User talk:Karlos8903

If you have questions or wish to discuss anything, please leave me a note here...

Trap Notes
First, thanks for the feedback. I understand your doubts about the information, mainly because the damage is not shown for the user of the trap, because the conditions are what currently make most traps worth the skill slot and because a Bladed Aataxe does die against a trapper farming group but, after all, when you notice it, what's the point of using a "weak" trap that would never deal more than 30 damage (against warriors it's around 5-10 damage) with a number around 60 written on the description? I've also added this test to Talk:Trap

Test Information:

Trap User: Eric Danie, R/W20, 14 WS and 11 BM.

"Sand Bag": Arkafan the Monk, Mo/Me20. Phase 1 with Wanderer's Set (60 armor against physical damage); Phase 2 without any armor (0 armor against physical damage).

Traps Used (damage in description, type): Viper's Nest (38 piercing), Barbed Trap (62 piercing), Spike Trap (64 piercing), Flame Trap (29 fire), Dust Trap (24).

Test Pictures:

Test Conclusions:

- Those pictures show that Spike, Barbed and Flame Traps deal their full damage only against foes with 0 armor (the "weak" traps). - Those pictures show that Viper's Nest deal their full damage against foes with 60 armor (the "normal" traps). - Those pictures show that Dust Trap deal their full damage ignoring the armor (the "ignoring" traps). Ericdanie 17:16, 1 October 2006 (CDT)

Aftercast
Could you not start changing things again? The first time there wasn't even discussion, this time it's still being discussed. I replied before you made the two more than two (between typing this and remembering to save) changes so far. I request you revert your own changes, if only temporarily. --Fyren 19:35, 4 October 2006 (CDT)


 * You answered on the talk page saying that you opposed any change that did not have "aftercast" in the main title. The porposal by Merengue seems to satisfy both your concern and mine. Since you choose not to comment on that proposal, but stated your strong opposition for the others, I assumed you were Okay with it. Was that the wrong assumption? --Karlos 19:45, 4 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Yes. I said named "aftercast," with the quotes, not contains.  I'm willing to wait another day for any other comments and then acquiesce to naming it "aftercast delay" if no one says anything.  --Fyren 20:08, 4 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Wait, so you strongly oppose anything other than "aftercast"? Hmmm, that's a little hard to work around. What about the fact that it's an incorrect usage of language structure? You have yet to even address that issue, even though it has been shown by Barek that there are other sentients on the planet who do not fall into your claim that 100% of the player base use "aftercast" as the only term for that phenomenon. --Karlos 20:56, 4 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Barek offered that his guildmates seem to use cooldown, but as I reponded there, there are no such uses of cooldown in the first 100 Google results. I'm not bored enough to sift through more.  I'd very much prefer "aftercast" to "aftercast delay" because even though the latter uses the same term, simply since it's more wordy people aren't going to use it as often.  As for language, someone else went off on a tangent that was essentially about descriptive versus prescriptive language use.  Linguistics is one of my side interests and I'm definitely in the descriptive camp.  --Fyren 00:26, 5 October 2006 (CDT)

Man this is huge :)
Hey, Karlos, you have 52 (this makes 53 :P) sections in your talk page and it hasn't been archived for around 5 months. you might want to consider doing so as its getting HUGE :) Just my two cents.&mdash;  Azroth    22:19, 4 October 2006 (CDT) Even Skuld Archived his giant talk page :P


 * Thanks. I've been meaning to clean it up, was just waiting for september thread to die out. --Karlos 22:36, 4 October 2006 (CDT)

remove stubing?
Hi, i have been editing the attribute pages for Rt, A, W and R to fit a format as the others do. I was just wondering if anything else needs to added/changed to remove the stub status on most of them. Xeon 03:51, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

Duped discussion?
Hey. Your post on Talk:W/any Utility Warrior resulted in the discussion being duped. I did my best to fix it (kind of hairy since I also had an edit conflict I was trying to resolve at the time). Please take a moment to look over the page and make sure I didn't delete any of your post while I was trying clumsily to fix things. Sorry if I broke anything. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * *reads your posting* Good decision, by the way. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Looks good, sorry about that. --Karlos 22:53, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

Block log
I mentioned it earlier, but does the block log look right to you? Three of your unblocks show as numbers. --Fyren 08:06, 10 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Oh, I forgot to answer you in-game, sorry about that. I believe these are some kind of "Auto-block" that takes place which blocks the IPS of the users and not just the user. I did these unblocks manually.
 * Basically, I saw that the most recent blocks Skuld did all had entries above them saying "Auto-block #NNNN something something User:Zeni, reason for blocking: ...." and it would list Skuld's reason for blocking Zeni. When I unblocked Zeni the first time, it did not work for him. I had to unblock his IP as well from that line. Then he could post.
 * I am not sure if this is a new feature or what. But today is the first time I see it. The blocking of IPs seems to be separated from the blocking of users and both need to be unblocked together to make a user be able to edit again. --Karlos 08:17, 10 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Weird. I just tried it now, and it did not work either on blocking Xasxas or Zeni. Maybe it's some bots that kicks in after a while or something? Because I recall that Skuld's blocks all preceded the auto-blocks. As if the auto-blocks did not take place at the same time as the manual blocks. I would test it further, but I'd have to block someone for real which is not nice. --Karlos 08:27, 10 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Maby it autoblocks any IPs taht try to log in with that user name? Or something... --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2006 (CDT)

Doesn\'t Onlyashadow also deserve an unblock since the conditions in his blocking are the same as the user & friends you have unblocked?-66.90.118.96 09:19, 10 October 2006 (CDT)


