User talk:Quizzical12571

Archived talk page

HI
Hi, I read your article on Aurora Glade HM, I followed your tips but i'm still have some trouble. Is it possible if you could help me? That would be much much apreciated. --Balistic Pve (T/C/E) 23:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Where exactly do you get stuck? If it's on the crystal running area (which is the part I wrote), what goes wrong?  Quizzical 00:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I found a lovely shortcut for that if you're in a position to take a human along. A Shadow Form assassin can easily run the crystals, while carrying You Move Like a Dwarf! to slow the White Mantle runner. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 00:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well i think its lack of damage. I can't seem to kill the group. And yes it is the Running area. --Balistic Pve (T/C/E) 00:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Took me easily 5 minutes+ to outdamage those monks with the H/H team. If you can, try a mesmer hero with lotsa interrupts, Backfire and the new and nice VoR, and lock them on the monks. Flag everything with enough space so Searing Heat doesn't nuke them. Then you need to be able to run the crystals to the two closest shrines in order to keep always only one team fighting with your H/H team at any time, helping them whenever you are free of running crystals.
 * My experience shows it was kind of dependant on luck, luck that you don't get two Abbots on the first team that you fight. --Alf&#39;s Hitman 03:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you get an SF to run the crystals you won't have to fight at all, you get teleported when he's done. It does work in Hard Mode, I swear. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 03:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There are two things that are likely to go wrong in hard mode if you don't take the proper precautions. One is if more than one priest comes out at once to heal.  It sounds like this is what happened to you.  They'll only heal damaged allies within a fixed radius, so if you stay back far enough, the additional priests won't come.  Perhaps more to the point, it helps not to attack white mantle groups until they're pretty much right at the crystal pedestal, and not to scratch the crystal runner at all.  If there's only one priest, you can kill mobs pretty easily; if there are three, it's a lot harder.


 * The other thing that is likely to go wrong is if one runner group comes before the previous is dead. This is how mobs stack up, and how you get killed.  This usually requires that you brought out an extra priest or two too soon, as otherwise, henchmen and heroes probably would have killed the previous group quickly enough.  But it certainly requires mismanagement of crystal placing.  If one group of white mantle isn't dead, you can make the next group go back and forth only to the northeast pedestal indefinitely, giving the rest of your party all the time they need to finish off the previous group.  This might take several minutes if you have three priests at once, but you'll have all the time you need.  Quizzical 05:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This seems as good a place to any to put this. As you saw, I'm new to GuildWiki, so I'm not exactly sure where to put just a simple greeting. Anyway, thanks for the tip. I was looking over your user page, and you seem to have quite a large amount of wisdom pertaining to Guild Wars. It's too bad you're not playing anymore (as far as I could tell), I would have loved to conquer stuff with you. Ah well. If you ever have any advice you'd like to share, I'd love to hear it. See you around. RevelationOrange 00:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I started playing again about a month ago. I had always planned on returning sooner or later; it was only a question of when.  Quizzical 00:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well then, I could definitely use your help on some hard mode mission in nightfall, if you'd like :) RevelationOrange 09:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Have I ever told you how much I hate starting every other line with "Note" or "Tip"
First time, actually :-)

Thanks for cleaning up - I liked my edit a lot better than what was there before, but I like it still better now. I tried to preserve too much of the original text. --Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 21:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To give a bit of historical detail, I've done each mission in each campaign with each of ten characters (one of each class) in easy mode, and then again in hard mode. That means ten successful runs in easy mode, and ten more in hard mode.  As I went along, I'd fix up the articles.  You can find my big edits on dates ranging from December 2007 up to August 2008.
 * Thanks for the background. I'm hitting this completely as a noob: first character, easy mode. &mdash;TEF


 * For the early missions in Prophecies, I was hesitant to change too much. As I went along, I got more comfortable with making big edits to wiki pages, and got a lot more aggressive about rewriting things.  As such, the mission pages that need the most work tend to come fairly early in Prophecies.  The dialogues section is also missing or incomplete in some Factions missions, and some missions are missing the hard mode mob levels entirely.


