User talk:Intricity

How does this page work?

test

Where's the reply button?

Talk pages are the same as regular pages with the exception of the + (new section) button. You reply to other users' comments by just indenting and writing on the line underneath them. And you can leave a signature and timestamp by typing ~~~~ at the end. :) - Felix Omni 21:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I figured it out after playing around with it for a bit. Just didn't bother to update it since I didn't expect anyone else to look at this page. Intricity (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Fractal Potion

Oh my god thank you so much for creating that page, I've been wanting it for a while but I'm clueless when it comes to creating new pages :v

Gimme your ign and I'll throw you 10g for it ;D -Towelcat (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

You can keep your 10g.

A good resource to use when creating pages is the How to help link to the left, although I find that the most useful thing is to just click the 'edit' button at the top and see how other pages are laid out. Sometimes, I find new syntax that could be used on other pages as well. Intricity (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Regrown Sword page

Is that really necessary? I mean, we have [[Guide to Current Event achievements]] which details most of what you put anyways (and what's new can easily be put there). It just seems redundant and most people I know searching the name "The Regrown Sword" are going to be searching the instance. IF - and I'd say that's a big if - a unique guide is needed (which I think most contributors said no to hence why we have a unified guide for all Current Events achievements), wouldn't it be better at Sword Taxonomy or even Knight of the Thorn, which is its own page, and is more likely to be searched since it's the actual achievement name for getting multiple ascended Caladbolgs (which is what your guide details)? Konig (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: Not to mention you messed up a lot of links in the move, since most links going to The Sword Regrown are for the instance, not the acheivement for first completion. Konig (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

EDIT2: Also "It deserves its own page for the day it inevitably gets moved out of the current events section." ArenaNet has stated that the Current Events achievements and content are here to stay. So there is no "inevitably". Konig (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the achievement is going to stay, but it's not going to stay in the "Current Events" section forever. Eventually, most of the achievements in the current events section are going to be retired and turned into historical achievements (as shown in the past). The Sword Regrown (and its related achievements) are going to be moved to some other section when this time comes. Where it's going to move, no one knows. The achievements in the Current Events section have changed every living world release.

A player's first encounter with the keywords "The Sword Regrown" is in the achievements page. They are most likely not going to be looking for the final instance that happens to have the same name. They want to know information about the achievement and how to complete it, which is what the page attempts to do. The previous page did not document how to get to that story mission, leaving most players confused about what they have to do for it. Instead it links to the Current Events page and then at the very bottom links them to [[Guide to Current Event achievements]]. Linking directly to the guide from the story instance page would be out of place.

It would not work for Sword Taxonomy or Knight of the Thorn (unless you want to document how to unlock these achievements) because these achievements are unlocked at the end of "The Sword Regrown (story)". Intricity (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

ArenaNet has stated months ago, before The Regrown Sword, that the Current Events achievements will remain. They've stopped doing temporary achievements (sans festivals) after Season 1. There's no reason to believe the Current Events will cease, and believing such goes against what we've been told.

The Sword Regrown achievement doesn't show up until after completing the final instance. The "first encounter" is the mail and the warden in the home instance. And their longest encounter is Sword Taxonomy, while the overarching "plot" is Knight of the Thorn. So if they're going to search something, it's going to be Warden Leide, Ridhais, or Caladbolg, unless they hear things from another player.

Ironically, your argument at the end also affects The Sword Regrown achievement. Doesn't unlock - or show up - until completion of the final instance. Konig (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

If that's what you believe about the Current Events section, then we'll just have to wait and see. It's just absurd to believe that Current Events will stay "current" years down the line. If anything, they'll be moved to a new section, such as "Past Events", and new "Current Events" will take their place. For this, we'll just agree to disagree.

If it does show up after the completing the final story instance, then I was mistaken. I has been a while since I've completed it, and there are no videos or screenshots of the achievements page before they are completed that I could find. Regardless, the page currently documents the steps needed to gain that achievement. If you believe the walkthrough should instead link to [[Guide to Current Event achievements]] then feel free.

