Hero AI Monk/Ranger takes forever to revive dead pet
I have this build on Tahlkora;
her skill attributes are; 15 Healing Prayers, 10 Divine Favor, 10 Beast Mastery.
I can understand the AI having the party set as a priority over the pet. But after combat, everyone is 100%, and she will do nothing about the dead pet at her feet. During any battle she will not heal the pet so it dies and then I am forced to make her heal it or we end up leaving behind. --Wendy Black 09:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- That build looks very bad for me. From 1 to 10, I'm giving it a 0. (At Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/AI skills usage/Comfort Animal an IP was reporting trouble with pet resurrection too.) That build has no energy management and a monk with no energy means party wipe. The build has "2" resurrection skills, Vengeance and Resurrect. I have never seen AI resurrect with non-pet-resurrects and I believe the game mechanic doesn't allow it either. In my experience, AI monks do heal pets over team members which is the negative reason why I never take pets in my party.
- I believe it is true that the AI delays to resurrect pets and I never found a way around to make the AI faster (which is not exactly more efficient to me), mostly because I never bothered (as I clearly dislike having them in-team, the monks will have 1 more friendly to watch than the usual number of allies, having to divide their energy and time).
- Although I will also admit that the current behavior is actually excellent. Better the skill is micro-managed than AI controlled. Having the player resurrect the pet totally prevents the party healer's attention be distracted. Only the player can tell if it is safe or not to resurrect a healer's pet. I would certainly not want my healer to be resurrecting its pet while in the heat of a fight or... afterwards, EotN explorable areas have high speed moves patrols and I would really prefer to wait until the entire team is 100% in health and energy regenerated as well...than the monk giving attention to a pet with party at 90%. I think the game developers made the right decision to make it player choice over AI choice. Of course this looks the same as a blocked skill, however the AI does resurrect when not blocked...but yeah too slow/late... One could speculate it is intentionally programmed to prevent some sort of AFK farming like Glint's Challenge for example.
- Unfortunately I can't help you this time, sorry. The only advice I can give is to use Call of Protection or Symbiotic Bond but on a pet based primary ranger instead. Yoshida Keiji(talk) 10:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- At least the build is creative, but yeah drop at least 1 rez skill. For energy management I would say this: replace Vengeance with Scavanger Strike and Orison with a condition, maybe Poisonous Bite, Otyugh with Call of Protection and Healing Breeze with Patient Spirit, replace Heaven's Delight with Cure Hex or Remove Hex and Divine Healing with Word of Healing. As an alternate souce of energy management would could always place Essence Bond on your pet as a source of energy management and use the pet as a tank. Then you could go with something like this:
- But like Yoshida said it is a bad build and will remain a bad build even with those changes I mentioned, well it could work for mid-level NM. Da Mystic Reaper (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think Wendy wants an automated build without micro-management, if we use a bond skill... Wendy will have to re-cast the bonds when stripped by foes and AI doesn't keep bonds in allies... Yoshida Keiji(talk) 11:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- I forgot to say that when a pet dies, the owner has his/her build disabled for X seconds and if a healer losses the companion...that's the worst thing that could ever happen to your party...surprisingly the wiki has no such information at Animal_companion#Mechanics_and_behavior...how surprising... Yoshida Keiji(talk) 05:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Look more closely. The disabled information is already there (along with a table displaying disabled duration) in the section you linked to: "In PvE and in PvP-arenas where their owner can suffer Death Penalty, the owner's skills are disabled for 10...4...3 seconds based on their rank in Beast Mastery. The exception to this is when the owner is not primary or secondary ranger (i.e., before they choose their secondary profession)." --Silver Edge 05:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Edit conflict, I was about to correct myself...that happens when you are fast reading and out of practice....oh well...my fail... Yoshida Keiji(talk) 05:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- LoL you guys sound just like my son. He is always peeking over my shoulder, "Mom your builds are sh_t. How can you even play with your heroes like that!?". I will explain, what I was thinking when I made this build. I normally use Tahlkora as a passive healer, but I tossed a pet at her thinking this would give her an active offense. I placed her on attack but keep her flagged to the back of the party. Her energy is 42 with a 4 pip recharge rate. This is a hero for PvE and not PvP. I