 * I also standardized the page format as I went along. Prior to that, the names of sections and subsections had varied quite a bit, but I made that effectively the same for every mission, deviating only when the structure of a mission demanded it.  For example, Vizunah Square has a "two party missions" subsection, while Iron Mines of Moladune has an "infusion run" subsection.  It looks like you've been adding new subsections to The Frost Gate, which I'm going to undo.
 * I also use subsubsections rather lightly. Mainly it's for missions that naturally break into disjoint, non-trivial parts (e.g., Boreas Seabed or The Eternal Grove) or missions for which it is essential to present alternate strategies (e.g., Dunes of Despair or Imperial Sanctum).  Adding lots of subsubsections everywhere for no apparent reason in particular tends to clutter a page.  Quizzical 22:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that consistency is critical. I agree with your idea about minimizing subsections (despite evidence ;-). I also think that it's worth dividing up a section whenever (a) it covers more than than the usual and/or (b) it covers more than just the topic at hand. Or, put another way, there's all types of clutter: too many subsections can be better than a walkthrough that mishmashes chronology and advice.


 * In Frost Gate, I found that different type of clutter and tried to resolve it by brute force separation, which helped preserve original text &amp; intent. Not an elegant solution, I admit. I like what you've better: by judicious editing, you've made the mission/bonus sections very readable and brief (eliminating any perceived need to subdivide).


 * On the other hand, would you consider dividing the Notes section, since half is about cartography (and not relevant for a lot of people)?
 * (In fact, I wonder if you would consider standardizing missions by always having a subsection to Notes that applies to cartography: (1) cartography isn't of interest to everyone and (2) it would make it easier to keep cartography tips and the mission articles synchronized; the relevant section of tips could be assembled from the various cartographic sections of articles.)


 * I'm going to continue to go through the missions and I'll keep your principles in mind if I edit anything. Here are my principles; let me know if you want to discuss.
 * advice and walkthrough should be distinct;
 * walking through should show clear chronology and correspond with map;
 * similar advice should be combined rather than repeated;
 * when sensible, basic advice should be distinct from advanced advice;
 * when sensible, original text/intent should be preserved (even if editor disagrees).


