User talk:Mooseyfate/Archive 1

Talk became so long it was taking forever to edit, so I split it up.

2011 archived talk

Welcome to the wiki!
"Having to make 10 characters in GW1 to achieve every combination was extreme." Guild Wars was and is and will always be an altoholics game, so this is all to be expected. In GW2, you also don't have to make every profession 5 times (per race) as racial skills are near-trivial and are weaker than profession-specific skills. Don't let it all get to you, though! :D - Infinite - talk 02:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, "is and will always be" is a tough claim to make. GW was "always" going to have a favor, and they did away with that. NF has hints to suggest the developers were toying with the idea of changing primary profs. Changes to how titles work (changing some character based titles to account based titles, but not vice versa) suggests they realize some monotony from one character to another is a bit much. 5 characters is still a lot of alts if you spend the kind of time it's easy to spend on them. If I were to say something GW has always been, it's a 2 prof system, with the only skill restriction being one elite. That "always" is certainly changing. --Mooseyfate 04:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

">Implying fun for you is the exact same thing as fun for everyone else all over the world" --BriarThe Spider 03:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

">Implying it isn't" Oh, and welcome to the wiki! - 03:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, this is my soapbox. Better believe I'll call it like I see it. To each their own. But this is my own! Anyways, if you agree or disagree, I'm glad to see you posting on my page, so thanks!! --Mooseyfate 04:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Profession restricted gear is a letdown - armour is not profession restricted, its armour class restricted, all scholars can wear scholar armour all adventurers can wear adventurer armour ect ect Getefix 19:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't talking about armor. Was talking about gear you hold in your hands. Anyone should be able to pick up and swing a sword, not just certain professions. --Mooseyfate 05:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree to that, but at the same time I prefer it if my not-so-very-strong caster profession can not muster the strength to effectively use a greatsword. And it adds diversity into the game in the sense that, if you want to max all achievements, you are going to have to make a few alts. By restricting the professions, you introduce the need for alts (which in turn is at the cost of putting off those who prefer main characters, which in turn again proves that Guild Wars 2 is an altoholics game, simple as that). :) - Infinite - talk 06:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense for a scholar to be able to swing around a chunk of metal possibly bigger than he/she is. Just as it would not make sense for a soldier to do battle in nothing but cloth. Unless your scholar is on some major roids and your solder has indestructible fatigues, these things are just unreasonable. Bookworms don't lift weights and weight-lifters don't frolic in silk. From a lore-perspective, at least.

To elaborate, your proposal is unrealistic even in reality. A real greatsword is rather heavy. Yes, I've held one. If you don't believe me, consider how much metal is required to craft one. Let's be optimistic and say about one gold bar's worth (in reality, it'd probably be about two depending on the actual size of the sword, as not all greatswords are the same length or width). An average gold bar is roughly 12kg/26lbs. The average stereotypical nerd would face considerable difficulty swinging one bar (let alone two) about with any precision or control. Imagine that weight on a much longer/taller frame. Military soldiers wear body armor for a reason. It has saved lives. A soldier would be able to carry heavier/thicker armor than a scholar. Now, let's connect a few reasonable dots. A scholar is a nerd. A soldier is military. Realistic equality is literally impossible because of physics and physiology. Teddy Dan 06:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Weapons: My argument isn't limited to huge swords. There are a lot of lighter weapons that won't be usable by people strong enough to wield them.

Armor: well, if you look at male armor in pretty much any fantasy game, you're looking at armor too heavy for most physically conditioned people to wear. When they did full plate back in the day, they required a crane to mount full plate warriors on their horses. These heavy armors are certainly slowing down people strong enough to wear them, but it doesn't in game. If you look at female fantasy armor, most of it wouldn't offer protection. So if your going with realism, there are plenty of armor qualities about fantasy games that are worse than a scholar putting on a metal helmet. Then one can defend those fantasy armors by saying it's a game, and just needs to be fun/look cool. And then what's appealing comes down to personal tastes. Just have pros and cons to heavy/lighter armor. And fine, have steeper cons for those who don't fit some level of fantasy-pre-conceived-notion. Any yes, there are plenty of specialized combat scenarios a warrior would want something lighter and/or quieter than than full plate or chain armor.

Weight: Fantasy games are completely unrealistic when it comes to weapons wielded, armor worn, gear held in invisible backpacks.

