User talk:Zesbeer/Talk Archive 1

i am no stranger to topics being moved on to my page see gw1wiki k thanks

→ moved from Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Community portal

(Reset indent) so dose anyone besides me have ideas for this seeing as it is something they want to change.- Zesbeer 21:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we should focus on one consensus at a time, the headbg discussion should be opened full-throttle as soon as the logo discussion has resulted in a logo change. - Infinite - talk 21:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

because it takes more then 2 seconds to be like uh i like dis one funny joke and nice trolling.- Zesbeer 21:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Zesbeer, feel free to lead this discussion and come up with a consensus for the community on this particular topic. I currently am busy and woud like to focus on one discussion/topic here, in addition to working on other stuff for the wiki (and other tasks of my job too). Thanks for your help!--Stephane Lo Presti talk 21:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

no problem it just seems silly to me that we cant talk about more then one thing at a time especially seeing that the logo is so close to being decided... maybe its harder for other people to keep 2 things going at a time...- Zesbeer 22:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not why I mentioned it at all. Of course we can talk about many different things at once; arguments are written out and editted in whenever we please. Why we should focus on graphical changes one at a time is because it would not be the first (nor the last) time that a discussion dies out completely. Carrying on the discussion about the logo to hit consensus there first is more efficient than starting a parallel discussion on the headbg. Of course, you are in no way prohibited from leading a discussion on this topic.

Also note that right now, the logo discussion is far from reaching a conclusion. - Infinite - talk 22:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

And the logo discussion consensus is not being helped by the addition of new logos every time we get close to deciding one. EDIT: Also, Zesbeer, calling an editor (especially an editor who has *never* trolled anyone [as far as I know]) a troll because they're telling you that we should wait on this discussion is not really necessary nor particularly appropriate. Aqua (T|C) 18:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I have trolled before (only very infrequently), but it is correct; I was not trolling here. - Infinite - talk 18:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

@infinite @aqua the internet surus busnass, ktanksbai--- Zesbeer 23:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Now, on the other hand, you are trolling. So stop. If you want to discuss, then discuss. Don't troll on your own topic. Aqua (T|C) 00:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) interwebs* srs* bsns* kthxbai* - I must say, you're a terrible troll yourself. ^-^ - Infinite - talk 00:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

you guys are taking this WAY to srsly. if you guys want to wait thats fine /dont care.- Zesbeer 01:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Mayhaps trolling your own topic makes you look like a (*gasp*) troll. We are trying to maintain a level of seriousness in your topic. And yes, let's wait for Logo to be decided before trying to get this changed as well. Aqua (T|C) 03:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

you sound mad. this is a stupid argument about something that i feel that we could do at the same time as the other topic but i am not going to argue about it because like i said you guys are taking this way to srsly.- Zesbeer 03:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I feel this should be said; Zes, you do care. This topic would not have been brought up by you had you not. That said, people agreed with you that a change to said image should be made. You then asked what people would think of opening discussion; I voiced my opinion which you brushed off as trolling. All commentary, required or not from there has been brought on yourself by your own reactions. If you want us to be less serious, give us a less disruptive attitude and we can carry on a discussion collectively. Also note that, just because people disagree, doesn't mean they're out to troll you. Last but not least this community is known for a mirror-effect, in the sense that contributors usually get what they give. If you want a casual discussion on your topic, you should maintain a casual impression. I will henceforth ignore all negative commentary unrelated to the topic at hand. - Infinite - talk 04:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

sigh. i know how a wiki works bro, how you responded "think we should focus on one consensus at a time, the headbg discussion should be opened full-throttle as soon as the logo discussion has resulted in a logo change." sounded to me like you were just trolling then latter you responded with how you should have responded in the first place " No, that is not why I mentioned it at all. Of course we can talk about many different things at once; arguments are written out and editted in whenever we please. Why we should focus on graphical changes one at a time is because it would not be the first (nor the last) time that a discussion dies out completely. Carrying on the discussion about the logo to hit consensus there first is more efficient than starting a parallel discussion on the headbg. Of course, you are in no way prohibited from leading a discussion on this topic." then you got your friend to come in and support you're view point and disagree with me, so i responded. and i don't care to have a argument over having 2 discussions going on at once, i know it can happen seeing as there are discussions going on all over the wiki, all at the same time as this one. or care to have a argument over if you were trolling or not trolling or if i am trolling or not trolling. - Zesbeer 04:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