took the Vengeance off because she used it on Olias too much and then he used Flesh Golem and that didn't help when he would croak after 30 seconds. I guess I will rework the build, but just couldn't understand why she refused to revive the pet. Thanks for the input guys! --Wendy Black 10:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yw.Da Mystic Reaper (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Pets in GW have historically been *awful*. As in, a complete liability, even for primary rangers. They've been in one or two gimmicks, but never in a "serious" build, and for the most part are not worth bringing on any bar ever. Melee AI is bad enough in GW1 as it is, don't need to bring more along - especially ones that disable your entire bar when they die... which is often. The biggest/most widespread build featuring pets was one where you let them charge in and die early to fuel IWAY spam, because even back in the day pets were just jokes on wheels. Unless you're abusing something like enraged lunge/otyughs to take out healers with defensive stances, pets are basically best left in the stable :p -Auron 12:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- I use a pet on my ranger for energy management (Scavenger Strike) and no real supportive skill for it other than You Never Rampage Alone and my pet rarely gets killed and does a decent job. Altough I admit the AI it has really isn't the best in the game. Da Mystic Reaper (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Builds creation for hero AI
During all these years playing the game, I have met generally two type of players:
- Some would make a party wide overall mix of skills so that there is a good balance between offense and defense regardless of profession/position/functionality. Most speed clear team builds are like that.
- Personally I hate the above, but to each its own. I don't mean that I dislike such players, I just disagree with the "how to make builds" thinking. The way I make builds is ensuring that each body is performing according to their nature and 90% of the time I make the builds to be either extremely offensive or extremely defensive, I don't like the mid functionality as in discord trio set-up. I tried to explain why that is bad but the conversation ended-up somewhere else. You can read about it at: Talk:Hero_behavior/Archive_02#Healing_and_Protection.
The part that I didn't finish to explain and remained incomplete is what I will tell you next:
When a party engages battle, unless the foes rushed to you with high speed or you were ambushed, I can expect that the frontliners will react first while the backliners may react a quarter of a second later, the difference is very small in human perception but for a computer programmed character it is a very huge difference, why?
Because when watching the entire AI party skill activation timing, those that share a same skill in their builds, the one who used it first will complete the "casting" while the others might have the skill canceled or wasted. Either way since all AIs are the same, if front and back liners have that same skill you will notice that the recharge time of each hero will be different. Weapons and attributes will also have effect into this.
All this actions that happen at once may cause all your heroes with at least 1 single "healing" skill to prioritize "saving an ally" over their "real job". Because of this, my tendency has always been to make a clear distinction between each of my heroes and ended-up hating hybrid builds. That is to say, monks either heal or protect, they don't attack for me. And so on offense characters will go blast my enemies. Think about the Wammo but party wide.
Then in a mixed feeling about game mechanic and lore, me being a more tactical and strategical player I don't like to see Necromancers healing...I find it awkward, but yes I am awared of the benefit of best energy resupplying that Soul Reaping provides.
If you want to end up with good builds, I think this is the basics of basics someone should follow. But then again, that is only my own perspective, not saying it is the correct way or the best way. And so I think about player builds too actually, an example of one of my hated builds for speed clears is the "Weapons Rit" as the community calls it, a ritualist who's only job in a 12-man team is to cast Splinter Weapon and Great Dwarf Weapon on the Barrage rangers non-stop for the entire duration of a run, be it an hour or more... when I was once asked to play that build... I felt like shit myself... I was thinking, "-hey, I can do better than this.-" and I never took that position again.
This is the way I played my whole GW life. Yoshida Keiji(talk) 13:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- As someone who mostly plays a "balanced" hero team, who also adjusts build to the area, I can understand your view as well., but I don't like a black/white mindset about hero builds like you have. I tend to take skills from more than 2 attributes on my heroes, you can see me using a monk with both healing and protection or a necromancer using both minions and blood support. You will (almost) never see me using and ele using more than 2 attributes, I also maximize their builds and very often go pure damage with them.