Alts: Even if you could change your primary profession, you could still have a ton of alts. 5 is a ton if all well developed in an MMO. And there'd be no reason you couldn't have more than 5.

Realistic: To me, even after all your arguments, what I'm proposing is far more realistic. But I'm not saying I like them because they are realistic. I'm saying I like them because I like choices. I've always hated these stereotypical fantasy limitation conventions. So when GW 1 let you mix things in unconventional ways, I was out to buy it it right away! I normally don't like defined classes. But GW 1 did the 2 prof combination in a wonderful way that was thematic to a theme you chose, facilitated freedom, facilitated creativity, facilitated strategic character setup decisions with proper pros and cons to weigh. Yeah, I've got to be in the minority with my opinions. Just look at the best selling MMO (WoW), and how utterly stereotypical everything in that game is. But hey, the masses have spoken, and they flock to WoW more than anything else (or did, I haven't bothered to keep up on that).

Listening: I am actually listening to what you write, and not just dismissing it cause it's different than what I think. But I've talked about and thought about these concepts a lot. I've heard and considered these very points before. If I heard something that I hadn't thought of, I'd step back and re-evaluate my position. But it's just my position. It's what I personally enjoy. That's all.

--Mooseyfate 05:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I just want to reappoint that I did use (one of) the heaviest of weapons in a way to restrict at least something realistically. To support the not being able to wear things that are physically much harder/impossible to wear, GW1 also has a few very weak combinations, such as all casters with a hammer. As for female character (and do note I disagree with the stereotype), they just need to show off cleavage most of the time because the masses you think these arguments are generated by are all really just horny nerds with ugly faces. Speaking of the masses: I am not part of them. I also think lighter weapons on casters are fine but it is how it is, which is disappointing and reassuring at the same time. - Infinite - talk 06:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you're asking for universal usage of everything. Even if you intend to ask for only the universal usage of things like shortswords and shields for casters (which still seems a bit ridiculous to me considering they'll have absolutely no actual melee combat experience and wouldn't even know how to use them effectively), you didn't specify such. You asked for all/anything, and that is where the main problem is.

Also, you have to consider that, back in the day, soldier-types were much stronger than your average military personnel today. Those born into service trained in physical fitness and combat from a much younger age than the average human would even consider today. They were also much more dexterous/agile in armor types we of today would fumble in because of such experience. A soldier would wear chain or hardened leather (which is still a bit unwieldy for the untrained) under such specialized circumstances in which one prioritizes stealth or greater agility, not merely cloth. Wearing only cloth to a bladed fight would be suicide.

You know fantasy games are typically unrealistic but yet ask for your perceived realism (which isn't realistic to begin with). At best, the most realism you could find in a nerd charging into melee in armor unsuited to its body type with a weapon it could likely barely lift is a mere suicide attack intended as a (humorously) brief diversion from a much more physically suited front. Nerds on any battlefield were, if anything, archers or nobles. Unless intended as sacrifices for deceptive intentions, they were never infantry. There's a reason for that.

To be fair, stereotypes exist for a reason. Dismissing a stereotype just because of its bad rep is, well, stereotypical. Stereotypes are classifications, though more society-bred than strictly factual. Classifications help us contrast two or more unlike things. Hybrids, on the other hand, are multiple base characteristics in one. Casters are an extreme. Fighters are an extreme. Hybrids will never cast better than a strict caster or fight better than a strict fighter. Casters will never fight better than fighters and fighters will never cast better than casters. If you're content with being a poor caster and poor fighter then go ahead and keep trying to melee with that overburdened caster you gave all of that fighter gear to. Aesthetics are only more important than skill when one can afford to suck. If one wants to suck then one can afford to. However, one shouldn't expect much help when everyone else knows one sucks on purpose. No offense intended, I just can't explain it any better. I could probably explain it differently, but it would likely be far too much typing (coming from me, I know) and would be far too confusing in the end to have mattered. Anyway, when asking for "all"/"anything", you have to consider the extremes or revise your request. Teddy Dan 08:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm not asking for usage without compromise. Everything under the sun without compromise is bad game design. GW 1 offers you this flexibility while maintaining one of the best game design systems I've ever seen (attribute points, class/skill choices). Anyone can use a hammer in GW 1, and that's brilliant. Not a flaw by any means. If your not part warrior, you'll be pretty weak with it, but there's nothing saying you can't put it in your hands and swing it. Perfect! Then, even a person who trains as a warrior, but it's not their primary focus (secondary warrior) doesn't have quite the full potential as a primary warrior. There's nothing but stereotypes saying a caster can't be trained in martial weapons. There's no way to prove it, but I highly doubt, if magic was a real thing, and spell casters were real and casted combat spells in the heat of combat, that they'd absolutely be packing more armor or weapons than the stereotypes support. The cost of having them in a military would likely be high, and you better believe the people sending them out would make sure they didn't die like buffalo.