As to why I think we should focus on the logo first and the headbg right after is relatively simple and quite logical. If we have a working logo, we can base a background design around the logo, to compliment it. As long as the logo is uncertain, the background consensus may not be desired. Equally, if we design a background first, the logo may need tweaking anew. There are multiple discussions all across the wiki, this is true. The difference here though is that one discussion directly affects another and if we have both running, vice versa. Hence I believe we should focus on getting consensus for the logo first and right after design a matching background. Certainly I am not wrong in believing this is most efficient for the whole of the design process? That said, you could propose neutral designs that will always work, to get some options ready for action. Sincerely, do not pretend I am stopping you because of my personal opinion. - Infinite - talk 04:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

i then why didn't you say that in your first post instead of making me think other wise. also the header doesn't need to match, as you can see on the gw1wiki. and i think it needs to be something neutral seeing as it will need to work with special events in guild wars2. so generic is exactly what we want.- Zesbeer 04:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

<Responding to the post 3 above> I am not a meat/sock puppet, I just happened to agree with Infinite in this case.
In addition, on the topic of my taking this discussion seriously: I take this wiki, and all its subparts, very seriously. If you want me to be less serious/lighten up a bit, you need to not be acting like this discussion is a joke. We are not the ones who need to take this less seriously. You should take this more seriously.
Also, playing passive aggressive on your own topic is pointless, because if you "don't care", you wouldn't have started the discussion in the first place. Aqua (T|C) 20:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) @aqua i never said you were meet/sock puppet i said you where his friend. i also clearly stated what i didn't want to get into a argument about or "don't care" about. i also did not move this here though i agree that it was getting off topic and needed to be moved.--- Zesbeer 23:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I'm glad this topic was moved to User_talk. Zes, I really don't see how Infinite's reaction about waiting for the logo to be decided could be seen as trolling in any way and frankly I don't care. YES we should start thinking about the headbg and collect suggestions. Voting and an official response (Stephane) is only logical and possible after the logo has been finalized. Could we just kill this useless discussion and begin thinking about the background image? Preferably in another topic.. -- Karasu (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

@karasu feel free to relight the candle under the move tag this part of the discussion got off topic as you can see.- Zesbeer 11:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Gamescom

you there? wonderin how your getting ur info c: --Angelkiss 08:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

nope just watching guild wars2's twitter feed.- Zesbeer 09:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

ahh--Angelkiss 11:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Character table

I approve of this thievery :) --Moto Saxon 22:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions about gw2

1. Is there going to be a separation between PvE and PvP skills, similar to what is now in GW1?
2. Can racial skills be used in PvP?
3. Are any racial skills tied to a given profession, similar to how weapon skills on the same weapon change depending on the profession using the weapon?
4. Is there going to be a way to reorder skills on your bar like you can in GW1?
5. What do you guys believe were the core mechanics that you guys loved about gw1 that you brought into gw2?
6. Will conquest have both a "team" mode (similar to what TA was) and a "random" mode (similar to RA)? If so, will teams ever face randoms?
7. Will there be pvp items more so then gw1? like armor sets that you can only get in pvp like how there are armor sets that you can only get in elite dungeons?
8. How will the market place work? will it work like diablo3's market place at all?
9. Can you swim to the surface if you're in a underwater cave? If not, what happens when you try?- Zesbeer 00:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

"Hot join play....allows individuals or groups to join a game based on map, available space, and other settings" from Structured PvP. Mediggo 07:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

1. No, all PvP and PvE characters are created in the same fashion (that is, PvE). WvW will take you current level, stats, skills and gear into account (you will not be altered) and Competative PvP will scale you up (or down) to balance the matches, regardless of your actual level, stats and gear.
2. Yes.
3. This is unknown at the time, but you can assume racial skills are profession-independent.
4. No, save the 3 Utility skills.
5. Level and gear cap as well as the profession-unique mechanics.
6. I do not know at this point (but I am sure it was expressed in a PvP interview somewhere). Refer to Mediggo's answer above for hot-join play matches.
7. I *did* hear something about PvP rewards, but I am not quite sure where.
8. I have no idea how Diablo's marketplace works, but GW2's will essentially be an upgraded version of a typical auction house and can be accessed via the Extended Experience app as well.
9. I would assume there are no underwater caves that are completely submerged, as you would die the second you enter drowning state (since you can not reach the surface to rally/catch your breath).

