Archive:GuildWiki/User talk:Tanaric/Archives2

From Complaint Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Recent archiving[edit]

I archived most of this page today. The half that was relavent to me went to User talk:Tanaric/Archives. The half that wasn't went to GuildWiki:Request assistance/Archive 1. —Tanaric 12:08, 26 September 2006 (CDT)


"GameWikis Community Relations Manager" - hehe, I love you Tanaric! Although I would have thought "votes" would have been somewhere in the list of things you hate ;) <LordBiro>/<Talk> 16:31, 26 September 2006 (CDT)

Fixed—thanks for pointing that out. :) —Tanaric 17:43, 26 September 2006 (CDT)
Just read the re-write, don't know that I ever read the original/previous version, so this may be old but, I love the fact that you have a .plan.  :) Now if I could just figure out how to work the finger command on the wiki.  :P --Rainith 21:27, 26 September 2006 (CDT)

I'm not saying the bad word again...[edit]

...but could you do a little IP checkup on User:Zeni, User:PinkTaco, User:BoneDragon, User:42 Ele Esme and User:NMX112? They've been acting strange over at Template:DeletedLink if you know what I mean... ~ Nilles (chat) 20:58, 8 October 2006 (CDT)

If one of us had shell access, we could install and use CheckUser. We'd have to decide on a privacy policy regarding IP addresses first, probably. --Fyren 21:31, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
Yeah, I was made aware of this in-game. Most are "one-hit wonders", save one. The 2 hour timeframe in which all these contribs were made also leans in the direction of curiousity. Adding to what Fyren stated, only server admins have access to registered user's IPs. There are some ethicical issues involved in registered users cases (Big brother is watching you). I know we do all it when it comes to anons, but I see it as they forfeit any rights to privacy since they are not registered, and the majority are not subject to question, so it usually doesn't matter. This case, however, does seem a bit unorthodox. — Gares 22:46, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
I usually wouldn't say or imply anything like I just did. It's just that in our current situation we've got quite a number of votes for the first edits. I just want to make sure that these votes came from seperate persons, his guildies for example. ~ Nilles (chat) 03:15, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
I don't think it's relevant if they're all different people or not. Having a bunch of one-shot guildmembers come in to approve your build isn't any better or worse than making a bunch of accounts yourself. I'd consider all five as a single vote. —Tanaric 06:17, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
I should be more precise. I'm not stating that you should consider them as a single vote, but only that I would. I'm not getting involved in another builds voting argument, as it always tends to make me look like an antiwiki dictator. I neither command nor suggest any course of action. As Fyren said, I am unable to look up the IPs, per your request. —Tanaric 06:32, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
But what should we do then? Should I revoke the votes by claiming socketpuppetry? I really don't want to start a dispute about the rightfulness of the votes in question, that wouldn't benefit the voting process of the build. ~ Nilles (chat) 08:54, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
On a related note, this sort of manipulation seems to be getting more and more prevalent in the builds section. I think we need a formalised policy for checking IPs and destroying malicious puppets while at the same time preserving the privacy of the wiki's users. I'm no admin but I feel this would be a good step forward, and since the build-voting discussion is on I think we should sort this out now as free-for-all puppet voting renders any sort of voting discussion moot. Kessel 09:56, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
IP scanning is not gonna solve anything. Google for "anonymous surfing" or "public proxy" and you've got plenty of proxy IPs at your disposal. ~ Nilles (chat) 10:18, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

Well, for a start, do we block the IPs listed under Wikipedia's proxy list? Kessel 10:39, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

Currently, we don't. (Nilles) 10:52, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
[1] it replaced all the apostrophes :/ word does that to html i think — Skuld 10:59, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
Replacing the apostrophes is a mistake of the software of the proxy page. It's meant to prevent the text from screwing up the page's code, a kind of hacking countermeasure if you want. ~ Nilles (chat) 11:05, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

I think an admin is needed here: Template:DeletedLink. He asked his guildies to "test" his build, and they were more than happy to help. --Vazze 12:05, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

After a second look to both pages, I rescind my advice to discount the one-shot account votes. Because the negative votes in Template:DeletedLink are generally unsubstantiated, and because the positive votegivers repeatedly give acceptable examples as to why the build is good, with no response from the negative people, I'd imagine this build actually does belong in testing.

I fought against GuildWiki builds, and was shot down. I fought against voting being the only requisite for build favoring, and was again shot down. It was obvious to me what a vote-heavy policy would eventually lead to, and judging from these two pages, I was right. I won't argue that the process isn't working for the rest of the builds—I'm not good enough at Guild Wars to judge for myself.

Other editors/admins are welcome to step in, but I, for one, will not. I'm tired of the constant irrational arguments from a selection of those supporting builds on the wiki in its current form. You made the mess, you clean it up. If no solution bubbles up via discussion, I'll eventually step in and enforce my own policy, regardless of the support of the community. Half of the builds people will ragequit, and work on a GuildWiki fork / reconstitution (like Stabber's doing on Wikia).

Please don't let it get to that point. Some random build suggestions for the Builds community to consider:

  • Consider requiring all votes to be substantiated by in-game testing under the situation the build is meant to cover.
  • Because the above requirement is impossible to verify or enforce, consider electing a committee of trusted editors who are known to always test builds before giving their opinion.
  • Consider striking out all votes that are not substantiated/discussed when arguments come up on the talk page. In terms of Template:DeletedLink, this would result in an overwhelming majority for favored.
  • Consider a policy on sock/meatpuppets. You currently don't have one. I'm not writing one, as I don't see the enforcibility, and, to be blunt, in this case, meatpuppets might be the only thing that allow Template:DeletedLink to end up in the proper category.
  • Consider forking builds to a seperate website that's better suited for subjective material. I don't understand why guilds on the wiki is taboo but builds on the wiki is essential.
  • Consider an immediate deletion policy for crappy builds, to keep the cruft down.