- I also tend to design my hero builds around the character I use, I use and Orders ele on my warrior and paragon for damage and adrenaline management but you won't see one on my ele or monk. The heroes on my necro and rit have some of their builds focused on supporting summons while my monk uses heroes with high offense and energy management. My dervish is the one who has a "balanced" set of heroes.
- You won't see me using monks with both healing and damage or mesmers using interrupt and protection. You can see me use necros who use both hexes and interrupts or an ele using both damage and enchantment removal but no hex or condition removal. Necros or rits using summons are the ones I give supportive skills (either offense or defense) since their builds allow it. When I give my heroes secondary skills I always try to prevent them from hindering their primary skills. Also when I make builds for my heroes I also look for the skills their AI uses best and wich skills they suck at using, including skill combos with other heroes. I'm someone who thinks strategic about their builds but not to such an extend that I adjust their build for every new area I enter, I make sure they work and can keep on working regardless of wich foe I will encounter, only when the situation demands it I make changes to their builds or swap my heroes.
- Well that's how a "balanced" and "strategic" player thinks when he makes his builds. Da Mystic Reaper (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well I work my builds the same way I cook a dish. I toss in a little of this and little of that. I experiment and I have seldom looked for other builds to give me all the insight and answers. Someone recently told me in Hell's Precipice that I should use the discord necro build. I asked them why should I, when I beat it with the Henchmen? I am not in favor of "Trick Builds". Instead if I see one hero dies frequently in battles I take it aside and look over how my attributes and skills relate to the enemies I am facing.
- Personally, I like pets in the game. I will agree they are not the best fighters they should be. I will tell you one good thing a pet can be used for is Augury Rock. The first time I was faced with the mission I stripped off all my skills except beast and took the doppelganger out in seconds. Unfortunately that is my "Trick Build" I suppose. --Wendy Black 09:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Statue of Melandru
Regarding your question in a Statue of Melandru edit summary, go to one of the Statues of Melandru outside of an outpost in an Echovald Forest or the Jade Sea explorable area (e.g. Drazach Thicket, Ferndale, Maishang Hills, Melandru's Hope, and Mourning Veil Falls) that is under control by the allegiance (Kurzick or Luxon) which your account has less unspent faction of, since the resurrection shrine won't activate and glow unless you bribe the priest or kill the shrine NPCs. Also, there is supposedly a Statue of Melandru without a resurrection shrine in Beneath Lion's Arch, Caverns Below Kamadan, and Tunnels Below Cantha. --Silver Edge 05:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. ¥oshida Keiji(talk) 14:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
If you wish...
Please check history, before you archive discussions. I would feel hurtful, if my comments were archived after I had posted them and not replied or answered to. Rodan (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Your attitude towards me in the archive you did again is very disrespectful. I would rather you not archive when someone posts within the discussions. It'd be easier to be found this way and less confusing as it was with me having to restore and wonder what post was recent/current. I do not wish to 1rr you as I simply ask you to fix the issues you have caused twice.
Here is a post and your quick archiving here without a response.
Archiving current discussions as well as creating new/same topics is rather redundant. It can confuse people. It would have been nice, if you had moved said discussions to new topic and notified on corresponding pages in a kind manner, not rude manner. I do not anticipate an appology, but I do ask you to not be rude to your fellow editors and sysops. To me, it does not show good faith as I am trying to take with you.
- I think it's a matter of interpretation, I never meant to be rude. If you look through the history not of a single page but from the entire Recent changes and back it up to 2 years in time. There are two options:
- Sure, people can reply to the IP that because the topic is old, there won't be any further replies. Every single time that was chosen by others, the IPs never came back.
- Second option is to just "leave it there" with no reply. Because 99% of the time an IP posts on a topic dating from 2007...nobody will reply (except you and this particular 1% situation).
- It was because of your complain that I actually chose to amend my mistake and in order to do so, I fixed the main page:
- And then proceeded to notify at:
- You will find my reply at the very bottom.
