Talk:River Skale Tad

Profession

who says they are elementlists,granted they use ranged attacks,but that still means they could be 5 other profession!--Neil2250Evil Mantis Eats Ragers. 17:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As they drop elementalist weapons, they in fact can't be another profession. Updating articles. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 00:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

← moved to Guild Wars Wiki talk:Projects/Drop research#Profession

Vote on profession

To settle this issue lets just do the traditional vote. Yes for the change, no against it.--The Emmisary 19:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

no--The Emmisary 19:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

yes. Voting on such a thing doesn't seem like a good idea to me though. I prefer to discuss so everyone can clearly state their point. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 19:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) No on the vote. The wiki is not a democracy. --Riddle 19:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Seconded. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 19:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The consensus, however, appears to be that drops are not an adequate indicator of profession, regardless of observed patterns. --Irgendwer 20:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright I guess the easy way to end is has been voted down. Continue your argument.--The Emmisary 20:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Irgendwer, the consensus is that drops are not a reliable indicator of profession. - Reanimated X 20:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

What? That's exactly what I just said. --Irgendwer 20:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Hahah read that again Reanimated. Fail tbh. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 20:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually reliable and adequate are 2 different things, but whatever, stupid debate is stupid. -- Salome 21:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Not different enough. Also, since I have found another issue that could use knowing this mechanic, it would appear you are wrong and it's not that stupid. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 23:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I like to think there's something that makes different this official wiki than others. We don't decide the data. We study the game, make tests, dive in the gw.dat, and work with what we know for sure. And when we make guesses or note what most players think, we note that they are guesses and that's not for sure. Info boxes for cratures don't have an option for guesses and inaccurate data. If you want to add 'guessed' professions, then you have to change the infobox to note that, adding categories of 'suspected professions' and things like those. That is, we can't just vote and decide what's their profession. We cannot know their profession, so we cannot note it in any other way like a trivia note that says something like "It is suspected that they are elementalists". If a dev looks at this and decided to take the time to either add an 'scan' skill we can use to check the data ourselves or tell us directly the data, then we will be able to note it. Until then, they are like all those NPCs all over the world that DO have professions, but we cannot note them because we cannot know them, since they never use skills. Remember all norn collectores in explorable areas? We know they are all warriors because we have seen them using the skills. But with the rest, we just can't. So we don't guess, we don't vote. We just leave that data empty. That's how I like to think this wiki works. MithTalk 21:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This brings to me another question: So would it be fine to note what I have observed at least in the general drop article as you say? Would be enough for me as I have no special interest in Skale specifically anyway. /agree with voting part. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 22:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. — Raine Valen 15:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) "Something about lack of counterexamples not serving as viable proof"

Yeah, that's what a scientific law is, for the most part. — Raine Valen 15:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The real proof

So let's assume I am wrong. Okay, then it should be incredibly easy to prove it by a single screen. I am not sure if any of you besides Traveler who listed the excepted items though actually even bothered to spend a minute testing this. If you say monsters can drop any items regardless of profession, go outside any town, kill a dozen monsters and post a screen, I ask no more of you. No photoshop allowed. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 20:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Remember that we're still consensus-based community. If consensus approves of Vladimir Lenin, by God, we bring in Vladimir Lenin. --Riddle 21:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

← moved to Guild Wars Wiki talk:Projects/Drop research#The real proof

Lol

Page length (according to Word 2007):

• Talk page - 4190 words
• Article - 82 words

Absolutely priceless.  :) --Rainith 22:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hahah good point. Funny that my first real contribution to the wiki turned like this heh. I am wondering what will happen the next time lol. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 22:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

A picture's worth a thousand words.

