User talk:The Sins We Die By

in the works...

Archive

• User talk:The Sins We Die By/Archive 1
• User talk:The Sins We Die By/Archive 2

Hey there

Man, I finally put two and two together - didn't realize this whole time you were in my own alliance!  :) – Barinthus 04:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol, you would think you'd notice right?~>Sins WDB 04:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Word.

What's happening?--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 21:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

A whole lot of things I'm sure, but in respect to me fairly normal stuff. One of the more exciting things that's happening is the nba playoffs are approaching and iirc the teams in our vicinities could end up in the finals as opposition.~>Sins WDB 03:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I miss going to Kings games now that I don't live in Sacramento anymore.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 23:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Cali has 3 teams however, only two locations though. It might just be Cleveland + LA though.~>Sins WDB 01:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

We have the Sacramento Kings, Golden State Warriors & Los Angeles Lakers. I'm closer to the Warriors now, I suppose.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 07:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely forgot about golden state. Even if you are closer to them unless their one of your teams it's not as enjoyable an experience. I'm a big college football fan, and my team is Michigan (living in ohio lol) so its not really a good experience going to the horseshoe for OSU games if you know what I mean.~>Sins WDB 18:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I was always more of a Blazers and Celtics fan...though I did go through a bout of Kings fever when Scott Pollard and Doug Christie were on the roster. Doug Christie was awesome and his wife was one of my favorite customers when I worked at Nordstrom. She spent a lot of money on clothes before games.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 18:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The Trailblazers just might just be the 2nd best team in the west, similarly the Celtics are probably the 2nd best team in the east. I think both will get 2 seeds come playoff time, but Denver might just beat out Portland for the 2 spot.~>Sins WDB 19:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol

--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 16:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Back atcha~>Sins WDB 17:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That mes bar saves lives. I end up with 2 res sigs or more. Srs.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 22:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

you should

hang out with the cool ppl on vent more =) --adrin 05:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean Shard and Yasmin?~>Sins WDB 05:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, i'm glad they let me hang out with them, they're really cool. --adrin 06:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

NWN

[1] forum for our NWN module. Come play beta--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 08:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

LMFAOOOOOOOOOO!!!

hi (:

WE is still broken

It was OP as a stance. Then mecha-OP as a skill. Now just OP as a stance. It gives warriors expertise. they can spam bulls power attack and other high dmg skills w/o trying. if you can still win by equipping the skill, then smashing ur face on the keyboard, it's not fixed. i'd unscratch it if i was u. --adrin 03:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a top priority skill anymore. Warriors now need to sacrifice their utility and IAS for this skill, so I would let it stay scratched. To be honest, Adrin isn't really someone worth listening to anyway. Xhata 11:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, can you please remove the collapsible things on your talk page? This isn't workable. Xhata 14:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

NPA's mean NPA --adrin 20:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've watched matches from several tournaments since this change went in, and I haven't seen WE on the field yet. Or foul feast, for that matter, despite the nerf being mild IMO. {Seen a lot of one-of-each warrior groups using various attack elites, mainly. Every necro has LC, every ranger has MelS/NatS/NedS/Poison/StdInterrupts. A lot of variance in mesmers though now.} --Star Weaver 21:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ranger's have been running 3 elites so far. Mel Shot, Crip Shot, and Magebane. You won't see BA anytime soon with no powerful energy efficient cancel attacks.

Mesmers don't have a lot of variance honestly. VoR, Expel, Icy Shackles, and Glyph of Renewal. VoR is OP, Expel is often taken bcs of hexgay, Icy Shackles is a nice skill though it's for the Ele, and Renewal is just stupid. The glyph needs nerfed, mesmers get to be lazy and chain diversion + shame all day long. I argue that the hexes need a minor nerf as well, but people seem to accept them being so powerful.