To argue that people back then were stronger than today is silly. Your average militia may have had to carry more weight in battle, and may have been stronger than your average modern day military man. But the potential is much stronger today. The science of exercise, conditioning, diet, and the availability of training blows away what they had back then. It's also a fact that armor did get to the point of being too heavy for people to use. But with the coming of gunpowder, armor became silly anyways.

Anyways, despite what I say about realism, that's not my concern. My concern is that GW 1 was an amazing game with all sorts of flexibility that let your character be as creative as you were. It didn't have the silly D&D restrictions of monks not using sharp objects, wizards not holding swords, etc. But GW 1 is one of the biggest trade off games ever. Yeah, you can be a hammer wielding mage, but your going to pay the price in other areas. That hammer wielding mage is either effective with a hammer and can only do so much else, or they suck with the hammer they're using, but if they're determined to swing that hammer cause they like the style, then so be it. I won't say GW 1 didn't have balance issues. You make a game with that much character variation (I'm talking about real game play variation, not visual style), your going to run into that. And the more chapters they came out with, the harder it was to manage. But experimenting within the confines of it's limitations has never been as satisfying in any other game (sans possibly Magicka).--Mooseyfate 00:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

We understand physiology better today than we did then but, with the dominance of long-range/guerrilla combat, we of today understand less of melee combat due to the lack of its practical use beyond sport. Again, in earlier times, it was typical for young males (as young as six years old in some cases) to be bred into military positions. Today, it is a career choice rarely considered before (young) adulthood. Any typical soldier before, say, the 13th century would easily dominate any soldier today in melee combat. Why? Experience. That experience is, again, also why they would be more capable in armor we would find difficult. It is because such armor and expertise is obsolete now that we are no longer (as) proficient in it.

Realism is my concern with your proposal. Frankly, GW1's system was quite flawed from a lore/logical perspective. From a gameplay perspective, it was merely convenient. I made full use of it in several situations, but that never made it any less illogical. I'm actually glad that such things as said hammer-mages were so limited in their capabilities. Without that limitation, there would have been no point in primary professions or attributes. There is merit in flexibility but, when such flexibility ignores its logical consequences just for the sake of convenience, it becomes illogical.

If such flexibility returns in GW2, I simply hope it maintains its logical consequences so as not to stupefy the game. Teddy Dan 01:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you that it was a logic/lore flaw with GW1. The system is brilliant in terms of logic/lore/gameplay. Making it bad being "stereotypical fantasy"/"fitting the mold".

I agree with you completely on the need for logical consequences ("make all armor give benefits to the intended class so it'd be real rare that you wouldn't want to use the obvious choice"). Except in the rare situation of skills that aren't effected by attributes, you don't get anything without investing "training" (training being represented by attribute point allowance). This give and take is certainly key to any of these points. I'm not some random player who wants a god mode walk in the park. Just to encourage creativity and flexibility to the greatest extreme possible. In GW1 there is a way to combine any 2 skills in the game. Which is a point that is personally important to me. A point obviously not shared by the designers. But regardless of what flexibilities are allowed, the cons (sacrifices you must make to combine seemingly odd things) are every bit as important as the pros. --Mooseyfate 20:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

2012 talk

I bet you can't combine Holy Strike and Awe.