The main reason I moved it was because it makes no sense that a page that should be about the achievement links to the story instance instead. When you look up an achievement (especially from the page that lists them) you expect to be given more information about the achievement, not to be sent do the story mission that happens to be of the same name. It gives no information about the achievement, and people are suppose to assume that if they finish this story mission, then they will get the achievement. And even if they manage to do that, they need to now figure out how to get to that story mission, either by following the "preceding mission" backwards, or by going to the Current Events page and then click on "Guide to Current Event achievements" (or helplessly click on The Sword Regrown again). There are an unnecessary amount of clicks a user has to go through in order to figure out how to obtain this achievement, which is why the most common reply is "look at dulfy's guide". The same thing can be said about multiple articles. Intricity (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the name for the category is a bit poor for long term achievements, but we have ArenaNet's word that they're staying for good. It's not really a matter of opinion. While they may change their mind later down the road, we have no reason to believe currently that they will. And if they do, then we can move [[Guide to Current Event achievements]] to whatever is appropriate. Furthermore, if we're arguing that some Current Events will be removed, then there's no reason to believe that Knight of the Thorn group of achievements will be exempted. So again if it gets changed, we can change it then. There is little purpose to prepare for something that by all reason won't happen. Especially when it duplicates information.

"a page that should be about the achievement" We only have articles for achievements that are scavenger hunts. The Sword Regrown achievement is no such achievement. Ergo, it needs no article. The achievement chain culminating in Knight of the Thorn has its own guide already - one that could use expanding (and I would put what you made there), but a guide all the same.

"they need to now figure out how to get to that story mission, either by following the "preceding mission" backwards, or by going to the Current Events page and then click on "Guide to Current Event achievements" (or helplessly click on The Sword Regrown again). There are an unnecessary amount of clicks a user has to go through in order to figure out how to obtain this achievement, which is why the most common reply is "look at dulfy's guide". The same thing can be said about multiple articles." And how is this different from any other achievement or story instance set ever? Konig (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

My point was, they shouldn't have to do all of that just to figure out how to get something. It's like telling someone to go to room X to find something, only to be sent to room Y because it's not there, and then possibly through multiple other rooms until finally finding it at Z.

Why should achievement pages be about scavenger hunts only? There are things to be said when trying to look up an achievement just to be sent to the page that lists it as part of a particular category (or to a page that does't exist). Intricity (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Simply using an {{otheruses}} template directing to the exact location of the guide is far from having to "do all that" to know the full chain. And we only have pages for scavenger hunts / collections because there are always better locations for other achievements guides to go, and they're often easy enough that you don't need such. The Regrown Sword, IIRC, doesn't show up at all in the achievements until you complete the instance, leaving folks with only the letters to use as guides and no indication of achievements beyond the first two achievements. If not at the guide to current events, then it should be at the culminating Knight of the Thorn, since there's still things you can and need to do after completing The Regrown Sword (both achievement and story instance). You even include post-The Sword Regrown information in that page.

I'll add that The Sword Regrown is little different than the Season 1 story instance achievements, where story instance and achievement share the same name. We never separated the two, because simply put it was redundancy, nor did anyone ever complain about the inability to navigate (just as no one complains about the inability to navigate the storyline). I think the best solution, in the end, however would be to add a navigation bar at the bottom of the Caladbolg quests linking the three instances, Knight of the Thorn (which I feel should be reworked into a psuedo-instance article with the dialogue etc. taken out of the NPC articles), and the two prior scavenger hunt achievements. Konig (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I already said it was my fault for misremembering when this achievement shows up. If you think there's a better place for this information, then you're free to move it. While most achievements can be answered with one or two lines, that's no excuse for being sent to "This page does not exist" or to the category the achievement belongs to. It's basically saying "we don't have information on this topic". I do agree that the entire Caladbolg quest chain needs its own separate page.

