Talk:Enchanted Lodestone
From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Drop research[edit]
| Mode | Dropped by | Location | Signature |
|---|---|---|---|
| ? | ? | ? | ? |
| ? | ? | ? | ? |
| ? | ? | ? | ? |
Expert salvage research[edit]
| Material | Amount | Signature |
|---|---|---|
| ? | ? | ? |
| ? | ? | ? |
| ? | ? | ? |
Emit a glow in the dark[edit]
IMO, notes should be removed, we cannot be certain whether he refers to the shiny effect on all items or not. Paddymew 10:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Nicholas talks from an in-game view. The little sparkles are NOT canon lore, while the shining in the dark is. They are two different things, don't get them mixed up. And if he meant the shiny effect, then why collect Enchanted Lodestones specifically? Logic before mindless comments, please. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 10:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, he says that five of them glow in the dark. The picture only shows one. Logic before mindless picture, please. Paddymew 09:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wait... Did you just agree with me and then tell me that my comment was mindless? I said that I was in favor of removing the note about them not glowing in the dark, as "proved" by the picture. Paddymew 09:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- What I said is that all items have that shiny effect, so it would be pointless to ask us to collect Enchanted Lodestones for that reason. From a game mechanic view (i.e., how we see them) they do not have a glow past the "glitter" because it is lore added after the item was added. The "mindless" part was the lack of realizing this. Which means both the note and your comment was. No offense, it's just logical (or critical if you like school memories) thinking. Lastly, he says that they individually glow in the dark and that 5 of them would be bright enough to give enough light for Yakkington. -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 17:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Honestly, we wouldn't know if Nicholas was lying, and if he's just gathering all of this stuff to make a doomsday machine. Maybe Nicholas was talking about the generic glitter on all items, but it probably isn't, since what we see isn't neccesarily what people in the GW world see (imagine the UI - a compass in the upper right corner of your eye). Now, you are apparently going to lecture me in logics 101, telling me to be more critical than I am, instead of doing something to show the rest of the world that the piece of information posted here is Yakkington-droppings. I really don't see why you would rather waste your time on a person who says that the information is wrong, rather than educating the people who believe said false information. Paddymew 20:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- I prefer for people to educate themselves, and just to let them know when things are brought to me if it is wrong (this is why I am not a teacher). Nicholas, like most NPCS (note: Not all),and does talk in a lore context - which I said on Nicholas' page when it was brought up - and the glitter which is on all items is not lore. Thus Nicholas does not mean the glitter. And you confuse me on "show the rest of the world that the piece of information posted here is Yakkington-droppings." Yakkington-droppings? That suppose to be a play on words for bull sh*t? If not, you lost me. -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 02:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yakkington-droppings seemed more appropriate, but yes. I only wondered why you didn't change the notes. I mean, saying that a comment is mindless while it questions something because it needs to not question it, but rather reject it as the lie it is, seems like a waste of time in comparison to changing the note, especially since you seem to worry that much about what is actual lore and what isn't. This is what has happened so far: 1) I question the note and propose that it be changed. 2) You tell me that it isn't enough to just question the note, but you don't change it at all. That looks more like you are opposing whatever I'm saying, instead of opposing what you say you are against yourself. Paddymew 08:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- "I only wondered why you didn't change the notes." Because while Nicholas speaks in a lore context, it should be noted that they don't emit a glow. Or else someone will just put it back up. Though a re-wording could be helpful. "You tell me that it isn't enough to just question the note..." Never said that. I simply said that the "glitter" that all drops make are not lore, while Nicholas speaks in a lore context. You misunderstood me, clearly. I am indeed agreeing with you, but not completely. What Nicholas mentions and what the note talks about are two different things, but if it is just removed, then it won't change anything as someone will just put it back up again. I also just changed the note to be more specific. -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 16:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I still think Nicholas intends to use the enchanted lodestones as a power source for something huge. I mean, he gets millions of them! Perhaps there are no Charr in GW2, since Nick just blasts them all of the face of Tyria. Paddymew 19:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe arenanet will add the glow effect soon? - Chrisworld 06:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Or maybe the stones are pitchblende and he's making a nuke
- Maybe arenanet will add the glow effect soon? - Chrisworld 06:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I still think Nicholas intends to use the enchanted lodestones as a power source for something huge. I mean, he gets millions of them! Perhaps there are no Charr in GW2, since Nick just blasts them all of the face of Tyria. Paddymew 19:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- "I only wondered why you didn't change the notes." Because while Nicholas speaks in a lore context, it should be noted that they don't emit a glow. Or else someone will just put it back up. Though a re-wording could be helpful. "You tell me that it isn't enough to just question the note..." Never said that. I simply said that the "glitter" that all drops make are not lore, while Nicholas speaks in a lore context. You misunderstood me, clearly. I am indeed agreeing with you, but not completely. What Nicholas mentions and what the note talks about are two different things, but if it is just removed, then it won't change anything as someone will just put it back up again. I also just changed the note to be more specific. -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 16:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yakkington-droppings seemed more appropriate, but yes. I only wondered why you didn't change the notes. I mean, saying that a comment is mindless while it questions something because it needs to not question it, but rather reject it as the lie it is, seems like a waste of time in comparison to changing the note, especially since you seem to worry that much about what is actual lore and what isn't. This is what has happened so far: 1) I question the note and propose that it be changed. 2) You tell me that it isn't enough to just question the note, but you don't change it at all. That looks more like you are opposing whatever I'm saying, instead of opposing what you say you are against yourself. Paddymew 08:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- I prefer for people to educate themselves, and just to let them know when things are brought to me if it is wrong (this is why I am not a teacher). Nicholas, like most NPCS (note: Not all),and does talk in a lore context - which I said on Nicholas' page when it was brought up - and the glitter which is on all items is not lore. Thus Nicholas does not mean the glitter. And you confuse me on "show the rest of the world that the piece of information posted here is Yakkington-droppings." Yakkington-droppings? That suppose to be a play on words for bull sh*t? If not, you lost me. -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 02:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Honestly, we wouldn't know if Nicholas was lying, and if he's just gathering all of this stuff to make a doomsday machine. Maybe Nicholas was talking about the generic glitter on all items, but it probably isn't, since what we see isn't neccesarily what people in the GW world see (imagine the UI - a compass in the upper right corner of your eye). Now, you are apparently going to lecture me in logics 101, telling me to be more critical than I am, instead of doing something to show the rest of the world that the piece of information posted here is Yakkington-droppings. I really don't see why you would rather waste your time on a person who says that the information is wrong, rather than educating the people who believe said false information. Paddymew 20:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- What I said is that all items have that shiny effect, so it would be pointless to ask us to collect Enchanted Lodestones for that reason. From a game mechanic view (i.e., how we see them) they do not have a glow past the "glitter" because it is lore added after the item was added. The "mindless" part was the lack of realizing this. Which means both the note and your comment was. No offense, it's just logical (or critical if you like school memories) thinking. Lastly, he says that they individually glow in the dark and that 5 of them would be bright enough to give enough light for Yakkington. -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 17:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wait... Did you just agree with me and then tell me that my comment was mindless? I said that I was in favor of removing the note about them not glowing in the dark, as "proved" by the picture. Paddymew 09:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, he says that five of them glow in the dark. The picture only shows one. Logic before mindless picture, please. Paddymew 09:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
