User talk:Xasxas25616711

Please feel free to discuss any edits I've made here. -- Xasxas256 02:35, 26 October 2005 (GMT)

Bow Chart
Nice work. It would help a lot if you actually put in the firing rate of those bows instead of saying "if it fires as many shots as a flat bow it's flat if it fires as many shots as a long bow it's long" post the actual numbers as well. Just a suggestion. Thanks. --Karlos 07:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I felt the comparision helps eliminate semi-systematic errors on the user side, due to reaction timing and stuff. I guess a 30-sec interval is supposed to spread that out so it becomes insignificant... -PanSola 07:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't know what semi-systematic meant but I figured it was a really good word for describing why I did it. Then I looked it up, you just made that word up didn't you PanSola :Ãž I did it like that because people's timing method might be different, ie you could time starting from when the first arrow is fired and count the number of times an arrow is launched. Or you could start timing when the character first puts an arrow into the bow and the count the number of times the arrow his the target creature. But it doesn't matter how it's timed as long as it's consistant between each bow and 30 seconds should be long enough to differentiate between the bow types.
 * Well, "semi-systematic" means halfway systematic... And system implies consistency.  The same human will tend to err in a consistent way, but not exactly in the same way, thus the errors are only "semi" systematic, as opposed to fully systematic.  So, essentially how you explained it, with the additional attention that it's a human, not machine (whose error can be considered fully systematic), doing it.  --PanSola 12:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a good suggestion though Karlos because the person may not have the appropriate bows to test with but it would still allow them to figure out what type it is. I'll mull on that for a little longer. --Xasxas256 11:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep Primary Attribute page?
In all the profession pages Elementalist, Monk, Mesmer, Necromancer, Ranger and Warrior I've now made mention of what the profession's primary attribute is (most of them didn't say) in both 1) a sentence in the description and 2) in the skills table. There's also a link to the Primary Attribute page in that description sentence.

I've had a bit more of a fish around, the Attribute page does explain what a primary attribute is but I think the Primary Attribute page is still important, people should go straight there if they search for "primary attribute", previously they just saw a page with 49 results. However now that I've written that page, it could instead just link to the Attribute page what do you guys think?

If we keep the Primary attribute page I'll also put links in the 6 primary attribute pages. Energy Storage, Fast Casting, Divine Favor, Soul Reaping, Expertise, Strength to it. If we get rid of the content and change it to redirect to the Attribute page I'll remove the links in the profession pages. --Xasxas256 11:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit these pages?
Finally I've noticed that these 5 pages Primary profession, Secondary profession, Roleplaying character creation, PvP character creation, Profession, should all mention the 3 limitations of your secondary character. Only the Secondary profession says all 3 things. It seems like a lot of repetition across articles but really all these pages deal with character creation and any time a character is being created need those 3 things need to be considered. Thoughts? Edit them or too much redundant info? --Xasxas256 11:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You can only wear Runes from your primary class
 * You can only wear Armor from your primary class
 * You can only use the primary pttribute from your primary class.