despite being the always marginalized place, people from GuildWiki kept up a "can-do" attitute in the face of great adversity. It's hard to compete with GWW, which has so many more editors and the "official" this and that, not to mention guilds and feedback spaces.

I guess no comparison would be complete without mentioning the different styles of administration, too. There has always been less bureaucratic red tape on GuildWiki. I'm not saying that is automatically a good thing, but in general it allowed for disputes to be resolved in a faster or more efficient way. No need for ArbComms on GuildWiki...and unlike on GWW, where "sysop discretion" is still a puzzle to many, it's been in practice on GuildWiki for years. Obviously I am heavily biased in that regard, having been a big part of that culture change myself, but eh. Vili 点 22:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

My favorite part of GuildWiki is that it's MINE ALL MINE AHAHAHAHAHA elix Omni 00:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Man, if you guys are old, what does that make me? -- Armond Warblade 00:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that makes you Armond. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"Armond" – since time reckoning needed a completely new dimension. – 00:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Armon predates all known GW history. Anyway, I largely agree with Entropy. One of the reasons I never went here was because of that. Plus, when I actually came here a bit, Auron was Bcrat here, and 1) I don't like Auron 2) I don't like the way he handles things 3) there had just been massive drama on gwiki involving auron. So yeah...--78.22.50.137 16:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC) (mystery IP! zomg!)

(Reset indent) I never felt that GWW's community was more reserved or 'smuggier' than GuildWiki's because it's part of the official wiki. (At least i didn't notice any change in behavior of those users that are on both wikis.) But i agree that they feel different nonetheless. I think GuildWiki's atmosphere seems just naturally more relaxed since it wasn't started by Anet but by some fans, without any premises. (I for my part didn't have big problems with any person on this wiki so far, neither personally nor the way they did their thing. I just kept myself away from some talkpages if i didn't like the user, but that's something you have on any community)
The only thing that really annoys me here is the overly meticulous way copyrights are handled, since even resized tiny images with a format of 15x15 pixels get deleted, which misses the point of copyright anyways.

Now to answer your question TEF:
<TL;DR>
For a long time i still prefered GuildWiki's quick references, but simply because GWW didn't have such many lists at that point - it wasn't a question about how the content was executed, but just that it was available in the first case, so that's probably not what you asked for :P

The things i could think of right now mainly concern the infoboxes.
Those are basically the tool to have a cookie-cutter approach for the shared features of any item, skill, quest or the like. So if players look an article up they'd find the keywords they're looking for by a glance on the infobox instead of reading through a text that basically tells mostly the same as dozens of other articles. Instead the lines left to read would really state something speacial about the item.

Overall GWW does a good job at that, but there are exceptions.
With regard to the Zaishen Quests, the GuildWiki is clearly better in my opinion. Compare Mobrin, Lord of the Marsh's Z-quest with that of GuildWiki. There's simply not much to say about them. Acept/Decline/Ask/Reward dialogue are always the same, and the only thing needed to know about this quest is the reward, anything else can be figured out by taking a look at the bosses' page, like the boss image or the map...although the walkthrough section is quite handy, it could just as well also be added to the actual boss page, which will also inform those players which want to kill it for whatever reason, and not the quest.

I also like the note in GuildWiki on top of pages with an accordant Z-quest. Although that could be added to GWW as well. (*Idea*: maybe even in the infobox by just editing it. By using the parser function #ifexist to check if the article "{{PAGENAME}} (Zaishen quest)" exists, you could add a line in the box that informs about that, or maybe even add an icon on the top left or top right next to the name with a link to the accordant z-quest page to show it exists for this boss.)
While we're at the name of the z-quests, whether an 'disambiguation identifier' in brackets is used or subpage for the accordant foe/mission/area is made is a matter of taste as well. (But since you were asking for my opinion - i prefer brackets, since it makes the quest's name a tad clearer than the subpage).

Unique weapons are another point where i overall prefer GuildWiki. Compare GWW's article about Kaolin Longbow with GuildWiki's for instance. I prefer GWW's infobox in that it doesn't use an extra infobox for unique items (although giving the entire infobox a color change for unique items might be a nice idea) and that it also includes campaign, box class, icon and attribute. (Yet the attribute could be left out for non-caster weapons since otherwise it's rather redundant and clutters the infobox). BUT it misses two important parts - it neither includes the foe that drops the item, nor the skin (and color) the weapon uses. Those are properties that are true for 98% of all unique weapons, so GWW's skin section could be compromised into one line in the infobox. Even the first sentence on either wiki that informs about the boss and his location could be put into the infobox (in that case the boss appears on multiple areas, but that should still go into the box without any problems). Some dislike putting all information of that kind into the infobox though. But i'll agree with that when it comes to the stats since those become less clear in five seperate lines within the infobox, and are still best visible when listed "normally", like they are ingame. In my opinion that's all what an article about a unique item would need.
I'm neutral about the replica section. I'm more of a guy that wants to keep information rather than delete it if it is helpful in some way. This section is somewhat redundant since barely any players that look up a unique item would want to replicate its stats. The skin is rarely replicable, and the name never is. And if you really want to get exactly those stats on a regular weapon for some reason, you could easily look up the upgrades and insignias you need for that on the accordant pages (unless it's not replicable like a bunch of Prophecies/Promo items, in which case a short note about that would do). On the other hand the articles don't really get cluttered by it since they don't have many sections, and this last one can be ignored for those not interested in replication. Long story short, i at least don't miss this section on GuildWiki :P

