GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.

Talk:Grind/Archive 1

From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

There is still a fair bit of grind, because if you want to skip the PvE and go straight to PvP, you usually end up with near zero skills. No skills = hard to earn skills.

So you'd still have to grind to earn skills for PvP.

Sure there are template characters with predefined skills available, but it is still silly to have skills locked for PvP. Especially since NCSoft/ArenaNet say "Success in Guild Wars is always the result of player skill, not time spent."

It makes sense to lock stuff for PvE, and it's probably still a good idea to lock certain arenas away from beginners or have "rank" limited arenas. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 2006-03-05 20:53:17.

Neutrality[edit source]

I don't appreciate edits to try and give a balanced argument about grinding in gw reverted. The reverter says the quest rewards mean there is even less grinding but he misses the point. In prophecies you can go through the whole game and are never forced to get to level 20, nor does it make sense to.

In factions you cannot properly play the game if you aren't 20. A team of low levels will not be able to do quests on the mainland. Level 20 groups (mostly made of ascended characters btw) will kick lower levels as theyre a liability. It is possible to do the game with henchmen but then, what is the purpose of this being an online game? -- 11:55, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

If the game was designed with level 20 players in mind, as Anet have said repeatedly, then it stands to reason that players below level 20 will not be able to progress in the game. 11:59, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
So because they say you have to be level 20 to play the game, it means getting to level 20 isn't a grind? Have you thought about new players? Anet also said factions doesn't require the ownership of prophecies... If the level 20 game is what they indeed intended then they should have made an extremelly large xp reward at the end of the island similar to ascension. -- 12:03, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
Getting to level 20 in Factions is utterly trivial. I have done it with five characters now, and I am still mostly a weekend player. Quests in Factions give insanely high XP rewards as it is. I am baffled by your claim that getting to 20 is grind tbh, but you are of course entitled to your opinion. 12:07, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
The point isn't how long it takes. It's that it is required. After I completed the monestary island I used henchmen all the way to senjis corner. And after all that I decided I needed to get to level 20 and spent several hours doing it. Not exactly trivial, would have taken even longer if I didn't get 20-30,000 points from the missions and primary quests up to senjis corner. -- 12:16, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
For what it's worth, I personally believe it was the intent of the designers that most players would be at or nearly level 20 when they left the initial island. My experience has often shown that they have missed the mark somewhat, as it's trivial to leave the first island at level 15 or lower, but also easy to be level 17 or higher (without repetition or grinding of any kind, but rather choosing to do all the quests available). It's a fine opinion to say there should have been a large reward at the end of the first island, but it's all a shade of grey opinions, to be sure. None of my characters left the start island feeling like they couldn't compete or needed to grind to get to higher levels, but I can see how some players might feel like they can't play without reaching level 20 by then. All various opinions.
I should add that it's not grind to require someone to play all the quests and missions to be on par. If you skip a lot of gameplay, it's not surprising that you will be behind the curve. Grind is repeating gameplay so you can reach (or play in) later areas, which is not required. --JoDiamonds 12:21, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
The problem is the attitudes of ascended characters. Go to the first few missions and see what happens when low levels try to join a party. Something sticks out in my mind I read this just yesterday "how the hell do lvl xxx chars get here lol". -- 12:28, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
Compared to Prophecies, where I found moderate grinding to level up, I find Factions to have far less. I was at level 18 by the time my first character hit the mainland (my second character was level 15), and a handfull of basic quests had me at 20 very quickly. Battling enemies were barely even needed, as you can take side streets around many of the groups in the initial parts of the mainland and the XP from killing creatures is really inconsequential compared to the amount of XP from quest rewards. In prophecies it took quite a while to level, as you were against low level characters; your XP is directly related to the level difference between yourself and the creature killed, and the quests had relatively minor rewards.
The earning of faction is a slightly different variant of grinding, and it should be mentioned in the article; but again the quest rewards are fairly high - it doesn't take long to acquire 10k faction. -- 12:24, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

Request for Admin review[edit source]

I have a complaint that requires admin review. I made a revert to this article, which was then re-reverted without taking it to the talk pages first (a violation of wiki policy). The history on the re-revert shows:

16:42, 11 May 2006 (reverting again if you manage to get your head out of anets ass start a discussion on talk)

Third parties then made further edits reaching a middle ground that seem appropriate to me. However, I would like an admin to review the behavior of on two issues:

  • re-reverting without taking it to the discussion page first himself (the above discussion was started due to a prod by a third party on his user page).
  • the comment made in his reversion summary that can only be described as a personal attack.