- Most IPs don't know to wiki, and now that account creation is disabled, I don't find a good move to make an IP talk page, because such addresses are shared and are not unique to a single user. I have oftenly directed myself to "new" wikiers in their talk pages but IPs don't know to interact well. How many of IP talk pages are later used by that "lost" IP?
- You say that creating archives is confusing. I totally disagree with that. Because as it is already noted in this particular situation, replying to a 2007 talk means the IP is already "confused", this is because most of the users who are unfamiliar with the wiki do not pay attention to the dates. In my own opinion, having an archive box is a better visual indication, that is one of the reasons I label archives by years. So that people can notice time.
- Which is exactly what I said to you here:
- I fixed my own mistake by editing the main page.
- I notified with a reply.
- I also replied to you.
- Non of that was meant to be an attack directed to you. So you need to clear your thoughts a few minutes and see if I was really intending to hurt you in any way.
- There is another issue that I will keep it short. I ask:
- What stopped you from reverting my archive and moving the last post to the bottom as you yourself suggest?
- I personally call this "The ArenaNet noobs breeding program" effect.
- In the game, people don't want to even try a mission by themselves first... but they choose to whine in Alliance Chat before even trying once by their own.
- In the game, people choose to swear for "which is the best build for (profession of choice)", before even attempting to make builds by themselves, its always ask others and don't bother at all.
- In the game, people choose to spam the Alliance Chat with 100 daily questions for prices that can easily be checked by talking to an NPC... but NO...ask others to do the job for them.
- Sincerely, I believe you could have saved yourself the trouble to write me twice and also fabricate a new "drama", if you just were to have reverted and moved by yourself. What alternative endings can you imagine? Do you think I would have gone and get ultra-pissed at you? Do you think I would have started a revert war versus you?
- I dislike a lot the "delegator" (if that English term ever exists) behavior of knowing alternative resolutions that take less efforts than complaining...but chose to go the "drama-way"...specially as I noted in the summary: The answer was 1 click away. I didn't mean to offend you and tried to resolve it myself without making too much noise. My guess is that you missed the edits by which I tried to ammend myself. ¥oshida Keiji(talk) 10:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
(Reset indent) All involved users should take a look at Guild_Wars_Wiki:Talk_pages#Archiving_guidelines and assume all involved users are acting in good faith. - Infinite - talk 09:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. I refuse to read that WoT posted above, because of the fact that said user archived an active discussion. "Archive only inactive discussions. Consider moving relevant sections out of an archive should a topic get discussed again; avoid discussions on archives." I just want that fixed as Ip had to create a new topic, because said post was archived and repeated one's self. I would rather not see the quick archiving happen again as recent changes and history helps to see what needs archived and what needs fixing. That is all.- Rodan 15:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- I decided to fix the issue, since another had a problem more than I thought they would. I did not expect the posts to be removed either. I did notice this question, "What stopped you from reverting my archive and moving the last post to the bottom as you yourself suggest?". My answer is the one revert rule and I will not go there with this person.- Rodan 16:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Well... one sided talks are funny, so basically you are coming here to tell me: "-I rant at you, but you can't answer me-". If you refuse to read,... then what?...Shall I refuse myself to read you too? (How ridiculous...). Next time you come to talk to me, I shall as well remove your comments. Another great day I guess. ¥oshida Keiji(talk) 16:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Go ahead, but I responded to the poster that you ec'd. I did not post your post above that one of which posted first, so I responded in kind to that one and not to you. I'm sorry, but you seem to exaggerate and wish to cause nothing but drama on both pages and that's why I refuse to respond to you directly and it's not one sided. I did not rant at you, but I tried to show you errors and mistakes that you caused and I was politely asking you to fix. It is fixed and your WoT is not answering me, it's disruption. Please calm down and respond later, when you look at things from another's view in a less WoT manner. Please, learn tactics of responses as my second response was that to the first one that I had made to assure that things were fixed and settled. Please, do not "fix" indents that do not need them. Thank you, Kindly.- Rodan 21:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Look, basically your Wiki-Fu is very poor, you have two wrong interpretations:
- 1.- Because discussions are archived, that doesn't mean at all that said talks are "lost". Archiving means that such discussions are stored somewhere else, but never gone. The two common practices are when a page exceeds 32kb or to avoid "misstiming"/outdated replies.
