User talk:Shadowed Ritualist

User_talk:ShadowedRitualist More recent account due to losing access to this one.

hi! about that redlinked userpage.... Venom20 18:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

skill icons

Hey, even if the skill icons seem fairly obvious, it's still speculation. If we know what the skills from the videos translate to, then we can associate their respective icons with their articles. Otherwise, we need to wait until PAX to be 100% sure.-- Shew 22:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Did I ever say, THIS IS THE SKILL ICON AND NOT SPECULATION! no, I said potential icon, becuase it's the only real possibility. Shadowed Ritualist 22:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Lame, now people will get pissed even though I hit minor Shadowed Ritualist 22:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no point in putting a potential skill icon in an article, though (besides speculating).-- Shew 22:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's just remove every icon but comfort animal, since those are all potential. Shadowed Ritualist 22:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What's the source for Comfort Animal's skill icon?-- Shew 22:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The icon itself comes from the giant thing of skill icons, the usage of that one comes from a video, where a guy hovered over and used comfort animal. Shadowed Ritualist 22:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I can second that. The icon in the video was on the skill icon image thingy. ShadowRunner 22:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're sure the player used Comfort Animal, then agreed.-- Shew 22:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Live Stream

I would just like to know how you viewed the live stram from gamescom? I tried the gamescom ncsoft site but it said it was coming soon... Prince Grazel 22:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/ncsoft-west Shadowed Ritualist 22:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

ty, this is also on tomorow right? Prince Grazel 22:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

probably, Shadowed Ritualist 22:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Triple Chop

Hey. There seems to be a confusion between the Chop skill and Triple Chop. Can you please provide the source where you found a reference to Triple Chop? Chriskang 21:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It's because there's a trait that mentions Triple Chop, it's called Improved Triple Chop. There's not much more to it, obviously chop is simply the basic attack skill. Shadowed Ritualist 21:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Chop transforms into Triple Chop after use? But Triple Chop can't possibly be a basic Axe skill, because that would make 6 skills for only 5 slots (as I wrote in the Talk:Axe page). If you don't have a screenshot or a video of it, I suggest to remove it for now, as someone already did on some pages. Chriskang 00:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Wells

Hello, could you please mention the source for the information about how wells were added to GW2? Not that I doubt you, but I'm curious to see how ArenaNet mentioned the wells. Erasculio 01:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a trait that increases the duration of wells. Shadowed Ritualist 01:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

And where did you find out about that trait? Erasculio 01:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture Shadowed Ritualist 02:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide this picture as a reference? - Infinite - talk 02:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, not even sure, I remember I added several necro traits, not sure if that was mine, and it probably isn't, I'll find the source. Shadowed Ritualist 02:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Leaked Quote

Please see the entire Aliceandsven crisis and please do not use leaked content on this wiki. ANet particularly requested that leaked necromancer content be taken down and left unavailable for the wiki. Thanks Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 22:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be everything about the necromancer? Since they haven't revealed it on the Guild Wars 2 site yet. Ramei Arashi 16:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand; the leaked skill videos and all the information leaked regarding the official release was requested to be taken down (at least till after the official release, which is tomorrow). Aliceandsven started a revert war, putting up the links over and over again. The quote is also leaked from the official release, and those should not be put up. - Infinite - talk 16:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you can see that in the demo though I don't particularly remember, it's the necro's quote, and it doesn't release any information that you couldn't find elsewhere. Shadowed Ritualist 17:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Arenanet specifically requested to not put up leaked information, so it's best not to. Unless you can source me the quote on a non-leaked reference, I've reverted it till after the release. - Infinite - talk 17:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Things that we obtained through the demo are completely acceptable. The demo, however, was not the source of the official skill videos, the quote, and the endless pictures (which were taken from the video). Information that was obtained through leaks of any form is not to be put up on the wiki. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 17:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

necromancer use of axe

What I added to necromancer and you removed was right from one of the game developers, necromancer uses axe to cast spells not as a melee weapon. And its just as necessary as the ranger page saying ranger throws axe. Ramei Arashi 16:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, just phrase it differently, he still "attacks" with it. He just attacks using spells, and functionally similar to the ranged axe. He just attacks from spell range. Shadowed Ritualist 17:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he doesn't 'attack' with it. Seeing as how 'auto-attack' isn't even in the game. Everything is just skills, so the division 'melee, ranged, spell' is EASILY made and SHOULD be made on the wiki. --Naoroji 17:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

He does very much attack, not autoattack, none have that. He simply attacks from spell range, assumingly using intelligence-based damage, with other effects depending on the skill. but you should not say he doesn't attack. You can certainly distinguish that it uses spells, but don't tell me it doesn't attack. Shadowed Ritualist 17:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

In the original guild wars "attack" means to hit with a physical weapon, using a wand or staff is not an attack because you don't hit with it. In GW2 necromancers don't hit with the axe they cast spells with it. If GW2 uses the term attack same way as GW1 then necromancers do not attack. Ramei Arashi 02:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There aren't even attacks. I'm telling you, they attack with thier axe, literly swing it, using an attack animation, not hold it up and cast a spell. They attack with their axe, and cause effects at a range. Shadowed Ritualist 17:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The effect is magic its not caused by the physical axe (or dagger), its a spell. Ramei Arashi 05:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Offensive spells are attacks in a literal sense, but THIS IS GUILD WARS! We classify things differently because we can - it's a game. Attacks are physical weapon hit attempts, exclusively. Also, sorry for using that very over-used 300 reference. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 05:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

wtf

Bloody hell mate make sure you got them right next time before you put them up.--Emmisary 02:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ik. Shadowed Ritualist 02:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Poisoning Doom