I keep seeing Stand Your Ground, which has taken the place of Aegis. I've seen guilds chaining this skill which is incredibly annoying and can't be interrupted. The skill needs nerfed as well. Four skills makes the paragon far better at mixing defense and offense than the ritualist. Defensive Anthem, "Stand Your Ground!", "Go for the Eyes!", and Spear of Lightning. I earlier predicted DA wouldn't show it's ugly face, but it will eventually as long as Paragons can chain 23-25 seconds of party defense and force party criticals and force a crit from spear of lightning. That's just 4 skills too, they have 3 more for utility taking away the Rez Sig.~>Sins WDB 12:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Glyph of renewal is more OP then LC are you serious ? Lilondra *panda* 13:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Also you guys are wrong.By nerfing you won't fix the real issue.The incredible amount of damage that is in the game atm.First fix the NEED for skills like those.Then Fix the skills themselves imo.Lilondra *panda* 13:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I missed where someone said LC wasn't as a good as Renewal. In any case you are sort of right, but not really. Mindblast needs nerfed, Zealous Vow needs nerfed (before people realize it resurrects the WE build). Besides that though offense is fine. Warriors are back to using more skillful methods of damage output, ranger turrets are weak, and kappa mesmers nerfed.~>Sins WDB 13:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There is still power creep.Beside that more ways of utility and skill-req things should be introduced.Think about it the recent buffs did not introduce 1 skill that actually required skill.LC should rly be higher on the list perhaps 3rd place.Besides that zealous Vow is much worse tbh.Saccing secondary,investing in a attribute you won't use for anything but Zealous Vow.Being strippable,Aftercast,.... I mean even if it still is crazy damage like you said it might not be worth it.Warriors NEED to keep using adrenaline and methods of extra adrenal gain and denial should be reworked or be kept to a minimum.Blind,snare all you want to reduce the rate of adrenal gain but adrenal denial and things like For great justice should be avoided Lilondra *panda* 18:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

LC is high on the list. Its part of hexway. I do believe you should try zealous vow out. I switch to an enchant staff when I cast it while I'm further away from enemies, the extra duration + chance for recharge makes it that much easier to use, not to mention the bonus energy that gets hidden so you never have to worry about not having enough. It's the WE build all over again minus like 5 dmg per power attack or protector's. Stripping it within 3 seconds of it being cast every time it would be cast is the only way to stop it. Even when I don't have it on I can spam 2 PAs, 2PSs, 1 Dis, and a bulls strike with 15 or more energy on hand. By that time it's recharged and we're back to action. If you don't believe me that it's the WE build reincarnated, run what I just described. It takes a little bit more skill to use as effectively, but it's just as effective minus a tad bit of damage. Btw yes it is worth it to run, an extra attack and free plus damage. Dismember is the only AD skill besides Rush and those take no time to charge. Why run AD skills when the energy is so much easier to use and more powerful?~>Sins WDB 19:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol, Zealous Vow gets removed 2 seconds after it's applied. Yeah, that's very pro indeed. Dark Morphon 14:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh Please...my comment above was sarcasm. No team could dedicate attention to disenchanting melee only. Did you see the last meta with SoH and Judge's Insight. Have you ever heard of conjure?~>Sins WDB 15:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not joking. ZW will get removed in 2 seconds. Dark Morphon 10:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you realise that Zealous Vow is your elite and your secondary profession.Shutting it down is much more painfull then taking SoH or sumthin away Lilondra *panda* 10:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It definitely is more painful to have it removed than one of those other enchants, but based on your arguments conjure is completely pointless as are using the other two enchants. I know it can get removed quickly, that forces you to play like a warrior normally would for a couple seconds but with no executioner's or body blow and without shock. However, I'm telling you that you don't get disenchanted often enough to make it matter. One-Two disenchant skills per team normally with such a low recharge you just throw it right back up, not to mention you pull attention from other teammate enchantments if you are the focus.~>Sins WDB 16:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Conjure doesnt get stripped as much.You know why ? It doesnt turn strip enchant in a super magic blackout of JESUS whenever it hits you.Shure you deal a bit less damage but you didnt just lost an enchant you wasted BOTH your secondary prof AND your elite on AND where you made your whole build for.Lilondra *panda* 19:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess my point is that Conjure's work with the build where with ZV the build works with ZV so its much more important to *not* get stripped.Lilondra *panda* 20:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

btw

you're ugly.Oni 20:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I prefer ugly to ignorant.~>Sins WDB 03:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You're ugly + bad. +ignorant. Dark Morphon 10:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You're also bad+ugly+fugly+ignorant. This d00d is like a guildwars version of venomfanx :xOni 12:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Lolo, Oni, ur shush a meenie. Dark Morphon 14:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh darn, Oni and Dark have 1 up'ed me. I guess I fail, enjoy your green shrooms in your parents' basements.~>Sins WDB 16:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ye you fail.