Another little thing that's pretty similar to the item's attribute in the infobox is the affiliation in the NPC infoboxes. The idea of adding it for the different type of undead, e.g. Skeletons like Raging Cadaver was a good one, but imo it should have been left out if there just isn't any special affiliation. Now most NPCs have "<location> wildlife" as their affiliation. Even some actual undead apparently ended up getting that pattern. But overall that's "just a good idea that could have been executed a bit better" which simply never came up in GuildWiki.
A last thing that i like about GuildWiki and goes into another direction is the Nostalgia. It existed first, and since some of the very early days of Guild Wars. There are still some ancient images on this wiki, like this one. This one was taken about six years ago now. It's not a professional render but just a screenshot of somebody trying to get a good shot while fighting. It uses the old boss aura, Stefan hidden behind it since you wouldn't be able to control NPCs with flags (or have heroes in the first place) for a long amount of time.
</TL;DR>

I could think of some more differences in content, but those would mostly end up in favor of GWW. Sorry that i didn't reply yesterday anymore, and that this entire reply got rather exhaustive and again, somewhat jumbled. You don't need to go into everything i said here if you don't want to since i don't expect you expected and answer that long (and tbh i at first did not either, yet i felt like explaining my view of every detail, so here you have it) :P —ZerphaThe Improver 21:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Well at least you used the appropriate tags. A F K When Needed 11:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

inorite? —ZerphaThe Improver 13:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

spirit chants

you're right, spirits don't use chants and so are not affected by well of silence, but about half of all chants affect all allies, including spirits 24.130.140.36 20:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant to rephrase the chant bit before I pressed save. Unfortunately, there's not really any way to undo the edit summary (or, at least, no way without special rights). The main thing is: no bug with WoS.

Thanks for reminding me about the chants (since I do sometimes miss the obvious). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"My" builds

May I have your permission to edit the builds subpage you "quoted verbatim" from my userpage? I recently saw that you suggested it to others, and I have made some improvements to a few bars since the time of your borrowing. Vili 点 03:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Feel free. (The main reason for my copying them instead of pointing ppls to your user page is that... too often, people update their user pages and cool stuff gets lost. Since you had finished WoC, I thought it was probably stable.)

If you'd prefer not to worry about it, we can make it a redirect or a transclusion instead. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 03:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I actually approve. Although I doubt most of them are around anymore, people generally associate me with the trolls of GWW; I think it is preferable to have this information presented/endorsed by someone with a cleaner reputation, such as yourself. Besides, my userpage has a lot of other crap on it that people may not care to see (at work). :D

Well, it's stable because...WoC hasn't changed at all, and I haven't had to adjust anything for parts 2 or 3 since they are unfortunately not out yet. Not to be a Negative Nancy, but I don't see that changing any time soon. Vili 点 03:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Binding Chains

abusefilter complains if I try to move forest's binding from notes to related skills, and you're both around and autoconfirned, so could you take a look at it for me? thanks 24.130.140.36 16:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

done.

that filter is a bit weird. On the one hand, an IP can replace all content on a short page with {{delete}}, but they can't remove a section from a longer article. Arguably, it's for the best — there aren't many IPs that are around enough to know this wiki's conventions, so it's probable that IPs trying to move sections are either misguided or malicious.

You might have to reconsider logging in some day ;-) (In the meantime, happy to help.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

sometimes I do log in, but... well, for one, I'm a little paranoid with connecting my online alias with my irl name, so I wouldn't want to do that at work. and besides, I've met some neat people from this ip, probably because I act like this ip and not like any other alias i've used. 24.130.140.36 17:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI, you can move a section, but you can't remove a section. In your edit you removed the section and added the contents to another section. That's what got caught. --JonTheMon 17:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

@24: yeah, I get that. I'm also keen to keep IGN/wiki-nick/RL distinct.

@JtM: Thanks for the background. The problem comes up when trying to move the last bullet from a section, which implies deleting the header. I'm not sure how one could configure AF to recognize that distinction (the bullet remains +/-, even though the section does not). But, unless it's entirely trivial, I don't think it's worth it — as above, it's hard to imagine that there are so many "frequent-flyer" IPs around that this is going to be a big issue.

PS Kudos on the general config for AF; I don't know how many vandals it has stopped, but it seems to me that I haven't had to help clean up as much spam as before. (If you have access to the overall stats, it would be great to see them.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It's lower than some other wikis (like guildwiki) but Special:AbuseFilter --JonTheMon 18:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You're Welcome

And thank you to you, as well, TEF for the compliment you left on my talk page. I've read your suggestions and feedback with great interest, too.

I'm passionate about Guild Wars and the potential that Guild Wars 2 represents. I've been gaming since before the advent of the personal computer. After all these decades, I am excited to see a games developer (ArenaNet) finally taking a computer RPG in a direction that will begin to match the creativity, imagination, and depth of those old paper-and-pencil RPGs while simultaneously leveraging the advantages that the computer brings to the genre. If my suggestions and feedback in some way - no matter how small - helps influence that process, all the better; not for the benefit of my ego, but for the benefit of the genre. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 17:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, ever since cRPGs came out I've been saddened by how horribly they are tied to AD&D thought processes. Breakpoint functions are necessary for a dice-based randomization, but not for computers. Lots of anomalous mechanics are a natural result of evolution by accretion, but shouldn't be part of a system designed from basics.

I like that ANet turns some/many of those ideas on their head. And I'm looking forward to seeing how GW2 changes my expectations as much as GW1 did. Anyhow, keep up the good work (both suggestions and offers of feedback to others). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)