User talk:NightAngel11476

Cleaned up all the previous talk. If any admin wants to resurrect this just check past versions, but as far as I'm concerned it's over and buried &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by NightAngel (contribs).
 * Hmh, generally you're not supposed to blank a talk page, even your own, just Archive it. Entropy 13:09, 26 December 2006 (CST)
 * If using the unsigned template, be sure to insert "subst:" in front of it. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 13:21, 26 December 2006 (CST)


 * I archived your talk for you. Hope you don't mind. Entropy 13:25, 26 December 2006 (CST)

Could you...
...make a userpage? You're contributing a fair amount and that red link is starting to irritate me. S'il vous plait, thanks in advance. Entropy 20:13, 30 December 2006 (CST)

I'm lazy so I'll have to leech a bunch of templates and stuff from other ppl :( NightAngel 20:39, 30 December 2006 (CST)


 * Don't do it, it's a trick! Or get suckered into the userbox fad! --Xasxas256 20:41, 30 December 2006 (CST)

First I'll put my characters up, as soon as I find someone with a nice page for me to copy. :) NightAngel 20:44, 30 December 2006 (CST)


 * I made you a placeholder. :) Entropy 20:46, 30 December 2006 (CST)


 * So it starts! What you're after is a

after your userbox ;) --Xasxas256 20:56, 30 December 2006 (CST)


 * Arg! Xas, I was gonna catch you on the Unsigned and the Nowiki. But you're too fast for me! ...and, EC, I was gonna say that. :) Entropy 20:57, 30 December 2006 (CST)

Wow. In less than an hour you make a userpage and it looks better than mine. No fair ;( Entropy 21:12, 30 December 2006 (CST)

There we go. It needs some slight improvement, but those are probably my 4 favorite characters atm. I'll put up the other 4 at some later time. and organize those boxes a little. NightAngel 21:54, 30 December 2006 (CST)

A clone!
User:NecroAngel, I need to look twice, very similar names :P &mdash; Skuld 14:02, 8 January 2007 (CST)

Easy
In the section Build talk:N/D Pious Minion Master, you seemed to get very emotional. If there is something you do not like about the build voting process, there are ample places to express your opinion on it's flaws. However, if you just want to lash out at other users because they have the right to vote the way they want to, be it good or bad, then administrative action will be taken. Thanks &mdash; Gares 19:00, 9 January 2007 (CST)

Renewing Mesmer
I love your comments, really help our build page. -- S i  g  m  A   15:16, 8 February 2007 (CST)


 * Good to know :) I'd love to be able to offer a lot of "congratulations, excellent idea". Unfortunately, that would need more excellent ideas. ~I'm sure you can see the logic in that. :) NightAngel 15:39, 8 February 2007 (CST)

Build talk:R/Rt Splinter Weapon Barrager
I've added a merge section to the rate-a-build. and wondered if you would like to move your vote there as you do not appear to disapprove of the actual build itself. --JP 17:10, 9 February 2007 (CST)

Please...
Can you please stop putting irrelevant discussion into your review of a build? It's kind of distracting when people are trying to determine if they want to try something new. I don't really like user:TheDrifter either, but dropping in your opinions about other topics into your votes is pretty annoying. Doom Music 15:45, 10 February 2007 (CST)

Build talk:N/Mo Order of Undeath MM
It is no suprise that you and TheDrifter are at odds with each other. That's fine, just keep it off the wiki. I ask you to discontinue your efforts to goad him at every chance you get and keep your comments constructive and on the discussion at hand. I have asked you once to keep your comments constructive here. Please heed my advice for the future. As this is your second offense of a breach of GW:NPA, a ban will be placed. &mdash; Gares 10:36, 12 February 2007 (CST)