- 2.- Your second missunderstanding on wiki procedure is that same quote: "Archive only inactive discussions. Consider moving relevant sections out of an archive should a topic get discussed again; avoid discussions on archives."
- A discussion will only be considered "re-activated" if the recent comment added to an already existing OLD (2007's) topic is: bringing to the table a new perspective/point of view. This is done by leaving a space/horizontal line to make a clear visual split, and then iniciating a new paragraph (without indents). A good example of topic "re-activation" is:
- This is an upgrade/update I pushed for Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting for Trophies. Before that upgrade, all farming maps were only allowed to be linked but not displayed. It is thanks to that upgrade that now all trophy farming maps are displayed in the main articles.
- Now on the contrary a miss-understood "re-activation" (by yourself) is when somebody replies to a comment that is from 2007 by trying to respond another person's opinion, by "indenting" the followed sequence, this means that the last user is "replying", not "re-activating" (as you confuse).
- Because a "visitor" user has made an accidental wrong reply, that doesn't mean a certain topic has been "re-activated". Thus your argument against Archiving has no value. ¥oshida Keiji(talk) 09:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm guessing you didn't read Guild_Wars_Wiki:Talk_pages#Archiving_guidelines. Secondly, are you calling ip and my response to the ip comments non-active discussions? After all, the ip commented days ago and you do not see this in the history? Seriously? You need help and a break as all editors, ip and users, are the same regardless of what you think. I do not appreciate your assumptions. Thank you. Rodan (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Technically speaking, the page "Fellowship" didn't need any kind of fixing, the IP was confused only because he/she didn't check the link "evolved" takes to, where the answer was waiting.
- I don't find it to be much of a discussion to say: [..."-I agree.-"] ...and here comes the lamest part:
- "Hope someone can fix the notation."
- ¥oshida Keiji(talk) 11:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- "Hope someone can fix the notation." was placed, before I took an attempt and then just seconds ago an IP finished fixing. Seems like your problem of that is solved for you. Rodan (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm honestly unsure what your problem is with the sysops on this wiki, collectively and individually, but you really need to sort it out. We're not evil. We're not trying to hide anything. We're just dudes who played an online video game, used its wiki as an online resource, and liked its community enough to stick around and help out. We have no hidden agendas, we have nothing to gain by keeping secrets, and we aren't even paid for all the work we put in. I mean, shit, 6 years of deleting thousands of pages, banning hundreds of spambots + trolls, and chasing idiots away grates on me, and all I get are christmas cards every year. This job is certainly not about the perks... because there aren't any.
Despite this wiki's years-long history of overall great sysops and bureaucrats, you seem to think it's some kind of an evil cabal that exists purely to further its own purposes. You even called Chieftain Alex and myself "shadowy" sysops, citing only provably wrong nonsense as "proof." You told bold-faced lies about my use of sysop tools and a hypothetical hypocritical agenda I supposedly have to punish people for using "bad" language while "getting away" with using it myself (despite proof I linked of me fighting the very same censorship policies you accuse me of somehow enforcing, and you failing to provide any proof at all of me enforcing said agenda). After being caught in this lie, you don't relent. You don't take a step back and say "wow, I guess I was wrong; there's years of evidence of this guy fighting censorship and literally no cases of him attempting to censor, maybe I should apologize for my falsifications and weak attempts at defamation?" You just bring up some other completely bullshit point and try to run with it.
It's that kind of stuff that bothers me most. I don't pretend to be a perfect human being, but I'm damned close to being a perfect sysop. I've been looking out for the safety and sanctity of this wiki since this wiki was founded. I've chased off, directly or indirectly, the majority of the biggest trolls and sources of wiki disruption on this wiki and on GW2W. I've made enemies because of it; but that's the price I pay for my service to the wiki. I'm not here "to make friends," I'm here to protect the wiki from bullshit. This includes both intentionally disruptive editors, trolls and vandals who attempt to harass specific users or simply cause chaos, and unintentionally disruptive editors, folks like Ariyen or Scythe (or, if you read back far enough, Karlos) who, despite potentially noble intentions, cause far more harm than good. The wiki project is more important than any one person, and when a single user goes on a self-righteous crusade, it's typically the last thing they do before getting banned.