 * The evidence in that issue goes beyond mere timing. Check it out. --Karlos 09:24, 10 October 2006 (CDT)


 * On the back slashes, I tested a java proxy site yesterday and its those sites which replace all apostrophes with slashes and apostrophes &mdash; Skuld 09:30, 10 October 2006 (CDT)


 * *looks at Karlos' link and other records* Please tell me that guy got a substantial ban. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2006 (CDT)

Question about reverting
Is there a special trick to reverting, like a certain button in the history or something, or is it a simple c&p-then-edit? Also, is there a template for the summary ("Reverted edit(s) of A, changed back to last version by B") or do you guys always type that out by hand? Thanks. RolandOfGilead 16:31, 11 October 2006 (CDT)
 * If you go into the history, then click on the date of the version you want to role back to, and then go into edit and just click save it will revert the page.&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]] 16:43, 11 October 2006 (CDT)
 * When you do this and go into edit this warning will pop up: "WARNING: You are editing an out-of-date revision of this page. If you save it, any changes made since this revision will be lost.". This lets you know that saving the page will revert it back to the version you are editing.&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]]  16:45, 11 October 2006 (CDT)
 * The message "Reverted edit(s) of A, changed back to last version by B" is automatically generated for admins. Admins have a "Rollback" option that makes for a one-click revert. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:00, 11 October 2006 (CDT)

Life Barrier update
Hi. I noticed a major mistake on the page for the skill Life Barrier, where it says that you should cast certain skills first when using the skill. I posted proof to the contrary on the discussion page, but nobody has responded. Should I just go ahead and change the main page to how it should be? I've got proof and stuff to back it up...thank for any assistance! ~Avatarian 86 16:56, 11 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I have responded in the Skill's talk page. I'll clean up the remarks a bit. --Karlos 23:25, 11 October 2006 (CDT)

K, taking the discussion over to the life barrier talk page. On a side note, something appears to be messed up with my connection from home. It won't keep me logged in, and anytime I make a post, it says that it can't complete it because of a loss of session data... any ideas? ~Avatarian 86 19:39, 14 October 2006 (CDT)


 * See Software and technical issues/Bugs. --Rainith 19:41, 14 October 2006 (CDT)

Tanks Dieing in UW
You're telling me that never, not even once, you died in the UW because you didn't see a dieing nightmare? A tank can die in the UW and does. This is the single greatest attribute of the Spirit Bonder. No matter the DP, a Spirit Bonder can always tank regardless. For this reason, the 605/Smite team should have it in it's description. I'm not starting a revert war since this can be solved easily by talking, but the point still stands. Tanks die in the UW all the time and the capabilities of a secondary monk to keep reviving a Spirit Bonder in the event that he does not activate Spell Breaker at the proper time (e.g., a nightmare pops up) and ressurect the tank back to a safe distance gives it distinct advantages that should be noted. Things like this are critical for a safe farm. Critical. As a 55 or SB in a 55/SS team, I missed Spell Breaker once or twice, and that was it. We were fried. As a Spirit Bonder in a 605/Smite team, I missed Spell Breaker once or twice, got rebirthed, and was ready to rock. This build has clear advantages that should be noted in the spirit bonding guide! --Mgrinshpon 07:34, 15 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Umm, if you read the guide, it did say that a spirit bonder can be resurrected with regular res and it did say that that was an advantage of spirit bonders. Why is it necessary to bash SS necros in the "related articles" section? I don't understand. That Spiritbonders can be rezzed with Rebirth while 55 monks can't is an advantage of Spiritbonders over 55 monks, it's not an advantage of smiters over SS necros. You're mixing apples and oranges.
 * If you want to mention in the Team - 605/Smite article why it can be considered more efficient than 55/SS or 605/SS, then fine, but be aware that it would be a subjective evaluation subject to other users editing it.
 * Finally, yes, if you are doing a UW farming run and you are the tank and you die more than once, then generally, you suck as a tank. Even once is usually due to error or poor execution. When I 55 in the UW, I seldom give the initiative to the nightmares, and I run my own build where I have SB and an interrupt, so I am NEVER (theoritically at least) in danger of being Rended by a nightmare. This is my expectation of a tank in any setting... A tank who is expected to die a few times is not really a good tank. Most of the time, the aggro will switch to the Smiter once the tank dies and 75% of the time, he will be toast too. Also, even a Spiritbonder loses effectiveness with deaths. So, yeah... You're not supposed to die in the UW.
 * In the end though, this is about that article, not dying in the UW while tanking. That comment and refuation of the SS necro had no place in the guide. --Karlos 08:15, 15 October 2006 (CDT)

Just a note
Category:Running builds, Category:RA builds. Nothing about solo-farming bosses yet, but there is Category:Farming builds. --Xeeron 07:03, 18 October 2006 (CDT)


 * That proves that I have not looked at the Builds portal in over two months. Which is true. :) That is how disenchanted I am with the whole process. :) Thanks for the tip. Are all builds in "tested" categorized under these? i.e. if I brose the categories, am I sure that I am not missing anything? --Karlos 08:04, 18 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Well almost. In theory, all tested builds should be in one of those categories, and only they should be there. In practise it might be possible that some tested builds are not in any category (but I doubt that is the case for many) and some untested builds are in the categories as well (unfortunatelty there are a few more of these cases). But in general, the categories have come a long way, the bigger part of builds is now correctly categorised. --Xeeron 10:14, 18 October 2006 (CDT)