Build Talk:Me/any Echoes of the Lightbringer
Regarding your comments on the possibility of a Me/Rt Channeler with Mantra of Recovery for DoA, I've put forth some ideas about that on a few places, including Build Talk:Me/Rt Hasty AoE, which needs some HEAVY cleanup (trying to strike a balance between energy management and raw damage output, which doesn't show well on that page) but I think our minds are pretty much in concert. If you'd like to actually give that a try sometime, I'd be MORE than happy to join you. I'd like few things better than to get my mesmer through DoA, and the more I look, the more it seems like Me/Rt may be the way to go. Let me know what you think on my talk page, or message me ingame if you prefer (my IGNs are on my user page). Zaq 17:37, 3 March 2007 (CST)

Mallyx
Slacker..... ;) - Skakid9090 20:48, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Editorializing
I will do it here. :) I personnaly don't think they should put chests behind monsters that trigger-spawn. Honestly, I never liked chests... I liked it when drops were better. I'm not sure what the thinking quite was on that, but I think it was farming related. So whoop-de-doo, my gold drops are limited to chests in a zone. But now I have to do quests to get them? It's not a huge deal, but sometimes I don't want to do the quests, I'm just out squishing red dots. I don't have any great care about chest running, one way or another. But I don't care for policies which punish one particular play style verses another. I guess the counter argument is "this isn't punishing for not doing quests, this is rewarding for doing quests", but I feel that if they want to chest-reward, especially in UW/FoW, they should use the keyless chest model that they have already implemented.

Summary- not a big deal. Kind of interesting, kind of unfortunate. But it should be documented. -- Oblio (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2007 (CST)

Well, there are still chests if you're wandering about, but if you actually do the quests in these elite areas you get more chests. Also, the cost of the key is a gamble - will you get a cool item or waste your money? It's a game inside the game. I exclusively do quests and missions, and open any chests I see along the way, so nothing's changed for me. I'm not even completely sure it IS a change, but if it is, it should be announced, not hidden, yes. as for drops, they should be rare. If everyone has everything, who gives a crap when a req 9 strenght gloom shield drops for you? There should be plenty of cool, rare, unique and extremely costly items, yes. It adds flavor. It adds objectives, goals you strive for. It's part of the game. NightAngel 12:29, 8 March 2007 (CST)


 * This is a new change, and I strongly suspect linked to the Feb14'th change regarding DoA. As a change, I don't like it. Your R9-Gloom was already really rare before. In my 2000+ hours, I've seen exactly 1 drop (not for me). Presumably it will be rarer now, but I don't even care about the rarity of items. You are right, you are buying lotto tickets- I do it because I have gold to burn. But this change says to me "you play too much. Stop.". It's bad policy for a game to tell me to stop playing it (even a mini-game). You are also right that this represents new incentives to do quests. I wish you the best with The Four Horsemen or To the Rescue!. FoW is easy enough that quests don't matter, but other areas are nappy.


 * Anyway, it's like I said, there are already rewards for doing quests. If they wanted to up them, they should just up them. If they want chests, just throw in more unlocked chests. If they want to discourage chest running, they should just remove chests from various area's, or push the chests from untriggered mobs to triggered mobs. I just don't like this "slieght of hand" change which effects people who weren't meant to be effected. (IMO, clearing FoW of red dots should leave all chests available regardless of quests) -- [[Image:Ranger-icon-small.png|25px]]Oblio (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2007 (CST)

Rt/any Quick Channeler
You voted unfavored until Spirit Rift was added to the main skill bar, so I thought I would tell you that it has been. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs)

Build:Team - 6 Man Deep Team
Regarding your suspected sockpuppet vote, please see User talk:Fyren. &mdash; Gares 11:28, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * Ok, well, I don't actually see anything much wrong, theoretically, with the build, but I was worried it would be quickly favored for all the wrong reasons. NightAngel 11:35, 9 March 2007 (CST)

Misc
Didn't know where to put this on your talk page. Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for the tip re: Unfavored&rarr;Untested. I hadn't been able to find any documentation on it in GuildWiki's pages, so I was at a loss as to what to do, and took a guess. I was wrong, but thanks for letting me know what to do in the future. :) - Threll 18:16, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

