User talk:Caithe/Archive 1

Too 1337 to de1337?
My userpage has been tagged for 10 days. I'll just copy the old one over here instead of moving, but was just wondering why it hasn't been deleted in so long. Rose Of Kali 16:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol, so after 10 days, I get an EC with a page deletion. :P Rose Of Kali [[Image:Rose Of Kali SIG.png]] 16:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * :P I don't normally look at user page edits from RC.  If you had mentioned "delete" in your summary, I probably would've seen it.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 16:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't someone supposed to watch the category? Rose Of Kali [[Image:Rose Of Kali SIG.png]] 16:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Derp. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png|link=User:Felix Omni]] 16:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Haha! Btw, thanks for the account merge. What does it do, exactly? I just saw that my new account now has all the contributions of the old one, is that all? My number of edits is still at just 24. :P Oh noes! What happened to the other 11 thousand? :O Seems like it's only my preferences page that shows my edit count as 24. Special:Editcount says my new name has 11k. :D Rose Of Kali [[Image:Rose Of Kali SIG.png]] 17:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no.
The male images have the right hat. The tux has the top, as does the wedding attire, the formal attire has the short hat.--Łô√ë îğá †ħŕášħ 22:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'll have to double check that, I could have sworn the tall one was only for the wedding tux. I guess they did that to pretend the sets aren't duplicate. :P All the trivia notes need to be fixed either way. Rose Of Kali [[Image:Rose Of Kali SIG.png]] 23:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I double checked, and I'm glad I'm not crazy this time. :P Dapper Top Hat = Formal Headwear = short. Thus the two suits are identical. Rose Of Kali [[Image:Rose Of Kali SIG.png]] 01:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh, I could have sworn they were different. I must have gotten confused while taking pictures at some point.--Łô√ë [[Image:Gigathrash_sig_G.jpg|Ho ho ho!]]îğá †ħŕášħ  02:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't blame you. I just spent 5 hours on the female galleries, and my vision is trying to play tricks on me too. x_x Rose Of Kali [[Image:Rose Of Kali SIG.png]] 02:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

omagawd
Bot flag, we nust give you one o.o

Quest Reward Accepted: RC Dominance You receive 9001 wiki points. O.O &mdash; Scythe   20:30, 14 Dec 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL! I sense a userbox. :P Rose Of Kali [[Image:Rose Of Kali SIG.png]] 20:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ^__^ &mdash; Scythe   21:28, 14 Dec 2010 (UTC)

Armor Galleries Question
Are the guidelines for displaying armor very strict and inflexible? Specifically, if an armor gallery is perfect but "enable post-effects" is on/enabled, does that part need to be retaken and replaced? Or is it "good enough"?--BladeHanover2 16:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's put it this way. We (or specifically, I, as I can't speak for others) strive to be good, not just good enough, so if there is a noticeable flaw, then there is room for improvement. I consider post-processing effects (glow effect), aliasing (heavily jagged), bad compression (blurry), too small size (not able to zoom in at all), and really bad shot angle (big head tiny feet) to be noticeable flaws, ones that can and should be improved on. Thus "perfect but enable post-effects" is a self-contradictory statement, because post-process effects blur out details and change lighting, making it not perfect. If the flaw is very small and not easily noticeable, then I wouldn't worry about it, this isn't rocket science. And lastly, "good enough" is always better than bad or none. I hope this makes sense. Rose Of Kali [[Image:Rose Of Kali SIG.png]] 18:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You sound like your usuall self. Completly geek. Man, I wish you where my age.... Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 19:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Geeks are fun to be with at any age. ;-P --◄mendel► 19:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh; my gf doesn't even know what the hell a game is. And I'm a *junkie*, so that sucks. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 20:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you saying I'm too old? o_O Rose Of Kali [[Image:Rose Of Kali SIG.png]] 21:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * *engages in pointless discussion* (in all honesty, no less) No I'm not! I'm just saying you are older then I am. And that I wished I "knew" more female geeks, of my age.... Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 21:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Biblically?--Łô√ë [[Image:Gigathrash_sig_G.jpg|Ho ho ho!]]îğá †ħŕášħ 00:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't we all. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png|link=User:Felix Omni]] 16:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * More on the original topic, there were still (last I checked) armors screenshots that were taken with more serious problems (ie: dyed). I'd try to focus efforts for new screenshots there (eg: start with the obvious problems).  As for post processing effects, I might argue whether such effects are bad.  The goal is to present armor as it appears in game.  If post processing has an effect on how armor appears, then turning it off is going to present to the user a false-view of how the armor looks.  I'll be fair, with many of the paragon armors, which favor white shiny surfaces, you do get area's where you can't make out texture (Might look at Parago Male Asuran), but that's more because there's no texture there to see than because anything significant has been rendered hidden, or that minor detail would remain hidden when shot from other angles.  I've come to look at the screenshots to see how the armor looks in-game, and even when my character is blind drunk, I keep post-processing on. Yamagawa 18:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I never play with post-proc enabled, so all the armors look as-is to me. Also, should we then take screenshots for every texture detail level? After all, my Win98 cannot run High, so it looks different for me.
 * Post-proc obscures the looks of an armor; that's why we chose to have it disabled for armor screenshots. --Vipermagi 18:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The purpose of armor galleries is not to show it "as it appears in game," since, as Viper pointed out, it appears differently in-game depending on each player's graphics settings. The purpose of armor galleries is to show the armor with as much detail as possible, which is what the image quality guidelines set out to accomplish.  Post-processing effects tend to obscure a great deal of detail, which is why we don't like them in our galleries.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 18:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Gz
On your recent promotion to admin. :-) — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 01:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Too bad it was on the wrong account :P– User Balistic Pve sig.pngalistic 04:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Too bad mendel immediately demoted himself. :P And thanks. :] If only I had as much time now as I did a year ago. I have a lot of RL coming at me in the next months. The good news is that I should be coming home very soon, we're hoping by the end of February. :D Rose Of Kali [[Image:Rose Of Kali SIG.png]] 06:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yay America!– User Balistic Pve sig.pngalistic 06:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that is sarcastic "Yay America!". Also, congratulations on your promotion. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 07:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oooh! Never mind the promotion &mdash; molto gz on being able to return finally! Awesome. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 07:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yay for living in America; Boo America! :P (Congratulations :) ) --Vipermagi 10:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * America is great, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise!--Łô√ë [[Image:Gigathrash_sig_G.jpg|Ho ho ho!]]îğá †ħŕášħ 10:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It was better before the Teabag Party. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png|link=User:Felix Omni]] 16:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)