And you're ugly.

Very very ugly.

How come you're so ugly anyway?

Stop being so ugly.

PLEASE, COULD YOU STOP BEING SO UGLY? D:

WELL, AT THE VERY LEAST; CAN YOU STOP BEING SO BAD AT GUILDWARS?

NO?

WELL I SUPPOSE YOU CAN'T, CAUSE YOU'RE UGLY

fugly.

ugly.

ugly!

Atm, I have nothing better to do since I'm sick.. SO! I can keep going >:3!

..But I wont for long, you're too fugly for that.

FUGLY!

FUUUUUUUUGLYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYHHHHH!

Seriously man, bottom line: you're ugly.Oni 08:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

He sure is. Dark Morphon 15:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Cavs

Dude...did you see the game? 116-114...ouch. Le Bron is on fire though.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 22:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Did I see the game!? Ha of course! I'm really annoyed that the cavs can't finish out a second half, but at least we'll know they're the best if they can dig out of this hole. Yes James is on fire though there you are correct, unfortunately he had 9 turnovers himself in the 4th and beyond. 1 possession losses suck hard >.< ~>Sins WDB 00:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A thought before I forget

→ moved from user talk:Linsey Murdock

I know the new licensing stuff isn't finalized, but I'm posting this because it's late and I don't feel like trying to remember later.

For both 4 man arenas I recommend putting in place a team filter that pits teams against each other in a more even manner. Basically do even match ups in terms of build type. Basically I'm assuming you can use to system to distinguish certain build types. I'm guessing it can read a skill as either a heal or a damaging skill, and obviously it can distinguish skill types. Make the system read the 4 skill bars and attributes of a team and categorize them. Points into divine favor and smiting under 7 must mean healer, over 10 into resto with with 4 resto skills must mean healer, dervish heavy on earth prayers and having 3 skills with healing effects must be a healer, lots of points into a weapon master must mean melee, 4 or more hexes must be a hex build. You see where I'm going. From there you match teams up based on build types and if you can't find a matching type you check the next closest thing. If that fails then on the 3rd try to a random match up like how it's done in TA and RA already. In any case a system like that would not be perfect, but it's better than being completely outmatched due to 4 man being pretty much pressure + hexes to win or build wars. Since, we are getting a PvP update in the distant future this might be a good thing to look into (in addition to HB, which has already been mentioned) as to whether or not its feasible. If the team would look into this the community could at least help out with the logic, since the programming is unknown to us.~>Sins WDB 04:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoah, whoah, whoah... You do realize how long this would take to code to make it even remotely helpful rather than horribly broken/buggy/annoying? And it would require a lot more resources that the Live Team currently has. Is it worth the time/effort over payoff? Not even close, methinks. They have much more important problems to spend their time on, like synching. And with a little bit of bad luck, the same teams would keep getting matched against each other. Rose Of Kali 05:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

even match ups in terms of build type? Yeah, right... There's a bit over thousand skills in GW, and then there's APs too... Good luck finding builds which match evenly against each other. Mediggo 06:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not hard to get a computer to determine your play strategy based on a build of 7 skills. ~Shard 06:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What Shard said. Build has 3 heals or more? Healer. Don't stack 4 of them on a team. Build has 3 damage skills or more? It's a big domage build, don't make a team of 4 of those either. Build has two interrupts? Midline. 4-5 hexes? Midline. Not hard. Teams should be 1-2 heal, 1-2 damage, 1-2 midline, not 4 healers or 4 damage or 4 VoR mesmers. It's still "random" since you don't know what you're going to get, but at least your team will have a fighting chance more often than not. (I know, plenty of idiots counter that their four damage team got a glad point, but playing for hours proves that teams with a healer do better than a team without). -Auron 09:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

