Talk:Sacrifice

"Real" necromancers? --Fyren 23:01, 4 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Yeah, the scary ones who cut up other people, not themselves. :) In that link, I am referring to the second definition "nigromancy" (which is not discussed in the article below). --Karlos 23:14, 4 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * I still don't get it. If the "real" ones are from actual life/history, then you should also note the difference that in GW necromancy actually does something.  Besides that, there are necro spells that use corpses, you know.  --Fyren 23:29, 4 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * I actually don't get what the problem is. My note was just a reference that in "real" necromancy, no necromancer actually sacrificed his own health. Necromancers were known for defiling and messing around with the bodies of others. Cutting up little children, not sacrificing their own blood. That is what I find awkward about the way Necro's are so selfless in the game. :) --Karlos 23:37, 4 Oct 2005 (EST)

My first reaction was to remove the whole sentence about "real" necromancers, too. (I decided to refrain since it's already under discussion here.) It doesn't really add anything to the do anything to a discussion about the game of guild wars. Additionally, there are plenty of mythos in which dark magicians of one sort of another, use their own blood as part of thier rituals, often cutting a palm or pricking a finger to get it. To me, having this in here is like writing in the description for the warrior's Healing Signet, "Unlike real warriors, guild wars warriors have a special ring that allows them to instantly recover from their wounds." This is a discussion of a fantasy game and all to keep things simple, discussions should be framed from the game's perspective and not from the persepective of the "real" world. --Squeg 07:03, 11 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * I put it there for color. I found it very interesting that the necromancers in the game sacrifice their health so much like heroes when in reality necromancers used to sacrifice anything but their own health. That said, it is a COLOR element, so it is both trivial and unnecessary. If you all feel so badly about it, just take it out. :) --Karlos 17:14, 11 Oct 2005 (EST)

Related Skills Section
I think this could benefit from simplification, much like the skills listed in the hex article. I recommend having two major sections: "Sacrifice Skills" and "Related Skills" and use the magic lines then use the spell lines as minor catagories. Any time I see "Skills that ..." it seems really clumsy. It may be appropriate at times, but effort should be taken to use something less passive when possible. --Squeg 07:03, 11 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * I wish you would read that discussion in Talk:Hex with a little more... passion. :) That discussion IS about this article as well as Hex and all the other articles that Rezyk and I were arguing about. So, yes, as soon as we have a decision (hopefully soon), we will update the style of related skills here too. --Karlos 17:14, 11 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * I've seperated out sacrifice skills from related skills for this document and added spell line categories to that section. I think it is incredibly important for the user to be able to see at a glance what's in each spell line rather than just seeing a long list of necromancer skills, especially since these are all necromancer skills and the list is long.  I hope this doesn't cause problems, I know that this is not an exact match for talk:hex, but i think it's a better fit for this article. --Squeg 07:26, 15 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Looks good. I think the list of Sacrifice skills should be compacted though (no info listed next to each one). It's a minor thing. I'll try and put them in a table when I have time. --Karlos 08:52, 15 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * I don't think I quite understand what you mean here? We should remove the percentages?  Or do you mean because there isn't info next to each one we shouldn't use the bulleted list? I've set up lists like this one horizontally in the past, when there wasn't info to go with them, and they've been changed back to this format, so that's how i left this one.  I'm interested to see how you rearrange it.  I've grown to accept the bullets.  As you say, it's a small thing. --Squeg 14:47, 18 October 2005 (EST)


 * Check out what I did and let me know if its acceptable. --Karlos 20:03, 18 October 2005 (EST)


 * Karlos, the table looks very nice. I tweaked it a little to make it easier to read.  I put blood skills back into a single column and added column dividers to add more visual seperation between the spell lines.  I also took out the double borders in the header of the table, so the columns line up a little more smoothly. --Squeg 02:45, 19 October 2005 (EST)


 * Fine by me. I wanted it this way, then thought someone is going to complain that they stack too disproportionately. I thikn it looks very nice. I am biased of course. :) --Karlos 04:27, 19 October 2005 (EST)

Flesh of my Flesh and Infuse Health?
Are these 2 considered sacrifice? 18:47, 8 March 2006 (CST)


 * They shouldn't. All necro sacrifice a percentage of their maximum life while infuse and FMF sacrifice from current life. --theeth 19:00, 8 March 2006 (CST)


 * Did you test with Scourge Sacrifice? --Xeeron 23:06, 8 March 2006 (CST)


 * I have tested with Scourge before. Infuse and IOW are not counted as sacrifice. FomF might be similar, but I haven't tested. 23:22, 8 March 2006 (CST)


 * If it did, Scourge Sacrifice would be a serious killer for monks using infuse... --theeth 07:13, 9 March 2006 (CST)


 * I disagree using % to distinguish health sacrifice. It's a consistent pattern, but not an officially certified rule.  Scourge Sacrifice would be a proper game-mechanic check, though just based on the grounds of Skill description ("lose health") I would argue both skills are not sacrifices.   -PanSola 14:26, 10 March 2006 (CST)