GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.
Shouldn't it be noted somewhere that Drakes move a lot faster then normal? --Progger 16:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Dragon[edit source]
As I work through the species articles I gotta challenge the separation of Drake (Species) from Dragon once again. I don't like the current wording: "Unlike Dragons however, Drakes are more bestial and are not as intelligent as their gigantic cousins." Bestial? Drakes are not exactly dumb, considering they use powerful magic too. Sure, Glint stands out by her much superior intelligence and magic power, but I think she is still a Drake by species. She drops a type of Drake Crests as indication. Think of it this way: If a human gained access to extremely strong magic and would grow to almost divine power, would he still be a human by species? I think so. And thus I think we should dump Dragon and merge it with Drake (Species).
Note: See also Talk:Dragon#Drakes and Bone Dragons -- 05:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Before the info for Factions came out, I was thinking that Dragon should be deleted. Currently really all we have is Glint (the Facets IMO are more Elemental/Golem than dragon). But with the screenshots of Factions we see that there is at least one more dragon coming up. This one is more of an "eastern style" dragon than Glint's "western style" dragon, but there will be now multiple dragons. Until Factions comes out (or at least until we know more about it) to see if there is just one new dragon (a unique creature like Glint), or if there are multiple ones. Until then, I think the Dragon article should just lay fallow. Drake should be re-written to omit mention of dragons and just talk about drakes themselves. --Rainith 11:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Good point. We've heard about Kuunavang who is supposed to be a "corrupt dragon lord" and we've even seen screenshots. I wonder how ANet will handle this. Maybe the Chinese-style Dragons in Chapter 2 will drop some kind of Drake Crests too, which would indicate that they are the same species as Drakes. But that's all speculation for now. We'll have to wait to find out.
- For now, please have a look at the text of Drake, as I have rewritten much of it. Especially check the note about Dragons. Can everybody live with that wording? -- 11:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Uhm ... Rainith, you just removed all references to "Dragon" completely from the Drake article. I don't think that is a good solution, because the connection between the two is so obvious that you can't ignore it. I'd estimate that at least 4 out of 5 GuildWars players use "Dragon" as an equivalent term for "Drake". Thus we should respond to this fact.
- I think the wording that I used was rather "fuzzy", so that I hope it could serve as a temporary solution that everybody could live with, at least until Factions comes out. -- 11:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- So far as I can tell Tetris, you're about the only one who sees that. First off with the drops we have concluded that they are not all encompassing, some drops are not species specific. And the part about 4 out of 5 players using dragon instead of drake.... So what? Does that make them right? If you talked to a lot of people before one of the recent updates they insisted that all runes stacked. I cannot count the number of times I told people that they didn't and that they should check their stats to see that I was right. Hoping and wishing does not make something true.
- If you get a Drakeslaying mod for an item and take it to Glint and find that it does extra damage to her, then I will agree with you that Drakes and Dragons in GW are the same, until then, they should remain seperate and their species pages don't need to mention each other at all. --Rainith 12:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Now that we have Dragonslaying mods we can actually test it. -- Gordon Ecker 23:15, 2 June 2006 (CDT)
- Which I just did (see here). Creatures to which the damage bonus applies are: Sand Drake, Lightning Drake and Bonesnap Turtle. No damage bonus applies to: Bone Dragon, Dragon Moss, Dragon Lilly and the Facet of Light. That's all I tested so far. I know some of them have their species already verified, but additional confirmation can't be bad, can it? ;) I intend to try Glint herself, too, but it may take a while till I feel like it. For now I suggest to make Category:Drakes a subcategory of Category:Dragons. --84-175 (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2006 (CDT)
- Here come the brand hot news: Glint is a dragon! :) I confirmed using my dragonslaying sword that the game mechanics indeed recognize Glint as a dragon. Which is in so far remarkable as her facets (or at least the first one, forgot to test the others on my way there) are no dragons (see above). But I think I remember them dropping Forgotten Seals, so underneath the model the game probably uses forgotten ones as template. --84-175 (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2006 (CDT)
- "Note: Drakes are inspired by "European" Dragons and hence are sometimes also called "Dragons". However, in GuildWars the term "Dragon", as the name of a species, is reserved for the "Asian" Dragons of the Factions campaign." -- Tetris, I do not believe the intent of the designers was to classify "European" looking dragons as Drakes and "Asian" dragons as Dragons. I believe the reason that the Prophecies giant reptiles are considered Drakes is because they have no wings! Glint is a true dragon, and she is winged unlike all of the drakes in the Prophecies campaign. -User:Ctran
Ice Drakes[edit source]
The article currently says: "Like all reptiles, Drakes are cold-blooded and cannot be found in the colder climate areas of the game like the Shiverpeak Mountains." I will leave this away when I rewrite the article, because it is wrong. There are "Ice Drakes" in the Shiverpeaks. Whiskar Featherstorm is labeled such. Also, Dagnar Stonepate is riding one. -- 06:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- On a side note, the Prima Guide lists a "Summit Drake", but ... (should I say: as usual) ... this info is false. -- 08:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey! add footnotes where necessary.[edit source]
- are not undead. *)
What in the world is this asterisk for? where's the footnote that this is supposed to point to? -Kingrames