W/Mo with 8 heals? Healer. :D 218.214.126.215 02:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

He's certainly not there for damage. ~Shard 02:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

hi

I don't feel like bothering linsey with this discussion even more but your suggestion is flawed.I already explained it won't create more diversity since there will still be a meta where people won't differ alot from.Now stop caring so much about a profession.In high lvl you play a profession because its the best at filling a niche you want to be filled not because OBABY LOOK AT THOSE SUPER SPECIAL ARMORED ... PEOPLEZ.And I tbh rly hate the tons of people that want a profession to get buffed because it looks so good.If you are no longer happy with the niche your character fills go play another ffs.Thats the reason why there is something like pvp character and low lvl cap Lilondra *panda* 04:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a profession I want to play in PvP that isn't already meta. I prefer warrior or monk. My intention isn't to buff one class bcs I like it or nerf a class bcs I dislike it. My intention was to force viability of the professions that aren't meta and therefore force dev attention on balancing them. Overall balance is what I want, but the non-core professions weren't thought out well enough in their beginnings.~>Sins WDB 17:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

yh they fail by design.However some of the designs could work with some modifications paragons and dervishes however are doomed to be mayor gayage forever (the skirt and shiny nipples should have predicted that) Lilondra *panda* 17:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Both have hope, but its unlikely to happen. The paragon is so fargone I don't have any ideas on how to make it better beyond making Chants and perhaps shouts affect the shouter and 1 target only. If dervishes weren't just redbarers with 95% selfish skills that would be a good start. Don't let me keep going though, I'll ramble walls of text over this stuff. Basically, they can fix the problems. However, for some reason the professions haven't been the priority of the devs and that's what makes this game. You'd think they would realize they need to fix the most visible part of the game.~>Sins WDB 17:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind they are crappy profs tbh.I'd much rather have them spend their resources in rebalancing the core ones so we get some nice play Lilondra *panda* 06:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

To each their own.~>Sins WDB 16:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thought For 8 Man PvP

→ moved from user talk:Linsey Murdock

I'll move this soon, but I thought our lincensing issue was solved last week. All that needs to be done is finalizing the feedback pages, which isn't done yet. So does that mean that we have to wait for the feedback pages to be completed to post suggestions?~>Sins WDB 17:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Try an 8 man style requiring all different professions. No duplicates, including monks and warriors. Given natures of the 10 professions it is completely possible to do this in a similar fashion to a balanced GvG team. I'm not saying this should replace anything or that new stuff beyond the basic idea need to be added, I'm saying its own format given current HA and GvG maps would be awesome. Similar things have been suggested in the past, but I'm just saying please look into the idea for our future PvP heavy update. ~>Sins WDB 08:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Just start a League for it and offer Zcoins or some crap as rewards to get more participants. This isn't something that only the Devs can make a reality... --ilr 09:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't give out ZCoins as rewards by player made things - non-tradable. :P -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 09:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Besides its a bad Idea people will just run RT instead of the healing monk and a full prot monk with it.Lilondra *panda* 10:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"Besides its a bad Idea people will just run RT instead of the healing monk and a full prot monk with it". I don't know why that makes this a bad idea. In any case though my ideal backline would be heal monk, prot derv, and a rit.~>Sins WDB 16:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

basicly you put restrictions that just weaken both teams.It won't be intresting at all really.Intresting is when there is a wild variety of builds and strategies.This will not accomplish that so therefor is not a idea.Lilondra *panda* 16:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Restrictions can breathe fresh life into a game. And even though the backline heals will usually be a monk + rt, the other 6 have quite a bit of diversity. -- Alaris 16:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Depends the kind of restriction tbh.I fully agree that things like sealed deck can be cool but I'm pretty shure that this won't.As people will just find a way around the profession barrier to fill the same niche as they would have but with a slightly worse result.This means that if the original build is boring the other version will be just as boring.You'll just see more skirts and shiny nipples tbh Lilondra *panda* 19:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of something like this is to make professions play to their strengths. Some professions can play certain roles particularly well, but are outshined by another profession or simply overlooked bcs of common use of a particular profession. It really promotes diversity of play by forcing teams to choose something they normally wouldn't.~>Sins WDB 19:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No way am I going to add another PvP type to further fracture the playerbase. - Linsey talk 20:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice to hear that's one of your main Concerns... So I imagine we can expect a Journal entry a while down the road here about how the future/planned big_PvP_update will tackle that issue. (I dunno if it would help, but I'll try to find a place to make my own journal on this and why I'm an Avid PvP'er in all sorts of games, but not in this one).--ilr 22:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