Build:E/Mo Protection Prodigy
Probably something like:

would be a doable MoM hybrid for PvE. That would give nice party support throught everything.--Nog64Talk 17:06, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

How is that better and simpler than gaining 2 energy per second regardless of what you do? Not to mention you're splitting attributes three ways, which makes you far less effective. NightAngel 17:10, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

I implemented this idea in Build: E/Mo Prot Warder if you wanna check :D.--Nog64Talk 20:33, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

No personal attacks
Comments like most of the ones you've recently left on Skuld's talk page are unnecessary and unhelpful for the wiki. Consider this your administrative warning. &mdash;Tanaric 23:24, 15 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I was just randomly browsing user pages, and this comment really got my goat. Both sides were getting a little edgy, and this random user who had nothing to do with the argument comes and tells you off. Why? Because Skuld's more popular. I thought one of the principles of the wiki was that there was no seniority and everybody was equal. You wouldn't know it sometimes. I know this is old, and all, sorry to comment. I'm just gonna leave now. Yeeeah. Spen 22:52, 28 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Tanaric is not a random user, he's an administrator, and yes, Skuld is vastly more popular :) And I'm not sure what the reason was, but yeah, I didn't think it was deserved. It's old though. NightAngel 01:31, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Heh, the most I did was say that "he didn't seem to give a crap about how bad some...". And that's enough for a warning!? . Sure thing. In fact, that discussion is very old, it stopped quite a few days ago, and it was a bit intense, because I do care about the whole build-bullying, but it's quite over and done with. And the "vote blindingly to balance things out" was not directed to skuld. In fact I do think he weights before he votes, he just uses the wrong assumptions :) What else is there to violate NPA? And I don't like skuld, he doesn't like me, that was never a secret, but I don't think I've really offended him or anyth lately. Ah well, go figure. Not to mention, if your criteria for NPA is that wide, his comment is a violation too: "Dude, will you stop dragging PvP vs PvE into it, because it is not relevent. You duck behind anything, every comment of yours is laced with "the world is out to get me", it is tiresome. ". Not that it's important, which is my point, the argument is not that serious...I don't think he cares that much about it and neither do I. NightAngel 23:37, 15 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I don't know you, I can't dislike nor like you. Drop me a line some time ingame and we can do something. &mdash; Skuld 12:55, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

Your point seems to be that if you don't NEED to do something, then you shouldn't. And that bothered me before, and it still does. Of course no one NEEDS to use any other class than a monk to protect or heal, and yet, some people still ENJOY doing it. With rits, paragons (before the nerf, of course), or yes, elementalists, why not? So you don't NEED to use a sword with anything else than a warrior, or a scythe with anything other than a dervish. In fact, why use a dervish at all when there are warriors? Forget sins, dervishes, etc. Anyway, that's taking the pt too far, but it's just for illustration. NightAngel 13:54, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

N/Mo Order of Undeath vote
I'm curious as to why you would add the tested tag but then say it's a stub. The build needs to be updated, but I haven't really had the time as of late to do a thorough revision. If you have any suggestions to make, please add them to the discussion page! Winter b0rn 12:27, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

Because at the time you were heading in the right direction, and then you decided to just slap a bunch of optionals and leave it at that. Time went by, nothing happened. Eventually something had to be done, and I switched votes as a way to help pressure you. It worked huh? :) I still suggest the same thing I did before - dervish secondary with Mystic Regeneration and Infuse Condition. THat still leaves 2 more slots... conviction? Dark bond. Something else...? Anywya, just finish the build one way or the other and put it on untested again with a new rate-a-build, and it won't take long to be favored. Half of the unfavored votes were basically due to the fact that the build had 4 skills. NightAngel 13:51, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