Siddhartha Gautama, stop edit warring. That's the fourth time you've changed the page to link to Poison Cloud. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 01:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop edit warring, that's the fourth (maybe third I'm not counting) time you've changed the page to link to Poison. I told you, if we would do it that way all mentions of fire wall would link to burning. Shadowed Ritualist 01:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You may not realize, but there is a "history" tab. I changed the link one time. Good, mentions of fire walls (as opposed to Wall of Fire) should all link to burning unless there is a more appropriate page to link them to. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 02:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Just an fyi; both of your arguments are invalid in regards to what should have been documented (as per its talk page). Neither poison or Poison Cloud should have been linked in the first place. If anything there might be a page "Poison cloud (environmental effect)" in the nearby future. I have seen more thought-through edits from the both of you and I am schocked it came to this edit warring. (This also includes Emmisary but I don't see him bringing it to user talk pages so far.) I'm not lecturing, I'm just exclaiming general disappoint over two contributors I very much respected (and still do). :( - Infinite - talk 02:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I am just going on precedence (not that that is not invalid). I would have linked to something like "Poison cloud (Poisoning Doom)", but I did not want a red link. Maybe it would be better with a red link anyways? I still try my best to stay out of edit wars, which is why I brought this here. :) –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 02:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hi, I've seen lots of reverting on multiple pages (including the page mentioned above and regarding daze). Regardless of whether or not you're right, revert warring is less constructive than discussing the issue. If you want other users to add their opinions, you can use Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Requests for comment, which might make resolving the problem easier. pling 19:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Effects nav

Hi, please discuss your changes on the talk page, rather than just reverting without prior consensus. Thank you! --Riddle 00:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I know that, I always discuss things first, but anyway it doesn't matter, because daze has been confirmed... Shadowed Ritualist 00:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus matters. We had to agree that your source was legitamate and now since you cannot confirm that it is we have to go around reverting a ton of shit. You should ask before you act on debated topics.--Emmisary 01:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Just saying I'm sorry for forgetting to check minor for page edits, and am putting this here because when someone sees that they'll come here. :) Shadowed Ritualist 01:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC) And slightly fancier name ftw.

You can set it to minor by default in your preference, if that helps. :) - Infinite - talk 01:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I do that on every wiki. Very, very nice feature. A F K When Needed 12:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we discuss this?

Traits on skill pages. I think they belong, and it's a pretty major change to take them out without a discussion first. Why do you think they shouldn't be there? If someone is looking at a skill page, they probably would like as much information about the skill as possible, including traits to use that would enhance the skill. --Emelend 01:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It's because 1. Clutter: We don't have many traits right now, but then if you have a list:

Trait A lowers the recharge

Trait B makes it do more damage

Trait C makes it move faster

Trait D makes it cost less energy

Trait E makes it have a heal

Trait F makes it have more knockback

Trait G....

etc.

2. It just doesn't really belong. Sure it relates to the skill, but then what is the point of the trait pages. We don't need all that info there, it's like the definition of Restore Condition, except if it explained what each condition did. What would probably work better is to for instance have a small list of traits affecting it at the bottom, with links.

3. I don't know, two seems kinda weak so this doesn't exist.

But yeah, I'd say a linked list would be better than naming and explaining all the traits. Shadowed Ritualist 01:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm taking a stab in the dark, but I think that there will be very few traits for a single skill. Maybe 3 or 4 at max. But no, I agree that we shouldn't have a full description of what the traits do on the skill pages. They need to be linked though, it aids in navigation and is very important information for the skill. Maybe either just a list of links, or a list of links with a very brief description. --Emelend 01:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) If I may add my 0.02, I think that traits should be a part of skill pages. But I would be against a list, perhaps a small (sortable) table. Also the point of the trait pages is to list all the traits. It is the same as skill pages, they are there to list the skills. Venom20 01:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it'd be fine to have something like (example being Dark Pact):

==Traits==

Barbed Dark Pact - more bleed

Blood Pact - sacrifices less health

I think these types should go here, like Leyline Mastery for wells, but not Skull Splitter for instance. Don't ask me why I'm so necro about these traits. Shadowed Ritualist 01:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I was thinking something like this

Name	Effect
Axe Expertise	increases critical chance
Axe Mastery	increases damage
Leech	steals life
Unholy Feaster	decreases recharge

Please disregard colours, I just took the code from the consumable page (should be doing my assignment). This would be something on Unholy Feast. Venom20 01:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Kudos Venom, this is exactly what I had pictured. --Emelend 01:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That's great, we should start putting this on skill pages, maybe get a template somehow? Shadowed Ritualist 19:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem

Um, is there any way I can recover my password without the email that I set when I activated the account because my email isn't set (according to the wiki)? 71.175.104.52 02:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC) (Shadowed Ritualist)