I hope this helped a bit. :) - Infinite - talk 09:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, Diablo 3's marketplace... it uses real money on your battle.net account. So I doubt GW2 marketplace works like that. Mediggo 10:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

it kind of helps i have been asking the questions at pax so i already got the answers before you guys posted your responses thanks though. and 7&8 are yes and no.- Zesbeer 05:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Question #1 was referring to skills not characters. E.g., in GW1, Smiter's Boon is a bit different in PvP. --Seventh 06:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, regarding question 9, did you watch Jon Peters' underwater combat demo? He goes into an underwater cave in that, with no water surface above him, just solid rock. --Seventh 06:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess it would make sense swimming to the surface, not underwater cave, when drowning. Mediggo 10:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

i tried to post this from my phone but then had a phone fail: the 5 toon slots is a lie so says jon peters who i talked to for a long time having him answer some of these questions...- Zesbeer 03:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Z_sbeer

Wait, that's an E not an A?

...I've read your name incorrectly every single time over a period of years. :P A F K When Needed 04:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

why a?- Zesbeer 13:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea, I just always read it that way. A F K When Needed 17:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Fear Rant

"you lose control of your character" - positioning, just like health, is a resource. It may be harder to quantify / value, however skills impacting it are not necessarily impossible to balance - just more tricky than your average "50 mana, enemy takes 500 damage" skill.

"you can run off of cliffs" - I'm not more scared of a Necromancer than I am of falling to my death. I view you running along cliffs, rather than off them, while affected by Fear as being a certainty. Any possible videos depicting otherwise are testament to the fact that the game is not yet finished. (Unless a Dev has stated the alternative is intended?)

Just my $0.02 :) A F K When Needed 04:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

we will just have to play and find out...- Zesbeer 13:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

also in responce to this:"positioning, just like health, is a resource. It may be harder to quantify / value, however skills impacting it are not necessarily impossible to balance - just more tricky than your average "50 mana, enemy takes 500 damage" skill." i dont think that its just positioning (going off of other games and there use of fear they disable everything else as well, movement, skill usage ect and i have yet to see any game implemnt fear in a good way or in a way that made it so my playing experience was fun or enhanced in any way.- Zesbeer 23:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Concerning IE

I figured it'd be more prudent to discuss here rather than bog down the MPE talk page with non-relevant a comment (also fyi, I'm defining MPE for the purposes of this discussion as main page edit). While IE8 is not the current version, it does not mean that it should be left unsupported. Generally speaking, a browser shouldn't be supported when the manufacturer has stopped supporting it; of course, that's just a generalization. I'm unsure if you do any coding, or more specifically web-based coding (ie wiki, html, etc mark up languages), but you need to test your product on multiple supported browsers prior to release. According to W3 schools we can see what browsers are commonly used. As we can see, safari and opera are barely used at all, as such it's almost a waste of time to optimize code for them (I said almost). While users of these browsers may find it offensive that people don't optimize on them, it's generally a time-constraint issue. Venom20 18:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

While I don't want to replicate the tables, I'll highlight some of the key points. When it comes to IE you can actually see that as of December 2011, IE8 was more popular than IE9. Thus to say that most people should just update is usually a good suggestion for security, it doesn't translate to a good suggestion for optimizing code. People will update when they update. Based on those stats, I'd say we'd waste time developing for anything IE7 and below. Similarly, I might even suggest that anything below FF8 would be a time waste just like for anything below C15. Venom20 18:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for breaking up this into multiple comments, but it should make for an easier read that way. Also if while reading this you feel offended, I apologize for that as well, that was not my intent. My intent here was to see if I can correctly explain why an optimization for the IE8 browser on the MPE talk page developed. Cheers! Venom20 18:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I know I used a W3Schools statistic like three days ago, but keep in mind that their data is determined by visitors to w3schools. Taken from lower down the page: "W3Schools is a website for people with an interest for web technologies. These people are more interested in using alternative browsers than the average user. The average user tends to the browser that comes preinstalled with their computer, and do not seek out other browser alternatives. These facts indicate that the browser figures above are not 100% realistic. Other web sites have statistics showing that Internet Explorer is a more popular browser." 19:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is true, if one were interested in actually looking at which browser is used you should look at different sources like statcouter. But I was more interested in using W3 for the tables on versions. Also let's be fair here, to the best of my knowledge there needs to be a script running to count the page views, and I don't know about anyone else, but I use noscript so I doubt I'm being counted. Asll stats should be taken with a grain of salt, but they should guide nonetheless. Venom20 19:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

honestly i don't care.- Zesbeer 19:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I generally optimize everything and anything I make for Opera, given that I use it. And I'm more than willing to devote time to fix code to be compatible with Opera... Aqua (T|C) 23:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

its crazy to me that we are bending over backwards to accommodate all this shit that i think most gamers will not see because they will use a higher rez and a internet browser that isn't ie, and if you are a gamer using ie then you need to uninstall all the games you have and stop using a computer, firefox, chrome, Opera, and safari do what internet exploder do and better and in a more secure fashion. when i did design websites i would check for the latest version of ie but anything below that i would just ignore because i could not be bothered. along the same lines i would only make web layouts that would fit 1024x768.- Zesbeer 00:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Well that's certainly a good way to lose an audience. Although I will say that I find it amusing that you are including Safari in with FF and C. I don't even think I know anyone who uses that browser, heh. Venom20 00:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

yea but i don't work for anet, and won't put the time into fixing stuff for those people so... no skin off my back. - Zesbeer 00:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Spear to Harpoon and Harpoon Gun to Speargun