I've made most of these suggestions before. I never want to discuss builds again.

Tanaric 15:59, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

Besides in rare cases, I'm still pretending all the build articles don't exist. --Fyren 17:14, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
Heh, some other admins have dreamt of murdering me for introducing builds before (thought I am to tired to dig up the link right now). Pretending they don't exist is non-radical in comparison ;-) --Xeeron 17:47, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

Regarding the suggestions: Apart from the sockpuppet one, they have all been discussed. In game testing is recommended, Template:DeletedLink is in line with the last one, the other three did not really get much support.

Sockpuppetry should be dealt with on a wiki wide basis (not just builds), but I remember that there was a very pronounced lack of enthusiasm *especially* from all admins when the issue was brought up after/during the stabber incident (check GuildWiki talk:Sock puppetry). I dont see how any decision about sockpuppetry could be made without comments by almost the entire base of old users. support from most of the old userbase. --Xeeron 17:47, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

I've stepped in from time to time to add comments on the builds discussion; but for the most part, I avoid the issue and just monitor builds for obvious issues. My primary comments from some time ago still stand - voting on a wiki is problematic at best. There is no automated means available at this time to deal with all of the proxy / TOR connections (even Wikipedia appears to use a manual, or at best semi-automated process), and I don't see a practical way to manage them on a wiki this size without automation. Even if proxies and TOR nodes are resolved, we mere mortals have no access to view the IPs behind the user accounts. As long as these issues remain unresolved, there will be no means of having a reliable voting process open to all users. As a result, I see no means to maintain builds in a wiki without imposing very un-wiki-like rules onto the process.
I've suggested in the past that the wiki should out-source all builds except the commonly used FOTM build articles into some secondary non-wiki based software; be it forum software, pre-packaged website design software, or a semi-custom package. I seriously doubt this will be done within the Gamewikis domain, but I feel that a partnership could be developed between here and whatever other site/software is used. Given the difficulties in implementing a build/voting policy here, I'm more and more frequently thinking that solution would be the best unless those involved can find another solution soon. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:48, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
I guess hardly anyone can be more frustrated with the lack of a builds policy than I am, but still, I stand by what I said in my recent post on the community portal: The benefits of the builds section outweight the drawbacks. If you take a look at the number of wiki links used on a typical build page, any outsourcing would be hugely inefficient. --Xeeron 17:57, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
I disagree. Any inefficiencies would exist in the other site, and could easilly be dealt with via a macro or other encoding to simply links to the wiki (much as links to wikipedia are simplified by using [[Wikipedia:target article name]], so would the other package link into the wiki with a GW: prefix to simplify the links). As for benefits - it's only a benefit to the wiki if a working process can be developed, and after seeing the many failed attempts I have serious doubts on that being possible within a wiki structure. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:06, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
I disagree with your disagreement ;-)
The benefit you are thinking about is the benefit to the editors of the wiki, but checking the page views, the wiki build's benefit to the users can not be doubted. And in the end, this wiki should be for the users. For the inefficiencies: There might be some way to practically make a one-way inclusion of the wiki, but I dont see the difference to the state now (plus having 2 sites instead of one), except that editors here would not have to "dirty their hands" with builds. --Xeeron 18:18, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
I disagree with your disagreement to my disagreement (and I'm developing a headache).
I am solely talking about benefits to the user from outsourcing, although an admin benefit would certainly also exist. The builds section does get a lot of traffic, but the quality, variety, and originality of the builds in it are greatly restricted due to the lack of policy. Far more new builds get submitted than what our existing practices can process - resulting in the user either needing to ignore the tested builds, or needing to wade through a lot of muck to get to the builds they want. Due to the problems with voting in a wiki environment and the un-wiki-like solutions that will need to be implemented here to force a build solution to work, I honestly believe that a builds section can be more easilly maintained in a non-wiki based solution. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:32, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
I am in favor of outsourcing the builds section. I don't claim we could make builds of any higher quality, but with computer-aided voting utilities and proper mangement tools, we could manage far more builds than we do now. Especially in regard to what a build in question is meant to accomplish. Of course, it would have drawbacks of its own, but maybe we could start designing the build wiki and see how far we get. If we manage to find a design we can agree on, developing it isn't such a big step any more. ~ Nilles (chat) 18:19, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
I'll say this again... Empower a few admins/users with the ability to single-handedly move builds. Otherwise this spaghetti will keep getting more and more tangled up.
I am very grateful to Xeeron for developing the Profession tag at the beginning of build articles... It allows me to skip them faster in recent changes. :)
Seriously though, I don't think the build section is evil, however, I think it needs more, not less, management and that management should not be management of the PEOPLE in the build process, but of the articles themselves. --Karlos 21:48, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
I didn't intend to say that my suggestions had never been considered. I was just making my points clear before I could shut up about it. To clarify, though, when I said builds should be moved off the GuildWiki, I did not intend to imply that they should be moved to another wiki. —Tanaric 23:18, 9 October 2006 (CDT)


Because wikis don't have trackbacks,


Heya, not a fifty five here, for some reason my account just cannot be used O.O. I keep getting this message in red every time I try to make an edit :( I've seen this on some other admin's page and that it happened to someone else quite recently as well. Anyways I'll prolly get it again as an anon we'll see :)