+1 points for you

You allow others to have their own opinion even if you disagree with them. You have my respect for that. Keep up the good work. 145.94.74.23 18:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thx, I feel a little fuzzy on the inside =P.~>Sins WDB 19:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, conceding defeat is a really good way to have discussions. Dark Morphon 14:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Intent to troll -1 point for Dark Morphon.~>Sins WDB 03:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it as him having conceded, but rather as him having won because he knows when a discussion is over, when everything has been said. There's a reason why formal debates have a time limit you know. 145.94.74.23 05:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

+1 to you i like how you think + you seem to understand more about balance than few others. Raemon 07:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I need to archive... later, lol. Thx? I just look at the numbers, follow mechanic matchups, keep in mind staple roles, and factor in human reaction times usually, that tells you a lot. ~>Sins WDB 08:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

To Help You Who Deal With Me

In Regard to my postings here and in general

@All who still don't understand, this is my last attempt communicate my point. Shard definitely could have completely followed his bans respectfully, on the other hand is there anything to prove that he has done so? No. My original point was debating ways to allow shard's view of something to be posted on a page he is forbidden to post on is pointless to ponder about. It doesn't matter anymore, because that effort has already been put forth. However, for the sake of people understanding me and my point I will try to fully explain.

1. It is impossible for the people of this wiki to deny a single individual access from posting on this wiki given its open format, due to facts that I state in the arbcomm talk page.

2. A lack of evidence that an individual has not broken a ban order does not mean they haven't.

3. Shard is very passionate about making sure the spirit of guild wars that he knows is held true, and this is one of his means of attempting to ensure this.

4. If Shard was going to ask someone to post something on his behalf, it obviously means he is going to get his point across one way or another. So having others not be allowed to do so means he will find another way to get his point where he wants it to be.

5. His main GW account was banned, and he made it a point to let people know that he has other accounts he uses. The point of banning his account however was not to keep Shard out of GW, it was to send a message. If ANet/support wanted him GONE from the game they would have done what it took to ban all of his accounts. Since it was clearly to send a message to him and his reply to this message was basically "Whatever try to control me, I have access to more accounts," I am drawing the conclusion that he will apply the same concept to this wiki.

That is the logic I am using, it does not take leaps and bounds to arrive from one step to the other. I enjoy playing devil's advocate, but not for the sake of looking like a troll. I do it for the sake of showing people something they normally might not think about. I do not simply respond to people on this wiki on a whim (95% of the time). I respond with thought out points, that people usually don't acknowledge because they are too closed minded to want to see them. So, if we look back at my original statement "If he really wants to post something on a page or have something posted on his behalf he can just post from an IP and no one would know. Its something not worth worrying about." I think I did a good job stating my point. It was short and sweet. Not an attempt to undermine anything, just letting people know that the idea in question would be irrelevant. At the same time I offered a very concise summary of the logic behind the reasoning.

Originally I intended to post this on the arbcomm page, but clearly that would have been viewed as disruptive. Instead, I linked people here from the arbcomm talk because the most important people keeping this wiki going should understand that when I post something I am only trying to offer helpful points/ideas/suggestions. In this case it was simply a time saver. While this post is not saving time right now, reading this will hopefully save you time in the future in regard to my commenting on the wiki and hopefully others.~>Sins WDB 04:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Added note. At times I am just plain wrong. The best thing to do with me is to show contridictions in my logic if I don't see it, or just offer your view so I can see perspective's I may have missed.

