User talk:GW-Stabber

Item Holder
I call it a Muleâ„¢. :) -- 03:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * More RPGs need mules. I loved that about Dungeon Siege. &mdash; Stabber (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Fun! Odd how I never got around to check peoples userpages, even though I have read hundreds of your comments in the builds section =) --Xeeron 22:35, 8 March 2006 (CST)

Delete Tags
Please put the delete tags on the actual page you want deleted, not on that page's talk page. Thanks. --Rainith 16:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. I wasn't sure where to place delete notices on redirected pages, but I guess it isn't all that important to preserve the redirect behaviour if the whole point is to delete the page. &mdash; Stabber (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Damage rework?
I don't suppose you got around to the damage article rewrite before you take off did you? Oh well, see you when Ch2 comes out. -PanSola 08:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm still around, but will take off after the weekend. I tried doing something with the damage article, but it is way too hard. I'm now very impressed with whatever you guys did. Good job. 13:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Team - Barrage/Pet (Tomb Ruins)
Very interesting build. I was wondering, do you have any idea how to work a W/R into the build? Lack of 13 Expertise is a serious deficiency. If it is completely impossible, how about a R/W? Is Rebirth really that important? Doesn't Frenzy indirectly boost the speed of Barrage? (Barrage is an attack skill? Actually, lemme check right now.)  69.124.143.230 06:16, 18 February 2006 (CST)


 * The build isn't mine (I'm just the scribe), but I do agree that it's a neat build. Personally, I think warriors got the short end of the stick in this area as they will keep getting blinded and crippled by Fingers of Chaos. (This applies for secondary warriors also.) Frenzy will boost attack speed (and hence the barrage rate), but as an IAS is actually a really bad idea. Each Energy Surge will do 160 damage; suffer two or three of them, and your monk will be freaking out. Cry of Frustration does a whopping 80 damage under Frenzy. Sorry, I don't see an obvious way to work W/Rs into b/p builds. 06:25, 18 February 2006 (CST)


 * Well, what about Flurry? The reduced damage doesn't affect all the stacked +Damage, does it?  I just... want my W/R to be able to join all these darn b/p parties ;_; *sob*  Damn FoC and blinding >.<  69.124.143.230 07:33, 18 February 2006 (CST)


 * You can change your R/W's secondary to monk and buy rebirth (at most its 1 skill point and 1 platinum, not a huge sacrafice). Or change secondary to Mesmer and bring Resurrection Signet.  W/R has no place in the build ever, it has no chance to survive make its time. | Chuiu 07:45, 18 February 2006 (CST)

Ashes ritual vote
Just a note that you might want to specify your secondary vote if you have one (ie if "Ash Rite" does not pass what's your next choice of naming). -PanSola 18:29, 22 February 2006 (CST)
 * No second choice. Just what I said. If it dooesn't pass, oh well. 18:37, 22 February 2006 (CST)

Chp 2 Weapons
I noticed you added the Chapter 2 template. Sorry, it never crossed my mind. Also, with the Glowing Chakram/Glowing Focus articles, the screen says Glowing Focus. I went with Chakram when creating the article, cause thats what it looked like. How do you delete an article once its been created and I'll get rid of that Glowing Chakram article. Thanks for looking out for me ;) --Gares Redstorm 07:31, 23 February 2006 (CST)
 * You need to attract the attraction of an admin usually to get something deleted around here. (Rainith commonly takes care of this janitorial aspect of the wiki.) The usual way to flag something for deletion is to add  at the top of the article.  07:35, 23 February 2006 (CST)
 * Thanks. I think I've caused enough destruction here for one day. Guess I'll go in-game and cause some destruction there. --Gares Redstorm 07:42, 23 February 2006 (CST)
 * Heh. Stick around here long enough to get involved in Guildwiki politics, and you'll see what real destruction looks like. You haven't done any destruction that even registers as a faint blip on the radar. Happy hunting! 07:45, 23 February 2006 (CST)