What message are you getting? I was getting one similar to those mentioned at GuildWiki:Software_and_technical_issues/Bugs this morning; but for me it started working again within the last hour or two. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:03, 13 October 2006 (CDT)
I was getting the same thing all day yesterday, but it seems to be fixed now... — User:Kyrasantae kyrasantae 16:05, 13 October 2006 (CDT)
Yup its that one, the sorry cant process blah blah. Its working again for me just now lol (Not a fifty five 16:44, 13 October 2006 (CDT))
Gravewit fixed it this afternoon. —Tanaric 20:17, 13 October 2006 (CDT)


You're from Frederick? Bro, I'm from Hagerstown. Lol. That's awesome! MD'rs unite! I'm a Junior at HCC. :P — Jyro X 25px (contribs) 23:18, 15 October 2006 (CDT)

That's cool, I've got some good friends from Hagerstown. Though, admittedly, I'm not really from Frederick. I just live here now while attending Hood College (I'm a senior). Previously, I've lived in Stuttgart Germany, Heidelberg Germany, London England, North East MD, Aberdeen MD, Great Falls MT, Rapid City SD, Atwater CA, and Gwinn MI. :) —Tanaric 01:44, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
Awesome lol. I need to host a GW convention or something sometime for all the New Englanders. — Jyro X 25px (contribs) 15:24, 16 October 2006 (CDT)

Plea for help: how not to be poor in Guild Wars[edit]

I thought my Windows partition was permanently fubar, but apparently it's workable. I'm waiting for Guild Wars to patch right now. I want to play a little -- the editing I've done this weekend has put me in the mood. :P

I'm broke, though, and I hate being broke. I've been reading the wiki to figure out a good farming strategy for a warrior primary. I'm thinking I'll farm Root Behemoths for a Totem Axe, and then use that build to farm trolls for a while.

However, I can totally accept if you tell me that this is a bad idea, provided you give me a replacement.

Tanaric 03:19, 16 October 2006 (CDT)

Have you ever tried the running business? Running can be a great money maker if you are good and can avoid scammers. The Drok's run is one of the best money maker runs for somone who the customers don't know, but if you want to make money from other runs too, you need to make yourself well known. We started the Running Rangers for that reason only: To make people trust us and know us. Now they pay us many times the price that they pay for a normal runner and they pay before the run so there is no possibility for them to scam.
What comes to farming, I am almost clueless. 'Farming' the Underworld with a 55hp/Spirit Bonder + SS necro is fun and makes good profit, while trapping the UW is fun but slower. Farming in the Fissure of Woe with a solo ranger or warrior seems to be profitable too, so you might want to try that as you have a warr. (Otherwise I have no clue of your primaries)
I hope I could help. :) --Image:Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
Thanks, Gem! All I have is the one lonely warrior, so he'll have to do. I'm not too confident in my running skills, so that's out, but I'll look into the Fissure of Woe; I've actually never been there. —Tanaric 03:59, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
Dang, I wrote all this stuff then got an edit conflict which ruled out a whole lotta professions I'd written about :P I know Totem Axe farming can be done with a Warrior (see Template:DeletedLink). But running is good, you don't have to worry about finding a buyer for the item. Even running people to early areas (Yak's, Beacon's, Lion's) can make a little bit of money and it's easy and more fun than farming :) FoW/UW farming is a gutsy way to get back into it though :) --Xasxas256 04:09, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
I believe farming trolls is easier than farming behemoths. I am pleased to see you actually aware of what a Totem Axe is. :) I also know that you can farm the kirin and undergrowths outside Maatu Keep in Cantha fairly easily with a wammo. Overall though, if the game itself does not bore you... Grab some henchies and head out into medium/high-level areas and just kill everything (Crystal Desert and onward). This makes you a good 3-5k in drops in about an hour's work. Also, Faction farming on the Kurzick side (like Template:DeletedLink) makes you 3.75k in 45 minutes to an hour. And if you just need cash to buy that Fungal Wallow minipet, I'll be glad to lend you. :P --Karlos 04:13, 16 October 2006 (CDT)

3 conflicts plus captcha interrogations ftl! Farming the fissure shore with a warrior is an idea, shards go for about 3-4k each and you'll usually get 1-4 per run. Check this thread on guru [2]Skuld 04:15, 16 October 2006 (CDT)

I'm not sure about farming the Totem Axe. Problem is, you need a buyer and Totem Axes aren't that high in demand anymore (what with the recent 3x green event and Rajazan's Fervor being so easily soloable). Farming FoW was already mentioned. It's quite profitable, but probably not the best place to start farming because of the 1k entry fee (you'll probably fail a couple of times in the beginning until you work it out). You don't have Factions, do you? If you had, I'd recommend Vermin. Easy as pie with a W/Mo. Chances for good drops are quite low, but you can make some money quickly. Hmm, there aren't too many decent farming places left for a Warrior in Tyria. Well, basically, with the right build, you can go almost anywhere where there's a monoculture of monsters. I've been doing Maguuma Spiders in The Falls and Reed Bog and Hydras around Augury Rock for some time. It's kinda slow going and not overly profitable, though. (Ye, edid conflict galore!) --84-175 (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
You can make some money running around the Crystal Desert, none of the run are all that hard and depending on what time of day it is, it can be not too hard to get a bunch of people to run. --Xasxas256 04:30, 16 October 2006 (CDT)

In terms of difficulty (and usually money as well), I'd rank money making like this, from easy/less money to hard/much money:

  1. Running Ascalon trips: You can usually do that without any skills on, still makes a bit of money
  2. Farming physical damage mobs (eg Trolls, many others): Take any of the working farming builds on here, go there slay them. Biggest problem: Boring as hell
  3. Running desert: Harder than ascalon, much easier than shiverpeaks
  4. The Deep: Might be a bit troublesome with unexperienced groups, but the money is good (unless you open chests!)
  5. Running southern shiverpeaks: A bit of a challenge, but nothing to hard. Money is good, though getting scammed might be a big minus
  6. Underworld/fisure farming: As a solo warrior, this can be quite hard/risky. But the drops are best

Of course my prefered method of getting money is simply playing the normal missions a lot and sticking to cheap armor ... --Xeeron 04:48, 16 October 2006 (CDT)

Tried being a Deep tank? It's pretty fun if you have a real group and you get these little spikes of 70-80k now and then. Not the most profitable thing every but it is a social event, and about as tactically intersting as PVE play gets... which is to say not very, but a bit. (And when it gets boring, reduce your team size. I did nine-man runs for the longest time. Stopped when it started eating too much of my time and I no longer needed the cash. My buddies tell me they've got it down to six nowadays.) — 130.58 (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2006 (CDT)

It's possible to make money from PvP if you play Alliance Battles, but you need Factions for that and I'm not sure if you have it or not. You get either Kurzick faction or Luxon faction (as opposed to Balthazar faction) which you can spend on rare crafting materials and sell. If you like Alliance Battles then it's very handy :) <LordBiro>/<Talk> 08:25, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
Look at all the helpful suggestions. I guess I can't sit around and say nothing. You don't list your classes, so it makes it a bit harder to make suggestions. To add to what others have stated...
  1. If you get enough money and like buying and selling, you can always buy things low and sell them high. It's tedious and sometimes takes a while, but you can make some coin.
  2. Buying keys are a win/lose situation. I, personally, wouldn't buy keys until you have a comfortable amount in your pocket.
  1. You can solo UW. I use a Me/Mo and can go through the Aataks, Smite Crawlers, and Terrorweb Dryders.
  2. W/Me Spider Farmer or R/Me Forest farmer in FoW.
  1. Get a group for SF. The new thing seems to be B/P groups doing questless, but there are still Oro and FA groups. Monk, Ranger, Warrior, and Necro can find a group there.
  2. Troll farming, it is still steady money making.
  1. There are a lot of bosses that can be farmed solo. However, with this past weekend, prices have dropped considerably.
  2. Elite Missions. IMO, they take too long for the potential gain you receive, unless you get a green. Certain greens are still worth a bit, but getting harder to sell.
  3. Certain areas are quite farmable, such as Rhea's Crater, Pongmei Valley, Nahpui Quarter, and any place with Jade Brotherhood or Am Fah, but require different builds. I use a W/any for Rhea's Crater and Pongmei Valley, and a SB/PS mesmer for Jade Brotherhood, Am Fah, and Nahpui Quarter (sometimes a 55 mesmer for the Jade). I, personally, like Rhea's Crater for the occasional Jade Sword drop.
Anyways, goodluck. — Gares 09:32, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
Gares, he did mention he only has a warrior. Also, I would like to note that soloing FoW with a warrior and soloing UW with a mesmer are fairly slow ways of making money. They require skill, the entry fee is high and the risk of failure is not small. Compared to a 3 minute run in Pongmei in whic you kill everything make heaps of gold and get drops too, it's actually less feasible. The dynamic completely changes ofr a 2 man team in which you kill much faster, get a lot more shards and survive better. I would certainly not recommend soloing either FoW or UW as a way of making fast cash, and certainly not to a noob like Tanaric. :) --Karlos 19:48, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
I totally missed the part about the warrior. Give Tanaric a little credit about his skill. :P
UW and FoW solo I don't find very challenging and not that deadly, unless you are attempting them with your eyes closed (Warning: Do not attempt). UW solo is a little slow and I don't see a W/- soloing it off the top of my head, but Spider farming takes like 20 minutes. Like Pongmei Valley, you'll get gold and 30-50g item drops, but you also have the chance at rare materials and equipment that can lead to some serious cash. Either Core location would not be "farming all the time" places anyway, especially in America, so you're not going to spend a Saturday in them. But I'm like Tanaric, I didn't like being broke at the beginning, and now I need my 4 accounts just to hold my platinum. ;) — Gares 20:48, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
I don't want to question your own choice of farming pleasure nor how effective it has been for you, I want to make sure that naive and wide-eyed impressionable young people like Tanaric are not easily lured into that. :) I question (vehemently) that an FoW solo run can be done in 20 minutes. Unless you profess to have found a way to take on those 18 spiders that drop out of the roof all at the same time, the sheer latency of breaking them into groups of 3 (or 6) at a time guarantees that it will take more than 20 minutes (I would say 40-45). As for having 4 accounts to hold your platnium... If you have more than 4 million gold, that would be a good time to buy Ectos. :P --Karlos 21:40, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
Spiders die quicker then you think. Pull them all together around the mountain wall cyclone triple chop 20 minute run. The hardest part is getting there and thats alot easier then any run in the shiver peaks.--DeathByPepsi 21:55, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
I acutally am afraid to buy ectos just for the exchange rate. If I bought at 8k and I needed money, I'd have to sell at around 6.5k actually losing money. On a large scale, that's a lot of platinum lost. Say I bought 30 ectos at 8k and had to sell them for platinum at 6.5k. I'd be losing 45k with the exchange rate. If I see I'm running low on platinum (it can go quick buying keys, greens I can't get myself, and 15k armor for a lot of my chars), that's when I begin to farm heavily again and buy low and sell high in trade centers. Oh, in no way am I saying that the Core locations are logically the best places in terms of ease to farm or most accessible, since you can basically sit back in Pongmei Valley, Rhea's Crater, and Troll farming, clicking skills every now and then while eating a sandwich with the other hand. :P — Gares 07:07, 17 October 2006 (CDT)