...Crap, the talk page has a picture too (sigs don't count). Still, 5190 (well, more now) to 1082 is a somewhat less ridiculous ratio. - Tanetris 05:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahem <_< - MEI FEN 09:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hahah nice comic Mei, and pretty accurate lol. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 10:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Although they sound more like a shriek than a roar. MithTalk 21:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Okay even the OP seems to accept that this in itself, is a bit on the pointless side, and that it is more a general topic of interest that is being discussed. Would it not therefore be an idea to create a project to help figure out the intricacies of the drop system and get a few of the wiki-ers involved. Surely that would be more useful to the wiki as a whole than debating a lvl 0's profession despite its lack of access to any skills what so ever. (also as an aside I think it is a necessity in the game coding to assign each enemy a profession, thus why some of the end game bosses without prof skills still drop skill tomes, therefore i think every enemy in the game actually will have a coded proff. In all likelihood skale tads are eles, as all other skales in pre are eles and they do seem to drop a high number of ele drops.) Now can we kindly move on? -- Salome 23:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No one has contributed to Guild_Wars_Wiki:Projects/Drop_research for a while, so maybe it could be evolved. Manifold 23:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) /agree with all Salome. Also, what you say on my compromise of leaving the professions as they are and just add a note about the drops to drop? That should satisfy everyone around here. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 00:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to have more than ~3 people "confirm" that piece of information (ANet confirming it will work, too) before we do anything with it. If it is true, then perhaps we could do drop research for individual monsters to see if there are any anomalies to the pattern (like an ele dropping mesmer items consistently.) --Riddle 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm game. I'll do what I can. -- Wandering Traveler 02:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've done some recently, so why not? - J.P.Talk 17:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Off to do some research! I must admit that I've been paying more attention to drops lately, and I'm still to see a profession specific wand/focus skin to drop from a different profession. Anyway, I'll be testing Fire Imps for a while, as someone reported a necromancer offhand (Idol dropping from then in the talk page. Probably it dropped from one of the Bog Skales that roam near the Imps, but it's worth a try. --Lhoj 18:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

@Riddle: Sounds okay to me. Also, I am very glad to see that my researching inspired more people into more researching :) Looking forward to see any other observation you might find! ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 19:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Could be fun. I'll try to contribute, hopefully after we get a reply from ANet. --Kyoshi (Talk) 17:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Summing up this talk page

Invisible pink unicorns are real. Prove to me otherwise. 76.2.21.99 00:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Summing up this section. lolfail trolololololol. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 00:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Your argument in a nutshell.76.2.21.99 00:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

To spell this out more clearly, not being able to provide a counterexample against a theory does not make said theory fact. Since your argument is basically, "you can't provide a counterexample, so I must be right," (despite counterexamples being shown), your argument is flawed. It can't be proven that the skale are elementalists, therefore it has no place on the official wiki.76.2.21.99 00:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

"Profession-specific caster weapon skins only drop from mobs of that profession."

The difference between that and your pink unicorns is that we have evidence that suggests the former. When you see hoof prints appearing out of nowhere and hear disembodied neighs, we'll look into your pink unicorn theory.

Once again, most modern scientific law is based on a plausible explanation for phenomena that cannot (or has not) been disproved. We can't ask the devs of the universe to confirm our speculation by checking the source code; we can only experiment, document the results, create "rules" that explain said results, and revise them at such point that counterexamples arise.

We have tons of (screened and verified) data that suggests that Eaglemut's proposition is correct. His proposition is a plausible explanation of that data. I don't see why we can't adhere to it until data arises that proves otherwise. — Raine Valen 1:15, 14 Aug 2010 (UTC)

Well said Raine, thanks for explaining. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 01:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

← moved to Guild Wars Wiki talk:Projects/Drop research#Summing up this talk page

The real joke

Annihilator 2: Searing Day could have been our chance to finally prove this is an elementalist, but you can't do it in hard mode. Manifold 16:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't we, like, ask arenanet? >.> File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 16:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Since all NPCs kept their original professions. It's safe to assume they are elementalists (safer than their drops). I won't make the change since it's still not 100% sure, but you can always ask. MithTalk 18:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again

I missed you guys [1]. I'm still sad we couldn't reach a consensus on this. When I initially came here I expected the drop behavior to be common knowledge amongst most players and absolutely didn't expect such a heated argument to happen. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 12:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I was about to say I missed you, too, but then I realized that this page has two archived talk-pages: Thing One and Thing Two. I waded through 503 errors just for the pleasure of staring at those walls of texts ; ).