Anti climax!
Aaargh, you just gave me the total rollercoaster happy/unhappy ride of the day. You wrote in the change log six new slots confirmation but what you really meant was six slots in total confirmed. (I think it's great with some solid info, but darn, I just thought I'd have 10 slots with Factions...) --Bishop 08:55, 28 February 2006 (CST)
 * Oops, that should have been "new six slots confirmation". 08:57, 28 February 2006 (CST)

W/Me Hydra Slayer
Thanks for moving that, and the changes make it look much cleaner. - Evil_Greven 09:44, 2 March 2006 (CST)
 * HI. Just noticed this comment, so sorry for the late response. Thanks, but I don't think I did anything significant to that article. Sorry I had to leave when you messaged me in game yesterday. I had only popped in to verify a quick detail and shouldn't really have been playing GW at that time. 21:50, 2 March 2006 (CST)

Dis
Does it not work against Zaishen Elite? Or is it so obvious that it isn't even worth mentioning? I never even thought of using that... but what did the old version have to say about Tombs + Zaishen Elite? 69.124.143.230 11:21, 3 March 2006 (CST)


 * Well, I reverted that note because it replaced a useful observation (EoE bomb doesn't work against the Unworthy) with a sort of obvious observation (EoE bomb works on the Zaishen). If you think that the observation about the Zaishen is interesting, feel free to add it back, but please don't take out the note about the Unworthy. 11:32, 3 March 2006 (CST)


 * Ah, well... for some reason, I always figured the Zaishen were like a special kind of NPC... something like Collectors and how they don't take damage from PC/Hench death. But rethinking that logic, they're more like henchmen anyways, right?  So yes, it is rather obvious - except for dummies like me.  Regardless, I didn't notice that the Unworthy note was a revert - I thought you were taking the other guy's edit and just replacing it with something new -- looking back in the history I see that's not the case.  So eh, never mind me.  69.124.143.230 12:47, 3 March 2006 (CST)


 * I think Stabber's missing the reason for the original change: there are no more unworthies. You fight Zaishen instead.  So where you once couldn't edge bomb unworthies, you can now edge bomb Zaishen.  Either the old note should go or the newer one should be put back.  --68.142.14.59 12:56, 3 March 2006 (CST)


 * OK, reverting my own edit then. 13:09, 3 March 2006 (CST)

Disillusionment
I sympathize with you; I too am reconsidering purchasing Factions. 69.124.143.230 03:43, 4 March 2006 (CST)

I'm sorry you seem so unhappy with GW and its players. I really don't think it's all about items and farming, and I really think a lot of other people would agree with me and you on that. But a lot of people like getting rich and having stuff, so ANet provides for them also. It is too bad that places end up filled with people just hunting items and doing the same repetitive things over and over again. But there really are people out there who want the challenges and the fun that comes with them, not just making cookie-cutter groups and getting everything as fast as possible. As a possible suggestion, it might be nice to break up the districts more so people can actually find the people they want to play with. I'd be happy for there to be a "Farming" district(s), so those people can go there and stop bothering me. =) I'm too lazy to really promote ideas on forums, but there it is.

For what it's worth, I'll be continuing to play Guild Wars and having fun as long as I can, and I'll certainly be in there for Factions. --JoDiamonds 03:44, 4 March 2006 (CST)


 * Oh, and Oblivion will probably be even worse than GW. That's why you should stick to Morrowind.
 * *flee* 69.124.143.230 05:49, 8 March 2006 (CST)

Lich Drop Rates
He dropped a decayed orr emblem for me today. :) --Karlos 23:31, 7 March 2006 (CST)

"Core" category crusade
Can you please put your "Skills by campaign" category crusade on hold for a bit, please? I'm writing a lenghty post about how we should handle categories on GuildWiki in future in such a way that they are actually useful, especially regarding the new campaigns. Depending on the outcome of the discussion we may have revamp your cursade. Would be a pity to do the work twice. -- 21:42, 10 March 2006 (CST)
 * OK. Let me know when I should continue and if I should revert anything. 21:43, 10 March 2006 (CST)