Thank you for looking into this. -- 12:06, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

Note: I have said something similar already in User talk: 12:09, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
I stand by what I said, I think your revert was based more on blind faith that anet can do no wrong than trying to be constructive and bettering the article. -- 12:36, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
I viewed your earlier edits as incorrectly biased and mostly incorrect per my comments in the above discussion that you started after the fact due to a prod on your talk page. I do agree with the current version of the article that was edited to still contain some of the content, but without the strong bias that I fealt made the original changes misleading.
However, regardless of who was correct, your behavior was wrong. Please review the policy GuildWiki:Only revert once. If you disagreed with my revert, it should have been taken to this discussion page first. The policy specifically states "If you add information to the wiki and find that it was reverted away, take your case to the article's talk page. Explain why you believe your information is good and belongs here. Complete consensus is not necessary. As long as a few others agree with you, the information should remain in the page."
I also find the insult within your reversion summary to be an entirely uncalled for personal attack, and not appropriate in any way, shape, or form. -- 12:54, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

I came across this offense in the recent changes page before seeing this. I've blocked the user for a day. I feel that is a fair punishment, if anyone else doesn't I'm more than open to hearing their opinions and reversing the block if people feel it is unfair. See also my post in User talk: --Rainith 14:23, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

Thanks Rainith. I honestly hadn't been anticipating even a 24 hour ban as it's a very minor offense. Certainly 24 hours at the most seems more than enough to just get the user's attention. I was more interrested in having someone with an admin level of authority to either get's attention to prevent a recurrence, or to tell me that I was over-reacting (or both could be applicable as well, certainly not mutually exclusive). -- 15:15, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
I disagree with this block and retaliatory blocks in general. Does this sort of administrative action have a precedent, and if not is it precedent setting? Seventy.twenty.x.x 15:19, 11 May 2006 (CDT) (Add: if the answer to either question is yes, then I'm going to have to reexamine my decision to participate here...)
It might help the rest of us if you can explain why you believe a temporary (24hr) block on someone who has made a personal attack (unless your point of contention was that it wasn't a personal attack) on another user, and whether you think nothing should've been done at all or if that user should've been warned/punished differently. -PanSola 16:14, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
I guess it would depend on your defination of "retaliatory." The vast majority (95%+) are because of some sort of vandalism. Either blanking articles, "grafitti" on articles, new "garbage" articles, etc... Is it retaliatory to block a vandal? It is, by definition a way to retaliate against them.
I don't think that this specific block is the first of its kind, but I could be wrong. From GuildWiki:Administrators:
Administrators can ban users at will. This is usually done in cases of vandalism, and permanent bans are usually reserved for spambots. However, if an administrator feels it prudent, he may remove a user from the wiki for any reason, or no reason at all. As a matter of courtesy, most administrators will not ban a user he is directly involved with; instead, he will ask another administrator to examine the situation from a neutral perspective.
Administrators can counteract other administrators, if they feel it prudent. An erroneous ban can be lifted. An erroneous delete can be restored. Typically, only a message on the talk page explaining the reason why such a countermeasure is prudent is expected in such a case. The "reverted" administrator is expected to oblige the revert, and should not reinstitute their action without discussing it with the "reverting" administrator.
Which is in part why I posted here that I am open to other opinions. In general, I feel it is very poor form to curse in the edit summary. Less so to do it in talk pages (but still bad form), and much, much more to do it in articles (i.e. don't do it in articles). And in general of late there has been an issue with reversions and insults, which is also why I acted the way that I did in order to try to nip this in the bud and give the anon user time to calm down, as his response to his edit being reverted did not seem calm at all. --Rainith 16:18, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
First of all, this has no bearing on vandalism. Ban vandals on sight and I will support it. This edit however, is different from vandalism. The objectionable comment was posted by a user clearly dissatisfied with the game (rather than with a user), and even the hotheaded comment was an invitation to a discussion. It is most definitely not a comment to be simply excused unremarked, which is why I was the first to remark on it, on this user's talk page. His response to my request to tone it down was, in entirety, "You might have a point with that." Subesequently, he did participate in a discussion in this very page, and did not continue to hold the article hostage, nor attack any other user. His offence is, thus, limited to making a hotheaded comment and not being fully aware of 1RV. This is not banworthy in my opinion. (On Wikipedia, where I come from, such blocks would be simply reverted immediately.) Seventy.twenty.x.x 16:29, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
Aside from commenting that you obviously are aware of the GW:NOT policy, you do make good complaints regarding this particular ban. Swearing is still kind of bad though, and if I have to choose between contributors leaving because we allow hotheaded swearing to go completely unpunished, vs contributors leaving because a 24 hour temp ban is placed on someone's hotheaded swearing, then we got a most unfortunate decision to make. I'm all for making GuildWiki a more friendly place to be, but I can't really say which of the two decisions makes this place more friendly. -PanSola 16:36, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
It is a worthy philosophical question. Should the purpose of administrative action be to punish, or to educate? Both views have strong arguments in their favour, and have adherents in Wikipedia (and yes, I am well aware of GW:NOT). I am obviously in the camp that prefers educating the user as to the standards of decorum. For instance, I think User: should have apologized to User:, and I do fault him (the former) for not doing it. Seventy.twenty.x.x 16:47, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
Actually what I was getting at with talking about vandalism, is that every block (unless done at random) is retaliatory. You retaliate against vandals by blocking them. So if you have an issue with retaliatory blocks, I don't know that there are many wikis that you would find to be a good fit for you.
Looking at PanSola's comment, I'm unclear of what the concensus is here. 161.88 seems ok with the block, 70.20 not and PanSola unsure. I personally am ok with it, but I'm excusing myself from the concensus. Would anyone else care to comment? --Rainith 16:50, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
Like I said, I have no objection to banning vandals. I should have been more precise in my statement earlier. I object to retaliatory (and, on reflection, I think "punitive" is better than "retaliatory") blocks placed on users who are not vandals. GW:AGF, etc. Seventy.twenty.x.x 16:54, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
Kinda hard to assume good faith when there is an insult flying around. Anyways, I'm inclined to agree that punitive reaction shouldn't be used on first-offense. However, I still think a temporary ban may be used for punishment-as-education on repeated offenses if the offending party have been reasonably educated/warned beforehand. -PanSola 16:59, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
Agreed about punishment-as-education for problem cases. Not convinced this user was one. Seventy.twenty.x.x 17:03, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
Wasn't trying to convince you this user was one. I agree this particular case is a one-time offense. -PanSola 18:16, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

