GuildWiki

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

READ MORE

GuildWiki
(→‎Request for Admin review: - I should've hit preview ...)
Line 42: Line 42:
 
::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. --[[User:129.11.127.186|129.11.127.186]] 12:36, 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. --[[User:129.11.127.186|129.11.127.186]] 12:36, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
   
:::I viewed your earlier edits as incorrectly biased and per my comments in the above discussion that you started after the fact due to a prod on your talk page, mostly incorrect. 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.
+
:::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.''"
 
:::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. --[[User:161.88.255.140|161.88.255.140]] 12:54, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
 
:::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. --[[User:161.88.255.140|161.88.255.140]] 12:54, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

Revision as of 18:05, 11 May 2006

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 219.94.82.15 (contribs) 2006-03-05 20:53:17.


Neutrality

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? --129.11.127.186 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. 70.20.64.187 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. --129.11.127.186 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. 70.20.64.187 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. --129.11.127.186 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". --129.11.127.186 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. --161.88.255.140 12:24, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

Request for Admin review

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 129.11.127.186 (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 129.11.127.186 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. --161.88.255.140 12:06, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

Note: I have said something similar already in User talk:129.11.127.186. 70.20.64.187 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. --129.11.127.186 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. --161.88.255.140 12:54, 11 May 2006 (CDT)