Well I get bored of these quick but these are the fastest ways I've found to get money. A)troll farming, I think the build is a vetted wammo build if you don't know it. B) FF or "faction farm" Of lutgardis observatory or however you spell it. You need to be assasins subclass to even consider joining a group, but you can literally get 10k faction and 3k gold which gets you basically 10k gold from selling amber. You'll have to deal with some real stuck up perfectionist buttholes tho who cry about you taking 2 seconds too long :P C) Running. Totally the fastest way (when you get good at it). The best ones I've seen are droks, 15k for like 20 minuets of running and grotto 12-21k for 10 minutes of running. Both of the running builds are also vetted builds, the grotto one being called souther shiverpeaks mo/r or something (Not a fifty five 11:24, 16 October 2006 (CDT))

The posts above are all good advice; but just for completeness, I wanted to mention that GuildWiki has an earning gold article for this very topic. Granted it's a more generic form of advice, not specific to a warrior; but in case Tanaric was testing the community, I wanted to toss it out there ;-P --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 11:28, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
I propose we rename the earning gold article to MAKE MONEY FAST!!! (Give yourself 5 points if you recognize the title from early spam on Usenet... come to think of it, are pyramid schemes against the EULA in Guild Wars?)  :P --Rainith 17:48, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
 :P The articale aint very specific tho. The GW economy changes so rapidly. E.g. in the first 2 or 3 weeks of factions it was quite viable to farm the amulet by running all your tyria characters to cantha and selling it for 200k. Now its worth 23k >.< (Not a fifty five 11:32, 16 October 2006 (CDT))

It was mentioned before but vermin are an easy 20-30k in an hour and you don't need to deal with people. Uw and Fow are variable depending on how lucky you are with shard/ecto drops and theres always a chance to pick up nice mod or item(but you need favor).--DeathByPepsi 11:33, 16 October 2006 (CDT)

Heh, sorry to clutter your talk page but where are vermin and why are they so good? 20-30k an hour is a lot better than trolls, and thats liek 3 minutes of killing 10 level 24s.

Outside of senjis corner average run takes 5 minutes or less and 1.5k-2k profit.--DeathByPepsi 11:43, 16 October 2006 (CDT)

Hmm interesting. I heard it was there but I didn't see many vermin. I'll check it out. Perhaps I just didn't look hard enough. (Not a fifty five 12:09, 16 October 2006 (CDT)) Yes I rly rly rly didn't look hard enough.. wow.. screw troll farming (Not a fifty five 12:31, 16 October 2006 (CDT))

Wow. Thanks to everybody for a wealth of information! Since I don't have Factions, I made Troll farming work for me. It's certainly more efficient than what I had been doing (namely, /dancing and begging for money).

Unfortunately, sometime after I fell asleep but before I woke up, Windows did an automatic update (you know, the kind where it reboots without your permission), and I haven't been able to get that partition to boot since. :(

Tanaric 09:37, 17 October 2006 (CDT)

I haven't read ^^ that stuff but a few popular ways are to farm shirouken(sp?), trolls, and easy to get greens(the ones a stones throw from town).---[[User:Onlyashadow|Onlyashadow, [[Guild ladder|Top 100]] .]] 09:44, 17 October 2006 (CDT)

Soc confirmation..[edit]

We only put SoC information in regular skills if they are available from a boss before they are available from a trainer. So, to check that, go to the skill's page and see where the trainer is on the map. If he is in the SAME region as the boss or later, then you can add the boss as an option. But it makes no sense to add a boss as an option for getting a skill in the Crystal Desert when a trainer offered it in Kryta. You pay the same amount of money to get the skill, and you just wait longer. --Karlos 12:07, 17 October 2006 (CDT)

To add, we place a note on the talk page confirming SoC confirmation. This helps for others that are added additional information to a page, i.e. screenshot or items dropped, to see if the article is unstubbable or not. It's also a lot easier than drudging through the page history. — Gares 12:45, 17 October 2006 (CDT)
I apologize for mucking up your skills. I checked the relavent style and formatting articles, but didn't see any advice on the subject. Perhaps somebody more acquainted could add it somewhere (or point me in the right direction)?
Also, I didn't realize that SoC prices had risen from the half price they used to be. Fyren educated me over IRC. I only actually added an SoC section on maybe 3 skills, though, so I shouldn't have made things *too* bad for you. :) —Tanaric 13:40, 17 October 2006 (CDT)
Buying skills from trainers (including SoC) gradually costs more. It starts out with 10 gold I believe and gradually rises to 1000 gold. --Karlos 14:18, 17 October 2006 (CDT)
Yeah, I got that. It used to be that SoCs cost half of the current skills cost. I didn't realize that had changed. —Tanaric 14:36, 17 October 2006 (CDT)

More questionable votes[edit]

What to do about Template:DeletedLink? All the favoureds are one-hit-wonders and I don't want to go all draco — Skuld 02:46, 18 October 2006 (CDT)

Download the wiki[edit]

To bring to your attention [3]Skuld 08:02, 18 October 2006 (CDT)