If it simplifies matters any; I'm the one to whom the individuals comment was directed, and as I said above, "I honestly hadn't been anticipating even a 24 hour ban as it's a very minor offense". I was more interested in:

  • Getting this users attention that his behavior is not acceptable to hopefully prevent him from doing it again. An admin's warning carries more weight than a comment from another contributor. A short term 24 hour ban does get his attention and I won't complain, but I was really only anticipating a verbal warning from an admin to him. If you're asking for opinions, I'll actually waffle on this one and say either is acceptable to me in this case.
  • Also, as long as this had come up, I wanted to use it to again prod GW towards creating its own formal policy on personal attacks. The closest we have currently is in GW:NOT where it says "... many of our policies are the same as Wikipedia's (and pretty much all wikis). Any policies we share, but lack an actual policy article for, should be ported over here; it is bad form to link a Wikipedia policy article in support of any action, even if that policy is the same as one traditionally held by the GuildWiki."

I don't believe we need one as detailed as WP's, but we do need one. I just don't feel qualified to draft it, and would hope others who are better at such things might proposed a GW version. -- 16:55, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

So... The block is staying in place then, despite no strong support for it? Enjoy yourselves in that case. I am sure I won't be missed. Seventy.twenty.x.x 18:12, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

Huh, thought you were only leaving if this follows a precedent or is precedent-setting. *shrug* -PanSola 18:15, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
Actually after reading this it seems the concensus is to remove it, so I will. I would have done so earlier, but I got very busy here at work. As I have a couple minutes now, I'll unblock the user. --Rainith 19:40, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
I personally wasn't going to revert the ban, but I'm really glad you yourself did. —Tanaric 23:18, 11 May 2006 (CDT)