Wow... you really don't care anymore do you? I mean... I was just as involved in the Build Section as you were, and I didn't let the problems with the vetting system sour my entire outlook on GuildWiki... hope you can get over this because you are a valuable contributor. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 01:48, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, but I really was involved in the builds section. I mean, I'll still use the wiki as a valuable resource, and I'll help whenever I search for an article and find it lacking, or find a mistake, I'll keep my profile here, etc, but it will be very minimal. As my main beef with Auron, Skuld and others was about the builds section, I don't see why fight them anymore. I mean, the only thing that they can do once build section is gone is ban me for no reason, and I don't think it has really gotten to that. NightAngel 09:19, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I feel similar to NightAngel. This builds wipe is just going to end up turning into NOB, which means the death of the most useful site for PVE build makers.  The negative, elitist attitudes of some of the popular contributors/PvP players here are not only the cause of much of the friction in the build sections (their lack of constructive feedback and condescending attitude often cause new submitters to fly off the handle), but are also the reason why we have never been able to come up with an improved vetting policy by just saying no to every suggestion.  And Tanaric is convinced that places like gamecompendium and gwshack are better for builds than the wiki.  There is no way to convince them to change course at this point.  In fact, by the time I found out about the build wipe, the course was already decided upon.  So whats the point in making an effort anymore?  I'm preferring to spend my time playing the game now. -- BrianG 12:48, 29 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I agree that it is a bad situation, however, it is not only the "elitest attitudes" of individuals with the lack of constructive advice and uncontrollable egos, but it is also those that are so connected with their builds that they cannot control their emotions should their build be unfavored or deleted. I won't say I haven't used a few of the popular builds posted, but most of mine are original, to the best of my knowledge. All you have to do is study the skills, your opponents, either other players or mobs, and use your imagination. Your not going to create a winner everytime, but that's what makes finding the right combination to make an effective build all the more satisfying.
 * As to NightAngel's response that he is going to GWW, I would like to point out that we do not allow builds to be posted in the mainspace over there. You can post them in your userspace, but as of now, all builds posted in the mainspace will be deleted. There are some new faces over there though, but you will see most of the same people over there as you will here. Giving you a heads up in case you have not visited GWW yet or know the new policies. &mdash; Gares 13:19, 29 March 2007 (CDT)


 * What is odd about this NOB idea is that the people who are demolishing the build section never tried to contribute or really help. They are destroying something they never really helped. Tanaric, for instance, is one guy I've never seen participate in the build section. They go to delete, trash and demolish, but to actually make something? Try to create? Nah. Why would they? It's a shame. Apparently the official wiki is horribly incomplete, so I'll still use Guild Wiki as my resource for information, but it's sad to see the build section being thrown out the window by people who never gave a crap about it. And yes, gares, I know that. My point was, if this wiki doesn't allow the creation and debate of builds, it ceases to have a significant advantage or attractive point, then it doesn't matter staying here or moving to the official wiki. And Gares claims he has created all of his builds, which are original and imaginative, and yet, I don't see him contributing to the wiki. isn't this supposed to be a place where you share and debate ideas? Apparently not. That sounded very condencending, as if your ideas are just too good for the crappy noobs who frequent this Wiki, or maybe I just lack imagination to figure out things on my own. Yeah, screw collaboration! To each his own, right? The noobs will only criticize your brilliant ideas, what do they know? Or hell, they'll just steal all your ideas and then what? I'm just glad that most people don't think like that, or we'd all be at the stone age rubbing sticks together, since there is no satisfaction in sharing or debating ideas. The real pleasure comes when you accomplish something alone, all by yourself. Maybe we should all make our own wikis, and be site owners, administrators and sole editors! NightAngel 13:24, 29 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I tried to be supportive and nice and it seems that there is no reasoning with you regarding this. Please read my post carefully and try not to twist my words on your next response. I said I have used a few popular builds found on nearly every site as well as my own, personal builds. There is no rule to where I have to share my builds with the public. This isn't kindergarten where I have to share my cookies. I share my builds with my guildmates, my alliance, and those that play with me can see my builds. I discuss ideas about builds with those in which I trust their opinions. I do not need hundreds of users to help me create a good build, nor would I care for unconstructive and egotistical comments. Rarely do I contribute to the build discussions here because 1) I don't have to and 2) I don't like the unconstructive comments and petty arguements that seems to escalate on every page. Enjoy. &mdash; Gares 14:55, 29 March 2007 (CDT)