 * Hey Stabber, where did you get that info about the Factions skills? 69.124.143.230 04:16, 11 March 2006 (CST)


 * PvP character creation screen. All of them show up as "locked" at the moment, though. 04:18, 11 March 2006 (CST)


 * Ahhh, yes. That would make sense with the new update too -- regarding showing skills in "unavailable" state, and all.  Do the skills have descriptions with them?  I'm not about to delete one of my RP characters to see the PvP screen.  (Though I wonder if they're at any of the Priests of Balthazar?)  69.124.143.230 04:40, 11 March 2006 (CST)


 * Nope, the descriptions etc. are blacked out now. Only the skill names are visible in the "locked" state, like back during the PvP preview weekend. I can take a screenshot of it if you are really curious what it looks like. 04:42, 11 March 2006 (CST)


 * Nah, it's no big deal. Just curious.  69.124.143.230 04:47, 11 March 2006 (CST)


 * Tetris, have you finished writing your grand polemic yet? 12:49, 11 March 2006 (CST)


 * I posted it here, but nobody replied yet. :/ -- 04:06, 13 March 2006 (CST)

crusade
For what it's worth, on at least some of the notes I very intentionally used because I was copying identical text to multiple pages, making that perfect (and useful if someone else wants to copy the text to new skills in Factions or whatnot). | example. All that said, I don't care much if you or whoever hates pagename for some reason and wants it gone, just figured I'd explain the reasoning. --JoDiamonds 13:01, 11 March 2006 (CST)


 * Hmm, the word "crusade" was used in jest, as I only removed PAGENAME from one or two pages. I guess Evil Greven took up that mantle for a few more pages. I generally have no objection to PAGENAME except when it's used in the body text, for which I think you should use . Wiki syntax is arcane enough as it is without these crutches. In any case, if you want PAGENAME back in those pages, feel free to revert my edit. I'll just request that you make the use of PAGENAME consistent across the entire page, instead of replacing just one or two instances of the page name with it.  13:26, 11 March 2006 (CST)


 * Well, I did kind of. The main reason for the little crusade of sorts was all the problems we've been having, where we've been needing to re-upload skill images with the proper name to work correctly with the skill template.  Hence the 'preemptive' thingy. It's in case it is decided to simplify the boss templates in the future, and try to maintain some consistancy.  While I'm not (right now anyway) going to mess with existing images, I figured I'd stop a potential problem before it started. - Evil_Greven 13:40, 11 March 2006 (CST)

Vandal
It'd save time at the very end if we keep him busy so he doesn't spread out the damage. Otherwise we'll just spend the rest of the night finding every page he screwed up. Better to keep him isolated... but it's no big deal either way, so I'll just let it go. I was having some fun though >_> Evan The Cursed (Talk) 09:44, 13 March 2006 (CST)
 * Though at the very least we should make sure he doesn't remove his ban tag again. Which reminds me, has anybody left a message for Rainith and/or 84 -whatshisname?  Evan The Cursed (Talk) 09:45, 13 March 2006 (CST)
 * Yeah, at first he was only hitting one page; I reverted a couple times, then ignored him. When I looked again, once that page remained, he had started hitting several others. --Barek 09:46, 13 March 2006 (CST)


 * I thought he was tiring, but after about an hour I think he's getting off on it, Barek. Evan The Cursed (Talk) 09:48, 13 March 2006 (CST)


 * The problem with persistent chaps like this one is that pretty soon you have reverts everywhere and it makes the admin's job harder as they have to verify that every one of the reverts were done properly and so on. It also pollutes the article histories and the recent changes page. The only revert war worth fighting is to keep the ban request itself alive. All IMHO, of course. Thanks for both of your dilligence, by the way 09:49, 13 March 2006 (CST)


 * Aye, I seriously need a drink right now, anyways. So I'll just step out for now.  Evan The Cursed (Talk) 09:51, 13 March 2006 (CST)