You never hear about the complaints because most people who use the wiki don't use the discussion pages, and probably don't even care. If information is not quickly found on the page they're currently looking at, their next step would be to use google, and then probably either loop back to the same wiki page or go to some forum/reddit thread where other people know (or don't know) the answer. You can take these threads as people saying "this answer is not on the wiki, where do I go to find it?" Even if it is somewhere on the wiki, most people don't even know it exists or even care because there's always going to be a dulfy guide with all the information they need. Intricity (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Sorry to butt in, but this is a crazy wall of text for something with a pretty simple conclusion. It's fine to have two pages; naturally my first instinct would be to document this content on the achievement page, but having a short summary version on the current events guide is okay too. I think the only missing bit at the moment was the lack of link from the Broken Caladbolg to the achievement article, which I've added, however I think other users input would be useful here, so I'll raise a request for comment. -Chieftain Alex 20:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Engineering kits

Hey, I notice you've been busily updating all the references to device kits and weapon kits. That's a good idea, but don't exhaust yourself trying to update all the pages. That job is better accomplished by a bot. ;) --Idris (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, i'll just wait for the bot to do its thing then. Intricity (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, they're not automatic. You'll have to put up a request on the bots page. If you want to, I mean. You're welcome to keep manually editing if you prefer. :) By the way, sorry if I stole your thunder by creating the Engineering kits article. I saw one of your edits in recent changes and thought "oh hey, that's a good idea" without noticing that you were in the middle of a Thing. :p --Idris (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

ehh, I wouldn't bother with stuff with a redirect or that's small enough to do manually doesn't need a bot. Although, I believe Alex or Darqam does routinely run a bot once in awhile to fix redirects...--Relyk ~ talk < 01:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind about the Engineering kit article. That was going to be the last one on my list. I had no idea how to merge them. Intricity (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Agony stuff

Come discuss it on Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Community portal#The Agony Pages are an awful mess. -Chieftain Alex 20:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Sigil table

Hi, I made an overview table for runes, see {{Upgrade component table}} and Rune#List of runes. Since this template works also for Sigils, by just replacing all occurences of Rune with Sigil, I was wondering if we want to use it also on Sigil. Nevertheless I don't just want to overwrite your table without asking you. My table is lacking in Discoverable, I'm not sure how to extract this information automatically. --Tolkyria (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

On the Condition Damage article - please revise the first footnote of the first table

Hey,

you've changed the first footnote of the condition damage table back to

"The amount of Condition Damage at which one point of Expertise will yield the same damage increase as one additional point of Condition Damage."

For a given type of condition damage the breakpoint is not _one_ point, it is a linear function C=C(E), and the values from the table are the function values of the value E=0.

That's why I used the phrase "to put the _first_ point" (that means with 0 expertise already in place). You use a similar phrase in the calculations section by your own "By setting Expertise to 0 and solving for Condition Damage, we get the _first_ instance ..:"

It is simply not visible (enough) in the footnote that you assume a given expertise of 0.

In its current form the footnote is far too easy to read as if it would state, that after that given point, it is better to put every available point into expertise, so that it would never be more useful again to put a point into condition damage rather into expertise.

Most people will not read through the calculations section to understand this. The foodnote has to be clear about it on its own.

Please revise your correction of the footnote to make this more clear.

Thank you.

--Lexxa (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I would say what it said before was redundant. It was basically rewording the sentence before despite being "more general". This is what the previous one was:

The amount of Condition Damage at which the first point of Expertise will yield the same increase as one additional point of Condition Damage.

More general: The amount of points the Condition Damage must exceed the Expertise at which one additional point of Expertise will yield the same increase as one additional point of Condition Damage.

These two sentences are saying the exact same thing in my eyes, i.e. redundant. If you want to change it, feel free, just limit it to one sentence since any more would detract from what the table is about. It might just be better to just have it say "See Calculating breakpoints" instead of trying to summarize the entire thing in one sentence. —Intricity (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. You're right. To try to summarize the whole thing in one sentense makes it too complicated. --Lexxa (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)