 * THanks for stating what is pretty obvious - you don't have to share. "I share my builds with..." - "... in which I trust their opinions" (which, by the way, is pretty bad English - the correct sentence would be "with those whose opinions I trust"). Basically, you don't trust the opinions of the editors in the wiki you're an administrator in. That is my point. And the problem is, you assume we WANT your cookies, lol. No, Gares, this isn't kindergarden. But it could be a place similar to an academic environment, where you can debate and exchange ideas and achieve something. But you're not interested in that, because you believe the editors are beneath you. You're basically offending everyone here who is not on your guild or alliance. Ps: Also, it should read "there is no rule according to which I have to...". NightAngel 15:34, 29 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Thanks for the english lesson, chief. My forte is math, which is probably why I can create my own builds without leeching off of others. &mdash; Gares 17:36, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Hey
Remember that telling people that what they're doing with the builds is a waste of time is even more of a waste of time as its unproductive (then what the hell am I doing :P). Peace! &mdash; Skuld 15:52, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

it's a bloody protest, dam it. Its only possible productive outcome would be to have the policy reverted and the builds section actually improved and not scrapped. Which is obviously ludicrous, since the "powers that be" (just like a "Charmed" episode) have decreed it to be deleted. They never really tried, they never really cared. Why? because they're imaginative and creative like Gares, who can come up with brilliant ideas with the help of the smart and trusted people of his alliance. Who gives a crap about those noobs at the wiki? NightAngel 15:56, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

(edit conflict) That's not really fair NightAngel. There is about a years worth of archives of people suggesting new policies to improve the build section. People did try. If you are going to protest, at least try not to be an ignorant protester. The whole reason behind the build wipe is that consensus failed when it came to the build section. By which I mean that the Admins hoped that the consensus/community system would work, but no one ever agreed on anything. Only as a last resort, when the community had failed to reach a consensus did Tanaric decide to implement the build wipe. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 16:00, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * NightAngel is ignoring (or not acknowledging) the part where said admins waited for months on end for the people that cared to come up with a solution. They didn't just wake up one morning and say "Hey, let's nuke it!" They waited until it had spiraled into an unrepairable mess before laying down the hammer. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 16:02, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Sigh. Wouldn't be the first time people failed to achieve something because they couldn't communicate, I guess. And no, I didn't see the 1 year of archives, I learned about it very recently. NightAngel 16:06, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * They tried to communicate. They failed.  The community failed.  Thus the build wipe.  As I said before, protesting is one thing, but protesting when your platform is uninformed is quite another.  Also, by adding those inane votes (which I understand are your way of protesting) not only are you being entirely nonconstructive, you are actually hurting the authors who took the time to share their builds.  Your criticize Gares because he wouldn't share his builds with the community, why then are you protesting on pages created by authors who DID decide to share their builds?  You may not be breaking any policies, but you are breaking the spirit of those policies by being disruptive to the Wiki and detracting from the community.  You seriously need to evaluate your current actions and see whether that is how you would like people to see you.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 16:10, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