Hee hee, tell them to go to HA district 7 and find a guy called Fyren something and stand behind him. He's been waiting in line for what? Four months now? --Karlos 08:50, 18 October 2006 (CDT)
Responded. —Tanaric 20:57, 18 October 2006 (CDT)

Your thoughts...[edit]

I am very frustrated with how Gravewit has handled the release of Nightfall and preparing the wiki for it. I think we should have foreseen and prepared for the load spike, and I think he is slacking in his job and I think he is greatly harming the wiki. The end result of his laziness/lack of foresight/stubbornness/obliviousness is that we stunk up the join badly the first 2 weeks of release and a LOT of people grew very furstrated with the wiki. Users new to the game who were referred to the wiki found it useless, veteran users started to go elsewhere (Guru and GWO forums) and editors and contributors had a very hard time adding new info. So, not only were the pages inaccessible, but if you DID get through, you got incomplete/wrong information.

I have a stake in this wiki, perhaps bigger than the average contributor. That stake is not that I edited X number of articles or been around N number of months. I find this wiki extremely uplifting as an experiment. It's a success, a great community project. Most importantly, it does things "the right way." Information is openly and readily available. There is no veteran player worship and no boasting and bragging like the forums. It's clean direct information, without all the headache of browsing through 20 threads and going on tangents in each thread. I find this wiki to be "the next thing" in how gaming communities go about documenting and reviewing their games. I find forums and fansites of old to be primitive and childish. So, this is the stake that I have that is perhaps more personal than the average user.

This is why I am extra miffed to see all this work and success go to waste because of Gravewit's clumsiness. I have posted these thoughts on Phil's talk page and as usual, he seems to have missed the boat. In any case, I would appreciate your thoughts on this manner. Here or there. Thanks. --Karlos 07:57, 14 November 2006 (CST)