Jokes aside, I'd say that ability to alter your abilities limitlessly via resetting attribute points is kind of immersion-breaking, as well as changing professions infinitely (sure, players are ascended and all that, but still). Unlimited map travel is also equally unimmersive as way points and their costs. I used to think that the player character's compass was the plot device here, having the ability to relocate the user to already visited and attuned locations (I owe this idea to a certain Guild Wars themed comic strip). You should also not forget that GW2 allows for much greater dynamic play and use of different abilities as you can change your weapon sets, kits or elemental attunement, and that you can also reselect your slot skills anywhere when out of combat, unlike in GW1. I'd rather that resetting of traits would cost karma, though, as it's (slightly) more logical to me, in a sense - what amount of money can unlock and reset potential like that? Mediggo 21:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware GW2 offers a lot of good things. And it offers a lot of interesting things with skills. But permanence does not equal immersion for everyone. You would think map travel ruins immersion, but when I played WoW, know what I thought about most? How I have to walk.... again.... all this way... When I stop to think about how I am walking, I am not thinking of how my character is on the long road to their goals. I'm thinking about how I am holding down the move key, or being in run mote and carefully adjusting my mouse for optimal time savings. Or I'm thinking how much time do I have in this straight line before I am off the path and inter monster territory / past my turn / or over a cliff so I can have time to run up for a snack or potty break. Or I am myself at a distant wall so I will be stopped from going to far while AFK or minimized. How is this immersion? So no, more realistic (in this example travel) does not equal more immersion. You know when I'm immersed? When I'm doing a build, solving a puzzle, or engaged in combat. What good is changing skills on the fly if they're going to be sub-par cause you can't take the talents to match? Maybe if none of the talents were tied to skills. But that'd just be silly. Some of the talents have really interesting effects on specific skills I'd like to be able to freely experiment with rather than go "OK, I have to be really sure I want this unless I want to come back to town soon". If they game is going to be fun to play with changing on the fly, then make it fun to change on the fly. Go all in one way or the other. This trait permanence will take me out of the game (immersion wise). Maybe I'm not wired like everyone else. I just know myself in this regard. Plus, this is history repeating itself with the flawed attribute refund system from GW1 at launch. --Mooseyfate 00:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't have that when playing WoW, because of RP mindset... though it only lasted in Azeroth and the game got boring for me during Burning Crusade. I think traveling and discovering is a big part of immersion in fantasy games, and as long as there's something to do nearby, getting there shouldn't feel too bad. Mediggo 00:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I loved walking through WoW the first time. It just wore thin real quick for me. To the point I described above. I loved walking through the GW1 environment. And I was often found exploring various crannies. But the waypoints for GW1 did so much to improve the game. I used to play hide and go seek with friends where we'd map to various cities and try to find each other with so many tries/hints. Just something to do while chatting with friends. Not a big deal, but certainly the type of thing I would not be doing with a cost. What I wouldn't mind though, is a cost for the initial unlock of a waypoint (make it like 10x the cheap travel cost), followed by free use after.

Well, to each their own. We all like what we like. Thanks for taking some time to chat on my talk page :) --Mooseyfate 00:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Well said, and you're welcome. I'm just checking people's user and talk pages, and interesting opinions can be found here and there. :) Mediggo 01:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Icons

Hello just a friendly reminder all ICONS must be .png and follow a specific format "Game icon images (skill icons, item icons, trait icons, map icons, etc.) should:

• be named to match the game entity they represent (e.g. "File:Meteor Shower.png" for Meteor Shower)
• be tagged with {{ArenaNet image|icon}}
• possess a file extension of .png" please see: Image Formatting for any questions ;) Thank you Rudhraighe 16:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

+V

There's a V in my name. Does the image in my sig not show up for you?-- anguard 19:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Confusing signatures are confusing indeed. ;) I believe I made that mistake (well, I didn't post it) when I first saw Ang-, err, Vanguard's sig. :) Mediggo 19:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I would think one would be able to tell from visiting the page. Hell a mouseover link would tell one. Seems a tad lazy to think otherwise.-- anguard 19:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

[1] --Mooseyfate 00:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh. Fair enough. Still, figuring out I'm not "Anguard" is not that big a chore.-- anguard 01:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Caution!

→ moved from Talk:Ascended

Creating further item treadmill is a false way to add high end challenge. While I appriciate their effort, this is yet another example of good theory / bad practice. Of course, the fact that I'm commenting on practice based entirely on theory is a bit flawed. That's why the header is "Caution", not "Fact". A proper way to add high end challenge is not with higher effort for "even playing field" gear. It's to create opposition that requires more skill to surpass. This skill should be through character builds and execution. Adding gear treadmill or simply inflating number of mobs/life/damage are forced ways to accomplish this. I predict this will appeal more to past-day fans of traditional MMO's gear systems, and be a turn off for fans of GW1 gear systems. Yes, I know people have legendaries... but a lot of people are still working on exotics. It's already flawed that in WvW, a lv 80 will school an equally skilled lv 20. Or an exotic geared level 80 will school an equally skilled green gear lv 80. So an "upgrade" like this only adds to the problem of people not being on an even playing field. Maybe you could argue that not being on an even playing field is OK, but I swear that people on an even playing field is something the developers brag about. So my caution is, that while this will help create additional goals to work towards, it will exagerate more problems that it fixes.