Just because a prisoner has a chance to escape or still perform crimes from the inside doesn't mean we don't lock him or her up. --Riddle 04:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Sins. I'm going to make a bad comparison between the wiki and guild wars. On the wiki, accounts are free and easy to create, and socking is unbelievably easy to do without getting banned, but Shard has never done this. I'm assuming he will try, simply because in GW, which he barely plays anyway, he still has and uses other accounts to avoid the ban he was wrongfully given.

That's twisted logic I wouldn't normally expect from you. ~Shard 05:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, Anet DOES want me gone. This is why I don't tell anybody my account/character names. ~Shard 05:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Shard I'm not saying you would or wouldn't sock/IP. I said shutting down that one of the many easy avenues of getting around a ban is totally pointless. It's a complete waste of time because either you wouldn't do it (which I believe is the case) or you are completely capable of getting around that (which I am sure you are). I am not using twisted logic, I am in fact using other peoples logic to support my own. You've seen people say you've followed bans down to a letter, so putting a security in place to stop people from posting for you? WTH would that do? Nothing because one you wouldn't do that. But if you did want to you can do anything I've stated before to get around it. That's why I said it was a waste of time to worry about that.

And riddle look at the consequences of escaping jail. They get worse if you do. What happens on this wiki? Nothing, no consequence.~>Sins WDB 05:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Read this over. --Riddle 15:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been my point from the beginning. Preventing people from posting on behalf of someone isn't worth the time, because they either aren't willing to get around restrictions or they are going to use another easy method of doing so. In regard to wiki punishment, with no security in place it means nothing. You can block a user, so what? They can still post and let you know it by using their sig anyways.~>Sins WDB 16:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What part of "the sock subsequently gets banned and the main account's punishment increases" do you not get? Look at Uchiha Lena, who, while being banned for a week, still continued to harass and disrupt and earned himself a perma. --Riddle 18:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

So? He allowed people to know it was him. Fact is he could do so without the wiki community knowing it was him, but continuing to use socks or IPs and getting banned doesn't mean he isn't going to continue to do so. Punishment of a wiki account in reality means nothing. It's a tacking method is all. He lost his main tracker. Will he continue to harass people? Probably, because he knows having an account means nothing. He could use his old sig from his account if he really feels that attached to it or he could do so without us knowing at all.

Shard in all likelihood won't try to get around anything, but like in Uchiha's case if he wanted to he could. Anyone could in fact. However that doesn't mean anyone has to leave evidence of doing so. They could leave evidence just to show how feeble trying to control someone with intent to raise hell is. To again reiterate my point. In Shards case he probably won't try to get around a ban, but if he did want to you couldn't stop him and might in fact not know if it happened. Therefore, putting a security in place denying people the right to post on his behalf is not worth the time.~>Sins WDB 03:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi

You signed up for the Sealed play tournament I'm hosting. Since you've last checked, I've set a tourney date (Saturday, August 1st) and asked everyone to list the times they could play on that day. Please let me know if you are able to make it. That date is not set in stone yet, I will try to be as accommodating as possible if too many people can't play. Thanks for participating. ~Shard 02:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Due to conflicting schedules, I have split the sealed deck tournament into two different timeframes. If you are still interested in participating, please sign up for one of those times. Thanks. ~Shard 02:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

In case you haven't been checking, you're on my team for tomorrow's sealed deck. Some of us got together and made the builds, so you're getting stuck with one of them. We still haven't decided positions. Please be on in time. ~Shard 05:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it really doesn't go on Linsey's page

I'll bring it here. But your post there was so wrong it hurts. I'll go down it line by line to make life easier.

• Saying AI doesn't belong in PvP is ignorant. Let's clear this up. AI IS PVP. Guild Lord and other npcs all rely on AI.

...No. PvP means player versus player, not player versus Artificial Intelligence. The guild lord isn't the opposing team. The Guild Lord merely exists to show that you have to defend your base - you can't just run around the map with no coordination or you suffer the consequences. How threatening is the Guild Lord, honestly? How game breaking is his AI? If you stand next to him, he attacks you. If you walk away, he doesn't bother following. The Guild Lord exists to be killed or protected by the players on each side - but he is not the true point of GvG. He is just a marker. Yeah, he's got buggy AI - but, all in all, it doesn't matter, and it definitely doesn't make hero shitty hero AI passable or acceptable.