So they will know what is going on and get angry too. Maybe they can get angry at the right people, maybe they'll stay angry at me. It's a risk. And I don't criticize Gares for not sharing his builds. For all I know, they're crappy as hell. I criticize him for assuming people here have nothing valuable to add. NightAngel 16:11, 29 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Auron, I don't see why its any more unrepairable now then it was before. In fact I think the categories that were added made things a lot more organized. The main reason policy revisions failed before was because there was a vocal minority of naysayers who didn't want the section at all, or found some reason to oppose every suggestion. Now the admins have stepped in, and instead of coming up with a solution (which they easily could have done), have decided to let the naysayers who have prevented policy revisions in the past have their way. Doesn't exactly seem like a fair decision. -- BrianG 16:13, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't think this is a debate that is ever going to be resolved. If there was ever a cleavage issue on GuildWiki, this is it.  It's like Conservatives and Liberals, no matter how much each side argues, there are certain issues no one is going to change their mind about.  Something had to be done.  I don't think this is a decision that was made lightly, to be honest though, to be fair, no ever said the system was fair.  In fact, no one said this was a democracy either.  It has been pretty expressly stated that in some ways, this is a dictatorship mixed with anarchy.  I don't think we can fault anyone for doing what they think is best.  We may not like it, but that is what proposing new policies is for.  Anyways, I don't think this debate actually gets us anywhere.  it is stagnant and better left alone unless an actual breakthrough can be realistically reached.  Besides, the focus now should be working with what we have left to make this as good a system as possible (eg. I am working on the Profession Guide policy).  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 16:25, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * And, we also have to look at it from the other perspective (i.e. people who want to get rid of the build section), the community is split, but just as many people want the build removal as want the builds to stay. So, while we argue that consensus was never reached in getting rid of the builds, they can argue that consensus was never reached in keeping the build section.  While we argue it was a unilateral decision, we only do so because it wasn't a unilateral decision in our favor.  If the decision was to just keep the build section, all the dissenters would be here complaining.  That is why I said that something needed to be done.  We may not like what was done, but something had to be done.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 16:30, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Votes moved to favored. If it doesn't matter, let's put them all in tested right? One last joy before dying. NightAngel 16:16, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Look, all I am saying is that if you don't like the system, you are criticizing it from the wrong platform. You could just as easily tell people what was going on if you wanted people to be informed.  I am not saying either side is in the right in this instance, just that the way you are going about your protest is all wrong.  Logic is going to win over a lot more people than blind anger.  Anyways, and this is both for Brian and for you, if you have a better policy, please, go right ahead and suggest it.  I would endorse a good policy if it worked.  But, all of this attacking the system without proposing a new idea is not constructive.  People have been proposing ideas for a long time.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 16:19, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Defiant, its easy to come up with a better vetting system. I have made or been involved with proposals before (I'll leave you an example on your talk page).  The problem is that because of naysayers, they will never be accepted, no matter what.  There is a concept that says that sometimes a benevolent dictatorship can accomplish more good for a community than a democracy, so I think the admins made a smart move in stepping in due to a lack of consensus.  Unfortunately, they forgot the "benevolent" part, and instead sided with the destroyers/naysayers. -- BrianG 16:38, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Actually, there's something I hadn't thought about... Guild Wars is over. THey are working on guild wars two. Sure, there will be an "expansion" with a few extra skills, but nothing really significant. So really, what's the point of arguing in favor of a forum for debating new ideas on a game that is all over and done? THis should indeed keep strictly to documenting, because that's all there is left to do. And to Defiant: How about putting a warning on the top of the build page? I think it's pretty fair to warn everybody who visits the section that it will be burned to the ground. NightAngel 17:00, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Come on NightAngel, that would be too logical. If they let the general public (meaning people who read but don't edit or post) know about the build wipe, they might actually have a chance to complain about it! ;) -- BrianG 17:29, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

"On April 2, 2007, a notice (via Template:builds wipe) will be added to Main Page, Build:Main Page, GuildWiki:Builds, and GuildWiki:Community Portal linking back to this article and summarizing this decision. Editors are free to include this template at the top of any article to be deleted by this decision, to help spread awareness of this policy change.". On the build wipe policy page. So there you have it, April 2nd the word will "get out". NightAngel 17:33, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Now imagine what would happen in the real world if people "deleted" things whenever they failed to reach a consensus. NightAngel 17:37, 29 March 2007 (CDT)