The greatest part about the wikis, though, is how democratic they are at their core. Every sysop (and bureaucrat, until somewhat recently) is chosen and serves at the behest of the *community*. If enough vocal members of the community have an issue with a person being given sysop tools, that person is not given sysop tools. This prevents singular trolls or problem users (like Noxify or Uchina Lena, for example, if you want fun reading) from raising a stink to try to get someone they don't like removed from office over some petty squabble or personal dispute. And I am proof that the system works. When I go after trolls, they try everything in their toolbox to discredit me. They try to claim bias, they try to claim racism (seriously, look it up, lol), they try to claim censorship (you might be familiar with this one), and when it all fails because people know it's bullshit, they try to start a sysop reconfirmation. And the best part? Every time the trolls stir up enough drama to get the reconfirmation process started, I'm successfully reconfirmed. The wiki community is polled and I get overwhelming support. Because they know what's happening; they see through the troll's petty attempts at retribution. While I have no problems tooting my own horn, in this case I don't even have to. Here are a few examples from my latest reconfirmation:
- "Auron has a no-nonsense approach that few sysops dare to even wander near. As such, he is an invaluable asset to our sysop team"
- "Auron knows what to do with his position and he isn't one to shy away from taking action, no matter how dire a situation has become"
- "He certainly knows how a wiki is supposed to work and does not shy to remind anyone of how it should be done properly"
- "Auron is one of the most active sysops we have, one of the most experienced ones, and someone who understands well the role of a sysop in the wiki. However, if he had none of those traits I would still support him, due to one reason: Auron is the only admin we have who is both willing and able to successfully deal with trolls. While other sysops may avoid this part of their role, and others are tangled as trolls weave a net of whining and complains to second guess them, Auron is the only sysop I trust to be capable to simply reply "Bullshit, bye"."
I have a history as being the least bullshitting sysop on this wiki. I call shots as I see them and I don't beat around the bush. I don't play favorites and I don't play nice to make friends. The community knows this and puts their trust in me to continue serving the wiki as sysop. So after all this, when a user comes along claiming I'm a "known shadowy sysop" and you want someone to "translate bullshit" I post it clues me in that you really have no clue what's going on around here and literally zero knowledge of this wiki's history.
Your history of conflicts is pretty big, but the first one that really came to my attention was your disagreement with Alex. In this "debate," you wrote massive walls of text that were literal red herrings (unrelated to the topic, attempting to draw attention away from the topic) and quickly devolved into personal attacks (another logical fallacy), calling into question his character as a person and as a sysop instead of staying on topic and discussing the issue. This, of course, raised several red flags, and I detailed my problems with them in kind. I also responded to Alex's post and actions at the same time, giving him a few pointers and comments as needed. You then blew up and responded with so many fallacies (now archived in a section that is labeled as a thinly veiled attack on Alex and I) that I just stopped caring; you had no intention of improving, at least not then, but your level of disruption was also minimal. Too small to ban over, to silly to argue over. I just let the case rest.
Then you went to the admin noticeboard talk, openly personally attacked both Chieftain Alex and I, called our characters into question again, posted complete bullshit as "proof" of your claims, and continued your crusade against Konig (attempting to involve sysops in a matter that sysops had no bearing on). When I told you this in no uncertain terms, you literally didn't believe me. You wanted responses from less "biased" sysops who could translate my "bullshit." Then guess what happened? Those sysops showed up and said the exact same thing I had already posted. Your issue with Konig was just that: your issue. You even created another section, and were told again (by me, then by Tanetris, then by Rainith) that your issue was not in our hands and you had to deal with it yourself. Naturally, you didn't apologize for your personal attacks to me or Chieftain Alex, nor for assuming that other sysops would say anything different because you assumed they were less "biased."