• The entire pvp concept revolves around the guild lord, which again is run by AI.

As I explained above, you're completely wrong on this point. A single PvP arena has a guild lord NPC which exists to be protected by his team or killed by the other. The Guild Lord's AI has basically no impact on the actual outcome of the match.

• So the argument that heroes shouldn't be in PvP because its Player vs Player not Player vs AI fails.

Your premise (that the guild lord exists and therefore AI is an inextricable part of PvP) is flawed, and your ignorance of the topic at hand interferes with your ability to come to a remotely solid thesis on this matter. You certainly don't have a good enough grasp of even basic GvG knowledge to start correcting others. No, the argument that heroes shouldn't exist in PvP doesn't fail, because hero AI and Guild Lord AI are two completely different things - as explained above, the Guild Lord is there to die. A hero is meant to replace an actual player, who has a very different purpose - fighting the players on the enemy team. You can't even begin to pretend that those two goals are similar. Bad AI in the former case is fine - nobody cares if the Guild Lord is stupid, because the Guild Lord's stupidity isn't going to win or lose a match. People start caring, however, when a hero replacement for a player is allowed to have split-second reaction times for interrupts, prots, condi and hex removal, because that's all stuff that directly impacts the outcome of the game.

• You can argue as to whether or not it is fair to have 7P+1AI vs 8P, that's all good and well, but you can't justify taking AI out of PvP when it was fully ingrained into it b4 heroes even existed.

/sigh. AI was not fully ingrained in PvP before heroes existed. As I've explained ad nauseam, the guild lord is not a player, and his AI had no real say in the outcome of the match. Yeah, there was a Guild Lord back in prophecies - but the guild lord didn't march to stand and tease the entire enemy team, strip enchantments off their midline, blind their frontline, and lay spirits down exactly on recharge. Do you not see the difference between the two? Do you see where too much AI becomes a problem, when a smidgen of it doesn't have that much of an impact?

• Honestly it is fair though, because while filling the last spot with a bot over a bad player seems unfair to bad players, they will always have greater potential than AI, even if their rxn times aren't as godlike as AI.

The problem here is people don't run heroes to fill in over a player, they run heroes to abuse AI that breaks the entire fucking game and makes playing against them ridiculously challenging. In any serious PvP, a team that is trying to fill its ranks with heroes is going to lose; probably to the teams filling their ranks with heroes to get that split-second interrupt action and flawless hex-spreading action, but if not to them, then definitely to any team of 8 actual players. Heroes are too stupid to run a player mesmer bar properly - but throw them some skills they can abuse, and they'll excel. That's why heroes need to be removed.

• blah blah blah low end pvp blah blah blah

Nobody gives a flying fuck about low end PvP. It has nothing to do with anything, and if you're trying to use low-end PvP as an excuse to keep heroes, I don't even know how to respond to that.

• Now you'll probably say players with low end arenas have little/no experience in the high end formats. To that I say so what? AI doesn't either.

To that I say - Suddenly, bananas! Thousands of them! Seriously, what the hell, man? Stop ranting.

• Honestly I am glad to see heroes go, but the formats they are in still revolve around AI, which is something that probably will never change.

Again, wrong. The formats they were in do not revolve around AI, they revolve around players, which is sort of the point of PvP to begin with. The NPCs that do exist in Heroes' Ascent matches and Guild vs Guild battles are not "the point" of either - the point is for the teams to fight each other, with an additional objective added in to spice things up. Without a Guild Lord, GvG would just be 8v8 TA - a huge joke. The Guild Lord's AI does not single-handedly defeat several enemy players. The Ghostly Hero's AI does have a greater impact on winning or losing in tombs, but that's mostly due to the bad design in tombs, and not the bad design of the AI.