Anyways, welcome back, and please, NO ONE START A REVERT WAR unless you're willing to add to those conversations in a meaningful way. G R E E N E R 15:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Did I do something wrong lol? It seemed logical to me Magamdy 16:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Logic can be a fickle thing, as it relies on all parties to agree on the formulation, as well as the interpretation of the premise. (i.e. The wiki was "fun" to watch many years ago.) G R E E N E R 01:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I am in favor of the removal of the elementalist tag. If I am not mistaken, the idea of Eaglemut is that some core weapons only drop from the creatures of the adequate profession which is a very interesting idea (I experienced that notably when farming elementalist purple weapons in pre-Searing, which only the ele boss drops) but impossible to prove (lack of counterexamples is not viable proof). Besides, if we have no way to determine a creature's profession that means it has no impact on the game whatsoever (useless information). Now if you are persistent with your idea, we can only reduce counterexamples possibilities (and precise the list of such weapons) by killing every type of foe in the game whose profession is known several times (maybe like 100 or 200 times) and/or let other players add their own experience to the list. Ultimately if that bothers people so much one can still ask Anet directly.--193.48.141.104 09:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Guild Wars is not rocket science. If "Item z is only dropped by x profession, y monsters drops item z: thus monster y is prof x" isn't proof enough for you an astronomy master would be the place for you. Aparently anyone can add stupid overthought trivia to any page but, oh hell no if someone tries to apply some logical logic, Descartes all over your edit. -- Magamdy 10:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This is Guild Wars Wiki. We gather knowledge and have not right to affirm something that may be wrong. "Item z is only dropped by x profession" has never been proved. And again, the information is totally useless. Last whim from me, please don't bring french people where they don't belong.--Ruine Eternelle 11:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

"We gather knowledge and have not right to affirm something that may be wrong.". Yes, because your edits have shown so much regard for objective facts. Also please tell me where in the Constitution of the Sovereign Republic of GWW it says we, The Users, don't have this "right". Seems to me if we have a very strong argument for a certain change, we can go right ahead and change it. And we do don't we. Or would you rather disregard/change Fire Wand, Holy Staff, Bone Staff, Inscribed Staff, Earth Staff (core), Truncheon, Air Wand etc. and their respective talk pages. Boy, do I feel like the upholder of scientific integrity on the wiki.

Also, I use Descartes because his mentality of "Anything that's not 100% provable is USELESS" seems to still haunt here. Doesn't matter that he's French, or you are French, monsieur/madame Eternelle. Magamdy 11:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

We all make mistakes, like what I did on the sword page. I know of a lot of things in this game but I sometimes get carried away by what I deem to be "useful", which I know is bad. That's why I'm glad that some people like you, Steve, Toraen or Greener are there to react and correct my edits so that they don't get overboard. --Ruine Eternelle 12:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If "lack of counterexamples is not viable proof", you could argue there is no proof that Elementalist Tomes only drom from Elementalist foes. Doesn't that seem like a ridiculous claim? Well, to me, denying that Flame Artifacts drop from only Elementalist foes seems equally ridiculous. This wiki already has drop research data strongly supporting this pattern, submitted by various contributors over many years. See Talk:Flame Artifact (flame), Talk:Water_Staff, Talk:Fire_Staff, and so on..

I'm going to also have to disagree with this information being "useless". Nobody cares about River Skale Tad obviously, but consider knowledge of this drop pattern in general. For example if you're playing a Ritualist and are looking to find some nice new focus for yourself, you'll find literally zero of them even after completely vanquishing the entirety of Nightfall mainland. Why? Because there are no Ritualist enemies there! ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 12:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

^This argument should've been the end of the discussion years ago. Anything else is just disregard of the facts. Magamdy 12:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks Magamdy to end the discussion I made a mistake taking part to. To Eaglemut, please quit being so scornful and narrow-minded. First you dig up a dead topic which would have better stayed dead. Second the handful of skins you are so violently talking about is fairly common. And last, when you finally grasp something slightly interesting such as "only foes from that profession drop that skin", you don't unify it but rather waste your efforts into categorizing weak foes no one cares about. Now this is not my fight and I am not your enemy. I wish you a good day.--Ruine Eternelle 13:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

"...you could argue there is no proof that Elementalist Tomes only drom from Elementalist foes." I may not be remembering this correctly, but I recall Anet stating that fact when they introduced the Tomes years ago. Maybe I'm wrong, anyway, I'll let you all return to your discussion now... --Rainith (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you want to know, here's what Anet stated when they introduced tomes: Non-elite Skill Tomes may be obtained from any normal creature in Hard mode. Seems like a strong assumption that tomes only drop from the corresponding profession. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 10:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)