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWiwZNY0XPQ&feature=youtu.be&t=3m3s Warrior with Harpoon and Speargun
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWiwZNY0XPQ&feature=youtu.be&t=0m35s Ranger with Harpoon and Speargun
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ph1TqYavXk#t=0m25s Engineer with Speargun
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbhEol-Ce44#t=0m50s Guarding with Harpoon
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbhEol-Ce44#t=2m36s Necromancer with Harpoon
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbhEol-Ce44&feature=youtu.be&t=4m18s Mesmer with Harpoon
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWiwZNY0XPQ&feature=youtu.be&t=4m23s Thief with Harpoon and Speargun

All of these are from the Press Beta Weekend which is the most current version of the game. I did not link the Elementalist since they use the trident only. Raziah 01:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

that still isn't anet that is youtube.- Zesbeer 02:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? Anet made GW2. They were playing the latest build of GW2. And if you want to hold that as a standard alot of the information on the wiki here shouldn't be. Most of the information doesn't come DIRECTLY from Anet. Raziah 05:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

For one this should not have been posted on my talk page, also it was a mistake and that mistake has been rectified.- Zesbeer 00:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't be hatin'

Clearly we hate you because your name ends with "beer". But really, it's more a commentary on your course of action than you. Also it might be a commentary on your vocalness, but again, that's part of your actions. So, I'd recommend just taking a step back and let this phase play out for a bit before prodding again. --JonTheMon 20:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Testing your code for leaving a topic.

4 day's till pre-purchase :) --Silverleaf Don't assume, Know! 02:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Exciting times i know.- Zesbeer 02:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sig icon

Love it. Nice work. -- aspectacle  20:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice work it is. Totally agree. Alfa-R 20:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

thanks its not a tango icon, and I did cheat a bit I stole the still under construction icon on the forums add color and re did a few things but thank you.- Zesbeer 20:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with them two; it's small (duhh, sig icon! :P) but it's still so very detailed. Kudos! - Infinite - talk 21:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

ty- Zesbeer 22:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The height shouldn't be higher than 19px, btw, or else it'll change the line height between comments. pling 22:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

other people have sigs higher then 19px on here not only that there is no policy page for signatures.- Zesbeer 22:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, they shouldn't either, and the lack of a policy page doesn't mean the line height fixes itself. I'm not requesting it because of policy, but simply because a too-large signature messes with the talk page format. pling 09:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

well that's nice, but until someone comes up with a policy, or if you go and police everyone else that has a sig icon with 1 more pixel then 19, I am not going to change it. sorry. it degrades the image to much at 19 px, I have added the |19px to it and you cant see what it is anymore. - Zesbeer 10:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

When I notice it, I tell them, just as I did here, except you're not listening. You're not the exception to which I'm applying an arbitrary restriction, nor do I think you really think something has to be written in policy to be correct. (Also, we don't have any policy at all here, but we rely on consensus, and the consensus is what the wiki has made it - a sig larger than 19px shifts the line height.) I like the image, but it's just slightly too big - that's all I'm telling you to fix. When you put |19x18px, it looks fine. pling 10:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) OK well i am telling you i am not going to so you going to ban me fore it? if so i am going to go request a rfa right now. also one of your fellow admins brought up this exact thing, as something to avoid. this is bullshit. someone on this wiki has had there sit at 17×20 since April 26, 2008 you are only bring this up because someone complemented me on it not because its a actual problem. oh and that user has had over 500 edits on the wiki. - Zesbeer 10:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Point out who else has an overly large sig and we'll talk to them, too. Unfortunately, someone else's sig image shifting line height isn't an excuse for yours to do the same. They're both equally disruptive. Pling made a polite request - do the wiki a favor and just fix it. It's much less difficult than trying to throw a fit, and nobody has to get banned :D -Auron 10:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to rescale it, just crop a pixel off golem's head or feet and you're good to go. Mediggo 10:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) A present! ;) - Infinite - talk 11:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't you like the present? - Infinite - talk 22:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes

Thank you. -- Armond Warblade 00:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)