Notice something wrong, missing, or unsatisfactory? Feel free to edit pages yourself and make use of discussion pages. Wiki content is created, maintained, and administrated by players. See how you can help.
[dismiss]

Talk:Ascended equipment

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
(Redirected from Talk:Ascended)
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] More MF with Ascended gear

So the Img provided with the info about acended gear says 10% MF thats 3% more than our current rings. Ow yeah! --Draaky 18:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Color

Isn't it magenta? Magenta is in between violet and red in the spectrum, which kinda makes sense. Manifold User Manifold Neptune.jpg 18:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Magenta is a dark red. Actually I guess it's defined as a purple that is equally red and blue. The Ascended color is more what I'd call 80s-style "hot pink", but pink suffices. 65.87.26.122 20:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
On the Lost Shores talk page, Stephane stated the color is "fb3e8d". Vahkris 20:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

[edit] wtf?

moved to User talk:109.91.252.10

[edit] Caution!

moved to User talk:Mooseyfate#Caution!

At some time things changed. Apparently now commenting on pros and cons in a discussion of a topic is deemed irrelevant. This seems harmful to wiki. --Mooseyfate 17:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Contraversial

In an attempt to word this in a way that admins won't hide I'll go with a neutral stance that is fact based.

The fact is that the concept of the game gaining additional tiers of increasing statistical gear is a controversy in the GW community.

Proponents: These people argue that this creates interest and more things to work for. You feel increased progression to your character. They argue that this fills a hole which is satisfied by more traditional MMO games, and will keep people playing longer.

Opponents: These people argue that the game should increase challenge though skill play, and that stats should have a non-increasing cealing. That this reverses the identity set by the developers to have a stat ceiling and be more about execution than grind.

There are more nuances to it than this, and different proponents/opponents to this issue may differ on how they feel about these nuances. This is a comment on the state of contraversy revolving around this as a conceptual change to the game, relative to demonstrate different viewpoints rather than argue which view is correct in relation to "Ascended" gear. --Mooseyfate 17:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The neutrality of your post was not an issue. It simply is not relevant to the wiki. I know we don't always do a good job of enforcing this, but unlike GW1W, GW2W should not function as a forum for discussions about the game - there is an official forum for that purpose now. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 19:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The fact that there is a controversy surrounding the topic of an article, and an overview of the two sides of said controversy is hugely relevant. On regular wikipedia.org (which I know this is not the same thing, merely the same model), you will find cases where controversy is even a main sub-heading on the front page, not nestled in the discussion page.
Aside from that, it seems like a hazy line to draw for what discussions should not be allowed and what discussions should be allowed. If discussion of opinion is not allowed, they no one should state that they are, for example, excited about extra MF (no offence to Draaky, I think his post is just fine). I've always viewed it as back and forth flame wars (as found constantly on forums) is what should not be allowed on wiki.
Aside from both the previous paragraphs, we are now having a discussion on a wiki topic, not on the topic of this specific article at all. And I apologize for that. But even if I am off base on the paragraph above, the paragraph 2 above this is a pretty solid argument for why this one is valid to remain. It's almost an argument for putting it on the main page article, but I'm not proposing that. --Mooseyfate 20:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
That is Trivia: "The addition of these items was accompanied by controvecial dicussion in the official forums."
That is basiclly all we have to cover if we want to cover this. - Yandere Talk to me... 20:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Cowardice is only the beginning of the end. 109.91.252.10 20:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia documents the world, and so people and the stuff they do are, as part of "the world", inherently within scope (whether they're related to another article or not). If there were a large-scale riot due to an argument about X, you could have an entire page on wikipedia specifically about that controversy—even if there were no page about X itself!
This wiki, on the other hand, is dedicated to documenting a particular game. Meta-game philosophizing, while a worthy pursuit, is only tangential to that purpose. I don't see anything inherently wrong with including it, but if the powers that be have decided not to do so, I don't see anything wrong or contradictory about that, either. You have to draw a line somewhere to delineate the wiki's scope, and this is a reasonable and clear place to draw it. --Felbryn 22:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I am confused to some point who is "cowardice" and who are the "powers that be". The scope of the wiki is the only thing that matters and as far as I understand this scope the whole controvercy regarding this topic is interesting trivia and should be documented but it basiclly ends there.
I don't like this addition to the game at all, but that is nothing that should be discussed in the wiki but in the forum. - Yandere Talk to me... 22:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
By "powers that be", I just meant whoever originally decided what the scope of the wiki was going to be. --Felbryn 23:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
That would be Special:ActiveUsers--Relyk 23:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) One of the major difficulties of the GW1W (from what I've heard, anyway) is that so many people re-purposed it as a forum (since no official forums existed) for discussions about builds, metagame, economy, and everything else, to the point that discussions about actual wiki content got buried. For GW2, however, there are official forums where those kinds of discussions can happen, so we decided to limit discussions on the wiki to only those that directly address wiki content.
"If discussion of opinion is not allowed, they no one should state that they are, for example, excited about extra MF" Like I said, we don't do a perfect job of enforcing this distinction. In most cases, enforcement is unnecessary - someone making a random comment about how cool a weapon looks, for example, isn't going to disrupt the wiki. However, someone making a long post about game philosophy, with the intent of starting a discussion about it, definitely needs to be moved out of the main talk pages. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 22:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
You are correct about long post. You are incorrect about intent of starting a discussion. There's an correctness to you implied claim (or is implied to me weather you intended it or not) of the ambiguity of censorship. Cowardliness is not being demonstrated, seems like a derailment. --Mooseyfate 01:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Faintedhearted ones obey for the sake of obeying. That is cowardice. 109.91.252.10 17:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Anonymous ones post ominous but ultimately meaningless statements about things that they dislike but can't cite any actual problem with. That is impolite and unproductive. --Felbryn 19:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I would agree that discussion of game philosophy is better kept to the forums, or if anything here, in userspace. I would clarify that a large part of what happened on GW1W had several factors factors, the top two being the lack of new content to document, the need for an official space for players to post feedback. As has been pointed out, neither of those prime factors apply here. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 07:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Other Ascended Items