Already you've caused a non-ignorable amount of wiki drama, and your continued clashes with users over various content disputes starts calling into question your overall "worth" to the wiki project (the amount of good you do minus the amount of harm you cause). It's still pretty early, and more importantly, given my level of personal involvement with your disputes, I deigned not to take any kind of sysop action against you for the time being. My personal feelings could get in the way of what's best for the wiki project if I act too soon without distancing myself from the problem, so I simply kept an eye on the situation.
But it didn't end. You blew up a simple discussion over captcha updates on Stephane's talk page into a "me vs the world" debate over abuse filter configuration, where you go totally off the deep end and start accusing the sysops of "bad administration by... abusing the Hide feature regular users don't have." You know why filters are hidden? So that spambots can't see them. If the guys who ran spambot networks could look directly at the code on each of our filters, they could easily, with very minimal effort, tweak their bots to get around our filters (and, by extension, similar filters set up on other wikis around the net). Considering that filters are set up specifically to block spambots or vandal bots and are constantly edited and fixed if we find out they're catching legitimate users, it's completely baffling to me that you're trying to assume that we're, like, oppressing the ignorant masses via our use of abuse filter. Any time poke or Jon (or even Alex, to a lesser extent) find out that a filter is catching legitimate users, they disable that filter or edit it so it won't happen again. They've been doing it for years now; to us (sysops), it's more important that a user can edit what he wants, when he wants, than a potential spambot is prevented from making an edit. And when we have to decide between the two, we always support the side of the editor.
So when you go on a tantrum about how the evil sysops are because you personally can't read the filters (despite having no need to do so), it blows my mind. You can't comprehend the nature of the filters or why we keep them hidden, and in your ignorance of all this, you assume the filters are in place to hide content or to keep the users in check or... something? It's just total malarkey. The filters exist and are constantly maintained specifically for the benefit of the users: a cleaner recent changes and less spam pages created, with very little negative effect on the user. If any negative effect is found, the filters are tweaked and modified to reduce false positives (cases where the filters prevent a legit editor from taking an action). But disregarding all that, you assume malicious intent, and press us for information about the filters. We go into the filter history, take screenshots as evidence that, no really, the filters have always been hidden, and provide these screenshots to you, yet you conveniently ignore them and continue arguing by bringing up completely nonsensical bullshit. It's a pattern. You did it with Alex, you did it with me, Tanetris, poke, and Rainith on the admin noticeboard talk, and now you're doing it to Tanetris, Alex and me on stephane's page... it's a pattern. A pattern of pointless wiki disruption.
If the wiki was being ruled by an evil cabal attempting to stay in power in order to rake in money from the local plebs, I could totally get behind your conspiracy theories. If we got special alpha or beta access to ArenaNet products, I could totally get behind your conspiracy theories. But we don't. We get nothing that normal users don't get. We go out of our way to spend time policing a wiki about a video game most of us don't even play anymore. We don't *care* enough to be a cabal. We don't *care* enough to hide malicious anti-user code in our filters. It's a fucking wiki about a video game. Get a grip.
Alex already banned you for a week. Use that time to think deeply about what you've done to deserve it. The arguments you made, the lies you told, and the drama you stirred up over a misguided attempt to rid the wiki of its "evil" overseers. That behavior is not acceptable, and continuing it will simply lead to more, longer bans. I am sure that, as an action made by a "shadowy sysop," you will contest it. And you're free to! Honestly, I welcome you to. Maybe that's what it'll take to get through to you. Our bureaucrats support and police our sysop team. ArenaNet supports and polices our bureaucrats. None of them are "corrupt," and none of this wiki's sysops or bureaucrats even have a reason to be in the first place. Hopefully when you talk to enough people, and continue to get the same answer, you'll finally realize the truth: this is a wiki about an old video game and nobody gives nearly enough of a shit to be a corrupt dictator in order to reap rewards that don't exist. -Auron 18:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
If you are a wikidragon who enjoys making bold edits, then you are welcomed in helping improve Skill quick reference project. --Falconeye (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)