 * --Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 20:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We could make a template for the map notes, much like Template:historical. -- ◄mendel► 22:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Trying to rigidly separate walkthroughs from advice would probably require largely redoing nearly every mission article on the wiki. It sounds nice in theory, but in practice it just makes a mess.  A lot of people would put a "tip" line here and there in an article, as if to separate the game mechanics from advice on what to do about it.  I cut down on that pretty aggressively, as it often made articles rather incoherent to have a bunch of sometimes contradictory tips floating around.
 * As far as mission advice goes, my basic principles are that it should
 * be specific to the mission, as opposed to something that would be true of many or most missions,
 * be better than what a typical competent player who is unfamiliar with the mission would be likely to try,
 * avoid advocating consumables or PvE-only skills whenever possible (see point 1), and
 * avoid advocating particular builds except when a mission really does require peculiar builds.
 * The notes section at the bottom of each article is generally for comments that might be interesting to know, but wouldn't help someone trying to beat the mission. The notes are often largely independent of each other, so writing them into a nicely flowing article was impractical.
 * I don't have a strict distinction between basic and advanced advice. There is a difference between the normal walkthrough and the hard mode section.  Basically, if something is important to know in hard mode but irrelevant in easy mode, it goes in the hard mode section.  If it's useful to know either way, it goes in the easy mode section.  There are very few examples of things that are useful to know in easy mode but irrelevant in hard mode.  The only one that I can think of off hand is that I put completely independent tactics on the Dzagonur Bastion page for easy mode versus hard mode.  The hard mode tactics work in easy mode, but the easy mode tactics are a lot easier to pull off successfully in easy mode.  The easy mode tactics completely fail in hard mode.
 * As far as preserving original text goes, I'd say that largely depends on how well you understand what you're doing. If something worked once, that could have been a fluke.  If you've only done a mission once or twice, be careful about making major changes to strategic advice that may sometimes fail spectacularly.  Sometimes a strategy may work very well if the player is one class, but completely fall apart if he is another class--and someone who doesn't play the latter class may not be aware of that.
 * But if you properly understand what you're doing, it's okay to make some big changes. The purpose of the wiki is to have good information for players who need help with a mission, not merely to make editors feel good that they didn't get reverted.  It's probably good to be hesitant to do too much at first, and then do more once you get the hang of it.  Obviously, you don't have to understand much about a mission to correct typos or miswordings.
 * Before I really carved up an article, I generally did the mission once as each class in easy mode, and then again in hard mode. In Prophecies and Factions, I generally didn't use heroes in easy mode (even with Nightfall characters), though I guess I made an exception for Dunes of Despair and The Eternal Grove.  I also avoided most PvE only skills and consumables, to avoid making the mission unduly easy where just about anything would work.  Once that was done, I figured that if something were likely to go wrong, I'd probably have seen it, and was a lot more comfortable with saying, no, that's bad advice and I'm going to remove it.
 * For what it's worth, the surest ways to get me to revert an edit are to add "bring a minion master" or "bring a bonder monk" tips. Minion masters tend to be rather feast or famine; sometimes they an make a mission look comically easy, and other times they'll wipe you--in the same mission, using more or less the same tactics.  Quizzical 23:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Dialogue layout revisited
Well, see (and comment) at User talk:Tennessee Ernie Ford/Shortcuts. -- ◄mendel► 05:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for visiting my page yesterday
It led me to your page which I must say is fantastic! I just spent about 2 years away from GW's playing EVE and Im now back and discovering or rediscovering this game. Thanks for all your work, I believe the info here will be very helpful to me. And it's nice to see another Messmer fan, there are too few of us in this game IMHO. -- conmcb25 14:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm new to the wiki but i've been playing GW for about a year now. Nice to see people active in a community. thx for the welcome.--Mor Dred  1622  00:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
Like the title says, thanks. And I like WoW and GW the same. They are both different and yet the same at the same time. SDK 05:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to like WoW, that's fine. It's a very good game for certain types of players.  But it's not the same as Guild Wars.  For starters, WoW is a WoW-clone, and Guild Wars is not.  More importantly, Guild Wars will fit around the real-life schedule of the player, while WoW demands that a player spend hours at a time on the game, and even schedule his life around a game in order to go raiding.  Guild Wars is also based more on the skill of the player, while WoW is mostly level and gear.  I made a huge long list of ways that Guild Wars is better than WoW once, but I don't care to post it here.  Quizzical 06:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You're always so awfully positive :) --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]] -- (contribs) &emsp;(talk)  09:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Correction: GW USED to be based on the skill of the player. Now it's Build Wars and basically the only people with any remote levels of skill are interrupters and maybe infusers --Gimmethegepgun 03:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Spamming Savage Shot and/or dshot and/or Magebane on recharge does not take skill at all. Entropy [[Image:Entropy Sig 2.jpg]] (C) 04:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Is Guild Wars based purely on the skill of the player? No.  But player skill plays a much larger role in Guild Wars than it does in WoW.  Even if it's a question of picking your build, being able to figure out which skills make sense for a particular area (both for yourself and heroes) does take a certain degree of skill.  In WoW, every class gets a canonical set of skills, so it lacks even this.  The talent points of WoW play a far, far smaller role than build choices in Guild Wars.  Quizzical 04:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, unlike the current GW, positioning is actually highly important in WoW (especially in PvE). There are skills that actually require you to hit a target from behind. A long long time ago, Bull's Strike used to need that too, but that was deemed too difficult for the average player's skill level and so now it procs on any direction of movement. One could argue that that constitutes "skill" of a different kind. Entropy [[Image:Entropy Sig 2.jpg]] (C) 04:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say pve GW has a lot of importance on positioning. A good part of HM is about knowing where to stand and which directions to go so you don't aggro everything or drag dangerous things to the backline. Holding enemies in bottlenecks or at corners or the now rather oldfashioned box-them-in tactic. Pvp I can't claim to be any good at but most gametypes at least require you to move well with respect to your party and the enemies. I'm not saying WoW doesn't require the same things, but I think it's wrong to say GW doesn't. Unless you're running a team that is so much better than the enemy that you don't need to bother, and that's the same in both games. -Ezekiel  [Talk]  05:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to deal with where I'm positioned vastly more in Guild Wars than I recall doing in WoW. Here, mob targeting depends in considerable part on your positioning; in WoW, it didn't.  A lot of area stuff like wards and wells depends on your positioning.  The only WoW skill that I can think of off hand that depended much on your positioning was a rogue's backstab, and even that was mostly, let someone else get aggro, go stand behind the mob, and hack away.  I guess Guild Wars doesn't let you jump off a cliff or fall in the lava the way WoW does, but the amount of skill that it takes to avoid doing that very often is very, very low.  Quizzical 05:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's important in GW, too, even now (you still don't run up to the enemy warrior unless you're a linebacking Warrior).
 * Also, invisibility defies the laws of positioning, tbh. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]] -- (contribs) &emsp;(talk)  13:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice preemptive strike
Nice job on doing all the z-quest missions, it will be much easier for us when they actually come out :) 75.92.46.118 00:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Vizunah Square
Have you been trying it since the update on RoJ?--Relyk 22:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I haven't tried it in about a year. My expectation is that it would make minions less useful than before, and instead put more emphasis on wells, wards, and spirits.  Don't neglect the wells, as a lot of players do.  Quizzical 22:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Bah, 2 minion masters still pwn that mission, especially since you can make an instant army of 10 minions with one spell, and still have enough corpses left over for the other MM. --Macros 22:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Aura of the Lich is rather wasteful in Vizunah...you'd be exploiting quite possibly over 100 corpses at once, but can only control maybe 14 minions. Entropy [[Image:Entropy Sig 2.jpg]] (C) 08:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not if the other MM is a hero (can't use AotL, so they use normal minions). They'll basically keep the unexploited body count to a reasonable level so when you use AotL, you'll only exploit 15 or so corpses :P Of course, when I did it, the hero had bone fiends, and they cost me my survivor during the cutscene. I thought Anet had fixed that bug... multiple times. --Macros 19:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I need a new guild
Short version:

I'd like to join a different guild. I mostly do PvE, and mostly with henchmen/heroes. For now, I'm vanquishing; if I get to harder content, I may offer to group with people. A guild, and more generally, an alliance, is primarily a chat channel, and that's how I use them. I can answer a lot of newbie questions about how to beat particular missions and quests, but I won't run people through them. I'm all in favor of trading with alliance members at around market value, but may snap at beggars if begging gets out of hand. If a guild tries to tell members what they have to do in the game and when, I won't put up with it, but will do the content I wanted to do instead. If you think I might be a good fit for your guild, let me know, either here or in-game. I'm still in my old guild for now, but that's easy to change if I find another one to join.

Long version, and reasons why I'm leaving the old guild:

I picked up Guild Wars again in early May after being away for about 9 months. Someone I had been in a couple of previous guilds with had her own guild, so I joined it. She never struck me as the guild leader type, but I figured she could be competent if she wanted to. Well, it turns out that she wasn't the guild leader type, and the alliance leaders had pressured her into it, and after a few weeks, she got sufficiently flustered to leave the guild entirely. This was the day after I joined.

She appointed someone else chosen by the alliance leaders to be the new guild leader. Unfortunately, the new guild leader was pretty much never around. What I've heard is that he plays Guild Wars, but on an unspecified different account, so if one needs to contact him, well, tough luck. Naturally, with an absentee guild leader and no one in the guild knowing what is going on, the size of the guild dwindled as time passed.

Yesterday the guild leader finally showed up to castigate the officers for insufficient recruiting. When I logged back on today, all of the officers had been demoted, and in their place, four people from outside the guild had been invited and immediately promoted to officer.

The previous situation of letting the guild slowly die was unsustainable, so something did need to change. But making that sort of abrupt changes is the sort of thing that you just don't do without keeping your guild informed. There didn't seem to be any explanation posted anywhere, so I asked the guild leader what was going on. All I could get out of him was for him to say that officers must have vent. Naturally, an absentee guild leader didn't have the slighest clue if at least some of the old officers had vent, and that's hardly a complete explanation of such a big shakeup.

I found one of the other officers online and asked him what was going on in a variety of ways. Mostly he'd just say that they were rebuilding the guild. Right, so the guild leader had run the guild into the ground so that he could rebuild it? I pressed for details, but none were forthcoming. After asking a variety of rather specific questions, the new officer said that the new officers had been elsewhere in the alliance, but just not in this particular guild. Given that I'd never heard of any of them, it's pretty safe to say that they rarely or never talked in alliance chat.

The only other detail I could get out of the officer was the name of the alliance leader. Given that I'd never heard of him, it's pretty safe to say that he's not active in alliance chat, either. And this wasn't a brief conversation that yielded these few details. This was over the course of an entire vanquish that I did. Mostly the conversation would go something like this:

Me: (rather detailed question about what happened) (a few minutes pass without the officer saying anything) Officer: "ok?" Me: That didn't answer the question.

Part of the time, it felt like talking to a gold farmer who didn't speak English. So while something needed to change in the guild, it's far from clear that this sort of inept guild mismanagement is even an upgrade over a purely absentee guild leader. As such, I think it's time for me to find another guild. Quizzical 05:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)