The Endless Quiver - a back piece crafted in the mystic forge --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.108.137.130 (talk).

[edit] list

I think we should replace the list of ascended items here with a link to the category, and categorize the ascended items appropriately. That's the entire point of categories, after all, is to list things. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 13:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

{{Default item parameter}} seems appropriate to categorize anything with ascended rarity into the category.--Relyk 18:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
A category lists all the associated pages, but doesn't give any additional information on them. I'd like to create tables of ascended items for each equipment slot (just rings and back items so far) that include the attribute bonuses of each item, for side-by-side comparison. (The available attribute combinations are non-obvious since the built-in "prefix" and "suffix" don't always match, and it's unlikely that all 144+ obvious combinations exist.) Where would be the best place to put such a table? I can see an argument for putting it on this page, or on a new page specifically for that function (maybe "List of ascended equipment", similar to List of weapon sets and List of armor sets), or possibly on the Item nomenclature page. --Felbryn 22:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
See, when I posted that, all we had on this page was a simple list. Which is now done better in category format. What you want to do, as you say, improves on the category format, and my original point would not apply. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 23:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Is that a vote for putting it on this page? --Felbryn 23:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
We wouldn't put a list on this page, it would go on List of Ascended equipment or something.--Relyk 03:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Just to mention, there is talk in the Item nomenclature about moving the Acquisition (of exotics) to its own page. I suggested that it be renamed to mention exotics and that a similar page be started for Ascended Gear as well. Side Note, anyone else find it odd how Ascended rarity has its own page yet Exotic and such do not? BioMasterZap 18:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Soulbound

Are these items soulbound on acquire? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.35.156.11 (talk).

Yes. --Malgalad 15:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
From what I've seen, they are account bound on acquire, soulbound on use. Some of the exotics dropped in Fractals also work this way. BioMasterZap 21:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Unique and Binding

Two new things were introduced with this update and haven't seemed to be mentioned much. Both applied to ascended, so I thought where would be a good place to mention it. The first is Unique items. From what I hear, you can only equip one of these items at a time. As mentioned on Ancient Karka Shell's talk, it seems you can only have one of the earring equipped since it is Unique (being the only exotic I've heard of it have this characteristic). The other thing I've seen a bit of is items that are Account Bound and Soulbound on Use. Currently pages seem to list one or the other for such items. For example, Vine of the Pale Tree, as seen in its screenshot, is both Account Bound (on Acquire) and Soulbound on Use, yet it says its Binding is Account Bound. I also know that some Exotic Drops from Fractals work the same way (I believe that all exotic versions of Soldier, Magi, Rapid, Wayfarer, and Cavalier gear do this, armor, weapons, and jewelry, since masterwork and rare are on TP yet exotic are not. However I only got Exotic Rapid Gloves so far, by they are Account Bound with Soulbound on Use.) BioMasterZap 18:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Soulbound, any time you equip a weapon of measterwork quality or better, it becomes soulbound. That implies that account bound equipment is souldbound on use. It's not possible to be account bound if it's not bound at all or its soul bound on acquire, so it's not a case that needs to be addressed. We have a "Property" parameter in item infobox templates that can be used for items that are Unique.--Relyk 22:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
But not all Account Bound items are Soulbound on use. The Ancient Karka Shell was account Bound and did not Soulbind on Use (however, I think this was a bug). The Ancient Karka Shell Box on the other hand is Account Bound but it does not Soulbind (because it is not gear, but you still do equip it). Currently the Account Bound page does not mention gear at all, only things like Gem Store. So either a note needs to be added to Account Bound page stating that all gear that are account bound also soulbind or use or the field should list Account Bound/Soulbound on Use in field. Personally I prefer the second choice, since the item does list both in the description and not all Account Bound items do soulbind, even if all gear does. BioMasterZap 23:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to try to make this clear in light of what bio is saying, if an item can be account bound and either soulbound on use or not, that means we should have two fields. Prior to the acended equipment, account bound could be assumed to be soul bound on use as all equipment. I think Ancient Karka Shell is the only item right now that can be shared across all characters, implied by Account Bound. Most account bound items will be souldbound on use still, but we have a case for every possibility. Soul bound on acquire cannot be account bound, and are mutually exclusive while all other combinations of the two parameters are possible and unique. Account bound would simply be y/n and the soulbound parameter will be no, on use, or on acquire:
  • Account bound
    • Not soul bound - certain equipment Ancient Karka Shell and all other account bound items
    • soul bound on use - Unique to equipment (only ascended equipment and legendary weapons or something)
    • soul bound on acquire - Mutually exclusive for obvious reasons
  • Not account bound
    • Not soul bound - All tradeable items
    • soul bound on use - All equipment (remember not account bound)
    • soul bound on acquire - Most items