While I'll agree that it is typically easier in GW2 than other MMO's to get max stat gear as it stands, it is simply flat out more of a hassle to get max stat gear in gw2 than it was in gw1. And while game scaling does exists, it absolutely doesn't fully scale (meaning high level characters/gear are not fully scaled down in low level areas, and low character/gear levels aren't fully scaled up in WvW). The down scaling isn't too bad, but it absolutely is a cakewalk if you are simply paying attention. That isn't necessarily bad, but could be improved. But the upscaling is a pretty big problem since it's competitive. This wouldn't be too bad if it was limited do ring/backpack/accessory slots. But putting it on armor and weapons.... this gives me chills at the new direction of GW2. I really really hope I'm wrong about this, I just don't see how. I'll try to give it a chance... I'm just really concerned the negative ramifications of this weren't fully thought out.

EDIT: The scavenger hunt does have potential though (could go either way, but certainly potential for a portion of what was lost with the absence of SoC). But look, there are always people who will max out whatever progression was built into the game. It is not a bad thing that people have done this already, and thus nothing Anet should be overly critical on themselves for to the point of taking away some of the elements that have made the GW franchise so loved by certain old fans. If you could the hours some of these people have played, I'm pretty sure it is more than other people will play in a years time. --Mooseyfate 01:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

This has no relevance to the article itself.--Relyk 01:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Nor has my or your existence to life itself. 109.91.252.10 01:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this should be moved to a user's talk page as there is no discussion here on what should go on the wiki, just debate that is already taking place on the official forums and multiple other locations.Vahkris 15:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I see a vast underused of consistency with moving comments around and changing peoples user spaces. It has happened three times in a row that a rule is pointed out, I point out something that breaks it but is deemed acceptible, then a cycle of a new previously unmentioned rule pops up. It's like a child making up how to play on the spot. Because there's always some new excuse. The fact is that admin censorship of opinion comments is not just a case of the censorship not being perfect, it's that it happens less than 10% of the time. Even descriptions are not accurate of how rules should fluxuate. I undid a comment I found inappropriate on my user space, and an admin undid the undo stating that it must be offensive or trolling. So I scranned for trolling found two such comments. One related to belittling opinion, the other adding a new section to say for what was already addressed by that user in an existing section. They got their way, they won. I quit posting on the page I left a comment on. Now hopefully they can stop this cycle and stop instigating agitation by badgering my user space. Just leave my space alone and I'll be out of your way. I'm really sick and tired of the selective targeting going on by the admins. Rules need to be consistently reinforced and not selectively, so as long as you remain selective, please respect my space and I'll stay out of yours. This selective targeting seems to happen when a new page has a hot issue around it, or any links related to a recent comment. I'm hugely disappointed by the inconsistency of this behavior and just want to be left alone. --Mooseyfate 21:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

“

Signing of your own comments when editing talk pages is a common practice on Guild Wars 2 Wiki. You can sign your edits by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment.

On any other talk pages than user talk pages (User_talk:), editors are encouraged to discuss only on revisions of the articles or documentation of the subject on wiki. This is widely accepted consensus that aims on keeping documenting the game effortless by avoiding irrelevant topics such as game balance, speculation or other issues unrelated to the subject of the talk page. A discussion that does not belong to certain space of the wiki (such as game balance discussion on article talk pages of individual skills) may be moved or archived from their original talk pages to reduce irrelevant and documentation-wise unproductive discussion and to keep article talk pages as much on topic (documenting and improving of articles) as possible.

On user talk pages users are more than welcome to discuss any topic or issue they wish, as long as it is not disrupting documentation by breaking commonly recognized personal conduct guidelines and general good behavior (see above section).

— Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Practices and processes

How is that not obvious? Also lol if you think someone recommending you stick with keeping to standards is trolling. (or that I'm an admin. lmao) --Chieftain Alex 21:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion

Put it in your userspace, not the talk pages of the articles.--Relyk 22:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Moving your comments

See Guild_Wars_2_Wiki:Practices_and_processes#Talk_page_conduct. If you see anyone else post an individual section with an opinion piece, I would encourage you to move it their userspace as well.--Relyk 21:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)