You're confusing the point of high-end PvP - to beat the other team (of players) - with the game type, which is minor stuff like what you have to do in the match. Yeah, you have to run relics to win a relic run, but that doesn't mean we need to remove all carriable items from the game if we nix relic runs. It just doesn't make sense.
To summarize, the AI of wallflower NPCs like the Guild Lord and bodyguard are completely unrelated to the AI of Heroes, which are meant to replace actual players, and thus (by definition) have a greater impact on the result of the game. While the latter is abusable and has been abused for years, the former has really nothing to do with the latter and so you should stop drawing parallels between them. -Auron 16:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

While it is assumed that people are talking about the greater impact heroes have on the game. The arguement was "it's Player vs Player not Player vs AI." At which point I interjected, pointing out the flaws in such an arguement. People responded elaborating on the differences in AI, to which I pointed out the similarities, but that was not part of the original statement. As long as the implementation of game types is fun and, for the most part, balanced, it's all good with me. I just think people have a double standard when they say Player vs Player and Player vs AI, and I pointed that out.

Given your response here

<<Again, wrong. The formats they were in do not revolve around AI, they revolve around players, which is sort of the point of PvP to begin with.>>

And your point here

<<Without a Guild Lord, GvG would just be 8v8 TA>>

That is my point the GvG match type is a VIP type match. Kill the VIP you gain a point, the number of points required to win in GW's case is 1. So therefore without the Guild Lord you don't have the VIP match type and therefore the entire thing revolves around the Guild Lord, this was even more pertinent in the days of VoD as the two VIPs would engage each other. The players role is to manipulate the match in their favor. However, the match does not revolve around the players except in 1 sense. Each teamside must have 1 player in the instance, however regardless of what happens to them while in the instance the match continues. This makes sense because in a match where players vs each other you must have players in order for anything to happen. In any case the rest of what you said is AI comparison, which is not really what my original point was, though I agree that several things you've said are true.

As one last point, though it is slightly flawed given my limited information, RA (according to Linsey in her journal) is the most popular PvP type by far. Like multiples by far, as in adding more than 100% in comparison, so to say no one cares isn't exactly what I would say. But I'm just throwing that out there, so don't take too much out of it.~>Sins WDB 18:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• As long as the implementation of game types is fun and, for the most part, balanced, it's all good with me.

I agree with this. As long as the game is fun, I will play it - even if the objective is a bit silly. ANet just needs to branch out some more and try to get some new stuff implemented. Sealed deck is nice, but it's not really a new game type - it's just an attempt at faux balance. (/offtopic)

• So therefore without the Guild Lord you don't have the VIP match type and therefore the entire thing revolves around the Guild Lord, this was even more pertinent in the days of VoD as the two VIPs would engage each other. The players role is to manipulate the match in their favor.

Absolutely wrong! When you hit "enter battle" for GvG, why are you pressing the button? Are you entering GvG to fight the other team or to kill an NPC? Yes, the game type is VIP, but people play it to fight other players, not to fight the NPCs. Do you go in with hopes of interrupting an Archer's Troll Unguent, or an enemy monk's Aegis or WoH? Do you set up your team build to roll NPCs or to defeat the enemy team? Quite obviously, the latter in both cases. Yeah, the NPCs exist. No, you don't build around them - you build around your team's strengths and to hopefully exploit the enemy team's weaknesses. The NPCs are just there as flavor. They're just there to give a direction to the battle. Even back in the day, when the Lords marched to stand, the function of them moving was to force both teams to meet up in the middle of the map to finish the fight.

• However, the match does not revolve around the players except in 1 sense. Each teamside must have 1 player in the instance, however regardless of what happens to them while in the instance the match continues.

...what? Yeah, theoretically, if you went afk and let the NPCs hack and slash at each other, one side will "win," but in all honesty, that's not even a real match - because no PvP took place. Anyone better than 500 on the ladder is going to leave their base and kill shit; they aren't going to sit around in PvP and wait for NPCs to kill each other. From a purely theoretically point of view, yeah, the players are there to help their NPCs wage war on the other NPCs, but beyond that theory is what actually happens, and that's players fighting each other. -Auron 16:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Auron, I'm not saying matches are bad. I'm not dictating the reasons people play the game, hopefully it's for fun though. I'm just pointing things out about the design of the game. The design is truly what dictates how the game is played, and the way PvP was designed and modified has resulted in what we have. All I'm trying to do is make people think about what aspects of this design play the heaviest roles in how things play out, Guild Lord being one of those things among many others.~>Sins WDB 15:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)