--Relyk 00:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Obtaining Ascended Rings (bug?)

After doing approx. 8ish daily fractal completions on lvls 10/12/14 with me and 2 of my friends, we have recieved a total of 0 ascended rings from the daily bonus chest. Zero. Between all of us. I have looked up drop rates for other people, quantity of runs, avg. chance of finding a ring in the daily reward bonus chest, and what I have found is this... It's not consistent. At all. In any way. Between the 3 of us, a total of 24+ runs and haven't gotten a single ring. I have seen MANY people talk about getting a ring on every other run. they'll do 10 daily runs and get 5 rings. Some people have so many excess rings they have entire bank sections full of them. Duplicate rings up the wazoo. Others on reddit and such have found the drop rate to be about 1/3. (which I believe to be most accurate for most people)

So my question is... Why do a few of us never get any rings from the bonus chest at all? NONE?! Is it a bug? Are we just obnoxiously unlucky? 71.13.66.146 23:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Not enough data. If the true drop rate is 1 in 2, then it might be surprising for any group to be as unlucky as yours; if the true drop rate is 1 in 4, then 24 consecutive chests with no drops is unlucky, but there could easily be hundreds of players in the same boat as you without anything being bugged. And the true drop rate could easily be less than 1 in 4; self-selection bias is really powerful with a player pool this large. --Felbryn 00:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Did they upgrade Legendaries to ascended stats?

Because they look the same as exotics on the TP still. But that could be a tooltip error. User Freshberrysmoothie Blueberry Icon.jpg Fresh Berry Smoothie 03:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no ascended weapon stats for them to be upgraded to. When ascended weapons start existing, legendaries will be changed so that they continue to reflect the top stats possible. Manifold User Manifold Neptune.jpg 03:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Back when they introduced ascended items, ArenaNet stated that Legendary weapons were always intended to be "best-in-slot" and would be upgraded to match ascended stats when ascended weapons are released. (Though I seem to recall hearing about a bug where they had been raised ahead of schedule, until a hotfix.)
Regarding the issue of whether HLegendary is above, below, or equal to GAscended, it's complicated. Right now legendary weapons have exotic stats, which are lower than ascended stats. But the stated purpose of introducing ascended items was to fill a gap between exotic and legendary (in terms of effort to acquire), so it's a matter of public record that they're "supposed" to be "lower" than legendary (to the same extent that exotic is "lower" than legendary).
Personally, I like to think of legendary as a skin rather than a quality. There's lots of other weapons that are considerably more expensive to acquire than "regular" exotics and differ only in appearance; legendaries are just the most extreme example. If no one objects, I'm going to remove the comparison between ascended and legendary from the page, and just say that ascended is above exotic. --Felbryn 03:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
We usually document the game as-is, but I guess it doesn't matter.--Relyk ~ talk > 04:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Right now there is no overlap between Legendary and Ascended as far as slots go, so right now I'm fine with leaving it off for now if it's making the wording confusing. Once Ascended weapons are released, the stats on Legendaries will be altered to keep them at that level, so for now I'd keep any comparisons stating that Legendary is equal or higher to Ascended (depending on if you mean stats or effort spent). Vahkris 13:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Well there's no reason to really explain that legendaries are higher than ascended on the ascended page. It's enough to say they're better than exotics imo User Freshberrysmoothie Blueberry Icon.jpg Fresh Berry Smoothie 17:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Personal tools