I've been here at the GuildWiki since the very beginning. I thought the idea of a community-edited, community-sponsored collaborative work incredibly cool. Unlike most other editors here, and probably all the editors at the time, I had some previous experience with game wikis from my (brief) time playing A Tale in the Desert, so I brought something to the table—no, not experience—expectations.
From the very beginning, the structure and setup of the wiki was hidden behind the curtain of "only Gravewit and Nunix need to worry about it." This bugged me—if it's really about the community, then every detail besides the database password needs to be exposed. Ironically enough, about the only detail released to us was the database password, due to faulty configuration on the server!
We begged for updates to the ledger based on donations. We got them, in batches, every three months or so, and then donations were closed without discussing payment options with the community. Almost nobody here knows what we spend (about $500/month, last I heard), or how much traffic we have (300-500 GB/month, not including the Nightfall release), or how much time Gravewit spends on this (don't ask me). There is no wiki-sanctioned arbitration committee or policy guidelines—there's no structure at all! All the structure we have, in terms of management, I created and enforced with absolutely no authority or backing. It's a testament to the need of the community when one man's policy becomes wiki-wide with nary a thought as to whether it was good or not—the need for such structure was so great.
When questions are raised, they are rarely—if ever—addressed. Note that I don't think that Gravewit himself, if he's busy with network maintenance, needs to (ever) answer questions, as long as there's somebody to handle such a thing. Fyren's a great guy, and I'm glad he was given root access, but as far as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong) he doesn't particularly relish dealing with users, either. He's a technical and data guy. I've put myself in the position to be the point man for these things, but I don't get enough feedback to be able to give reliable information (though that's no fault of Fyren, since he's so recently appointed). Besides, I can barely even access the site right now anyway, and I'm unwilling to sit here refreshing after Firefox times out.
A lot of you know that Gravewit, myself, and at least one other sysop (sorry, I forget who else) had a conference call with Gaile Gray and Mike o'Brian about wiki hosting. Of course, none of us heard anything about it after the call, and the follow-up call we had planned to do later never occured. There's plenty of other things in the depths of the wiki that you don't know about, though. Did you know Gravewit and Nunix talked to the Pirates of the Burning Sea developers about making a sponsored wiki for their game? As far as I can tell, nothing came of that, but how would I know? I consider myself lucky to know about it at all.
Did you know that there are no plans or policies whatsoever on expanding the GameWikis network, even though there's a navbar over everybody's page showing our sister wikis? What's the point in advertising such a project if there's no community effort to work on it?
Did you know that there had been/are plans to give me a monthly paycheck for handling GuildWiki? Gravewit and I have discussed it at least twice. (No, I've never gotten any money from this yet.)
In short, I agree with most of the complaints raised recently (and not-so-recently). The lack of transparency within this "organization" is appaling. And I'm tired of it. Here is what I want to happen:
  1. We should have another donations drive, bolstering our budget.
  2. Gravewit should take a cut of the donations, to repay him for his personal funds and time he's sunk into the site, and he should step back from the wiki, as he clearly does not have the time to run this.
  3. A proper load balancing / server farm setup should be implemented at our hosting facility. The current strategy of "server A has HammerWiki and NeverWiki and the db, server B has the GuildWiki and OblivioWiki" is simply not extendable or worthwhile.
  4. Fyren, Karlos, Rainith, LordBiro, Bishop, 84.175, and I should establish ourselves as the "GameWikis Board of Directors" and begin work on actually making this network work.
    1. Each wiki should have an overseer appointed by the foundation—I imagine this would be Bishop for HammerWiki, Gares Redstorm for NeverWiki, myself for GuildWiki, and... I dunno who for OblivioWiki. I'm not involved even remotely there, and the page won't load.
    2. A coordinated, central set of guidelines, practices, procedures, policies, and beliefs would be drafted by the Board, via a metawiki, for all GameWikis to follow.
    3. A set of volunteer server administrators would be appointed. Fyren can better talk about this, as I don't know what would be helpful.
Honestly, if something like this doesn't happen, I'm ready to walk away from this website. I am unwilling to have my name attached to something that's so horribly mismanaged. It's no longer worth the headache or the embarassment.
Tanaric 21:20, 15 November 2006 (CST)
I agree with most of what Tanaric says. I'm also still questioning how much I want to continue my involvement with the site, and if I want my name associated with it, given the poor site performance that should have been addressed months ago. Just a few thoughts ...
First, as the finances of the site are completely invisible to us, I'm against another donation drive until we learn how much, if any, is currently in the accounts. If the wiki is already sitting on sizeable ad revenue (unlikely, but also unknown), then the actions outlined can be done without donations - but, we currently have zero visibility to that.
The board of directors should go through a nomination / vote method of appointment - and be for specified terms of office, after which the process starts over. I suspect the first group would be similar, if not identical to the group you listed - but if we're going to redo things, then I feel it should be done right from the start with true transparency to the system and maintain the sites history of limiting elitism - in this case by establishing terms of office to limit it.
On the issue of ArenaNet hosting GuildWiki - I spoke to Gaile Gray about that some during the launch party. She indicated that they had become too busy and had been unable to follow-up on the issue, but it is something they wanted to continue to discuss, at least at that time. I question it myself, as the only way I can see them being legally able to host the current content is either by maintaining the current license (which seems incompatible with their stated intents of linking to the data from a for-profit product/game), or by getting approval from everyone who has contributed content to approve having their contributions to be re-licensed under a different license more friendly to inclusion in for-profit works (which, given the number of contributors, seems to be impracticle).
I would prefer to see a solution found here - but if Gravewit chooses once again to ignore the community complaints, I can easilly see a migration of the data to other wikis that do have compatible licenses - fracturing the community. I do not want to see that happen. But, I have little doubt that is the direction things will go if Gravewit refuses to acknowledge and address the critical problems that currently exist. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 13:07, 16 November 2006 (CST)
O_o, looks like the sh*t has hit the fan. REVOLUTION!!! :D ;) --Tetris L 13:54, 16 November 2006 (CST)
Not quite. If I merely wanted to fork the GuildWiki, I could very easily do so right now—I've got a dump of it. It would be trivial to put everything on a new server and start a mass vandalism campaign to change all articles on to simply state "Please see for this content, as we have moved."
I'd really rather not have to do that, though. I'd like to fix this in place—but the only way I see for this place to be "fixed" would be for Gravewit to voluntarily donate the servers to a neutral non-profit organization and establish the council in the manner Barek suggests (with Gravewit potentially being elected to said council).
Tanaric 16:14, 16 November 2006 (CST)
Tanaric, your ideas seem very reasonable, I hope they will be implemented soon. Till then, I have stopped contributing, because my frustration with Gravewit (which has been there for a long time) has reached a point where I am no longer willing to put up with it. --Xeeron 06:37, 18 November 2006 (CST)
Quick, delete all the builds while he's gone! --Fyren 06:49, 18 November 2006 (CST)
You're in a better position to do that than I. ;) —Tanaric 07:14, 18 November 2006 (CST)
Hey, I'm still here, too! ~ Nilles (chat) 07:23, 18 November 2006 (CST)
Shoot. Foiled again! —Tanaric 10:58, 18 November 2006 (CST)
Tanaric: "the only way I see for this place to be "fixed" would be for Gravewit to voluntarily donate the servers to a neutral non-profit organization" ← I'm more than doubtful that this will happen. Having said that, I don't really know or understand Gravewit. Even though I consider myself one of the "early" GuildWiki users I have never seen Gravewit actively contributing (creating and editing articles, that is). He has been inactive ever since I came here, almost 1½ years ago, acting only as the aloof guy in the background. I've got no clue what his motives really are, but I can't help but feel that he is trying to turn this into a profitable business (despite the NonCommercial-ShareAlike license). Why would somebody who obviously gives a rat's ass about everyday wiki life spend several hundred dollars per month on the server? Just because he's a nice guy? Pfffft ... I may be overly sceptical, but that sounds a little naive to me. While I can't imagine that the ads yield quite enough revenue to pay for the server just yet, the fact that Gravewit refuses to reveal the ledger really makes me suspicious. I may have gotten a false impression, but Gravewit has done very little do convince me otherwise. (And it really doesn't take much to convince me that somebody has good motives.)
As for the "non-profit organization", I'm not really confident that this is going to work either. We don't have quite the necessary size to maintain an NPO (a legal person, registered, approved by IRS and all). Formally and officially registering such an organization would only make sense if the founding members are willing to make a commitment to help and work for at least one year. Otherwise I'm afraight the organization will quickly fall apart. Who is willing to make that commitment?? I for one am not. I care about GuildWiki, I really do. But who knows what's in 12 months from now? Maybe I don't play Guildwars any more. Maybe real life interferres. Or more likely, maybe I'm just fed up with the e-drama around here and ran off. ;)
Without a foundation as a legal person, a real person has to be in charge. He has to pay the bills for the server, and he will get the money from ads and donations. He may start off as a nice guy whom we trust, reveal the ledger, take good care of the server and all. But nobody guarantees us that he doesn't turn into a tyrant who runs off with the money some day. We may just be exchanging one bad leader with an other.
I don't have an easy solution to offer. Probably I'm too pessimistic, so don't listen to me. It needs an optimist (or even better: a bunch of them) to run a place like this. ;)
By the way: You better not count on 84.175 too much. Real life struck (very busy with new job). Ask him, if you want details. --Tetris L 04:47, 20 November 2006 (CST)

It's my understanding that Gravewit is not losing money on a month-to-month basis. Last I heard, we were more than breaking even from ad revenue—in fact, the surplus allowed us to buy the third server (and a relatively soon-to-come fourth server for futureproofing). —Tanaric 05:06, 20 November 2006 (CST)

I'm done.[edit]

I no longer wish to be involved with the GuildWiki project or the Gamewikis network, and so I won't be around much anymore. I've made LordBiro a bureaucrat, so he can handle bot and sysop requests.

The system will still email me on talk edits, so I'll check this page if you want to get in touch with me. Similarly, the contact information on my userpage is still valid.

Tanaric 09:09, 23 November 2006 (CST)

You're probably the person I am closest to on the wiki, so it's no surprise that I'm sad that you've decided to leave. I understand the reasons you have for leaving, and I hope that the situation will change and/or you'll come back. You've done a huge amount for the wiki since its inception and you will be sorely missed. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 12:18, 23 November 2006 (CST)
Although I never knew you well and I sometimes disagreed with your decisions, I will miss you and so does the wiki. I hope to see you back later if possible. --Image:Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2006 (CST)
This comes as a surprise to me, as I'm not really involved in or even informed about the admin stuff going on "behind the scenes". You did say that you weren't happy with the way things were handeled on Gamewikis, but I thought that with the recent improvements your most severe concerns were settled (even though it wasn't handed over to an NPO). Looks like I was wrong. :( You'll be missed, as somebody who put tons of work into the most basic structure of this wiki, and as a calm voice of reason in case of disputes. --Tetris L 05:10, 24 November 2006 (CST)
Farewell :( — Skuld 10:13, 24 November 2006 (CST)

Thanks for all your sentiments. I guess I was a bit abrupt, and I neglected to say some things I should have.

First of all, I adore the GuildWiki community, and you guys have made the last year and a half an absolute blast. Any and all of you are welcome to chat it up with me over AIM or email at any time—though that probably doesn't need to be said, as I already chat with many of you privately.

Secondly, I apologize for not delimiting precisely why I'm leaving—while I'm happy to share the reasons with you in private, if you're curious, I'm not one to intrude on somebody's personal site to air my grievances with them. Suffice to say that I've realized that Gravewit's interests (or maybe just his commitment to those interests) are not in line with my own. If anybody seriously wants to start a community-driven wiki network for video games, I offer my services in whatever ways you can use me.

(And, since I know somebody's going to bring it up, I know that, in somewhat recent past, I barged onto Photics's website and yelled at him about his wiki. That was unprofessional, and I won't do it again here... even though it was pretty funny, in hindsight.)

Anyway, this isn't a "OMG GUILDWIKI SUX AND I'M NEVER POSTING AGAIN" ragequit. I'll still check (and respond) on this talk page. And, if I happen to be browsing for information and I notice somebody blanked a page, I'll surely revert it—though seeing how rarely I play Guild Wars (and my recent purchase of a Nintendo Wii), that doesn't seem likely.

Thanks again for your continuing support, both now and over the last 18 months.

Tanaric 11:11, 24 November 2006 (CST)

I'm not that good at saying goodbye, so I'll say it briefly: Take care. :) ~ Nilles (msg) 18:40, 24 November 2006 (CST)
It is sad to see you go, but unfortunately I get the feeling that you are going for exactly the same reason as I do. Just let me say that you were one of the people I looked up to during my time on the wiki, your quest for good policies and conflict solution inspired me. --Xeeron 05:33, 25 November 2006 (CST)
I'm sorry I didn't say something earlier but I wasn't exactly sure how to say it. Tanaric, you've played an important role here on the GuildWiki and it's a shame to see you go. We certainly didn't always see eye to eye on everything but you were always prepare to discuss any decisions you made and I respect you for that. You were a strong character here and was't scared to ask anyone the tough questions. I wish you the best of luck Tanaric. --Xasxas256 07:14, 25 November 2006 (CST)

Awww :( Heck with a a site this huge of course anyone owning the site would do exactly what gravewit is doing. Its not like he's invading our free speech here :P Well sorry to see you leave then :((Not a fifty five 20:53, 25 November 2006 (CST))

re: GuildWiki:Administrators[edit]

I do hope you decide to return. At least for now, I've decided to remain to watch how things go; although I'm already seeing that the communication gap is remaining in place.
Untill you do decide to return, could you update GuildWiki:Administrators? I'm guessing that you should be moved to inactive, and LordBiro commented to be "in charge of appointing and removing administrators, as well as granting bot status requests" - but I was uncertain as to if that was totally accurate, so I'm hoping you can update it if you're still around. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 15:53, 30 November 2006 (CST)

Done, to the best of my knowledge. LordBiro, Fyren, and Nunix are of course welcome to change what I've said about them to whatever they wish, but this is how I understand the situation at this time. —Tanaric 15:52, 2 December 2006 (CST)
That all looks suitable as far as I'm concerned. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 16:12, 2 December 2006 (CST)

[4] - Jamie[edit]

Yeh. Sorry I didn't see that sooner, but you can remove the Jamie section, as he has retired the wiki. -Auron My Talk 17:41, 5 December 2006 (CST)

I archived his nomination. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 18:00, 5 December 2006 (CST)