User talk:Johnnyrodrigues

Talk page

Your talk page is for discussion and for people to contact you. Your skill ideas would probably be better placed on your userpage or on a subpage of it. -- Wyn 14:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

done :) --Johnnyrodrigues 18:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Guild page

Putting tags in the Alliance nav template breaks it. -- Wyn/talk 17:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

is there another way that I can put the tags but with a diferent format? =/ --Johnnyrodrigues 17:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Paragon

Regarding the screenshot, your paragon actually wears Paragon Ancient armor ;-) Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 01:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah thanks for the heads up about that. I know the name but it was one of those things that passed by me and never realised it :P --Johnnyrodrigues 01:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, it's my armor of choice :) Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 01:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Its pretty awesome =D I also like obsidian armor dyed black for paragon but I can't afford it yet.. >.< --Johnnyrodrigues 01:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, either they are unaffordable or ugly... Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 02:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding deletion

I saw your topic at Poke's, but I wanted to tell you here. You can also save images from "orphaned" status by placing {{not orphaned}} in the image's summery as well. If you need any other things, feel free to ask. --Antioch 02:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks :) --Johnnyrodrigues 17:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello and ackowledgements

Hello, just a wee message to say it is good wiki etiquette to give some form of credit or acknowledgment on your user page if you use somebody elses page as the foundations of your own. Your page is clearly derived from Lensor's page, so it might be an idea to leave a wee note on your main user page somewhere stating something along those lines. Anyhoo I know im a bit late but welcome to the wiki and enjoy your time here. -- Salome 15:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I didn't know that user until now. =P I do admit my page is derived from another wiki user and that user is Shadowstar. I'm sorry that I forgot to credit him although the character template is credited in the character template section. I will make sure to leave references to his page in my other shadowstar-derived pages aswell :) --Johnnyrodrigues 15:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

no worries at all mate. It was just a polite reminder. Once again welcome to the wiki and we're happy to have you. -- Salome 15:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

btw i think this is offtopic but I was checking some weapon galleries and one of the weapons was showing very wierd on my pc. I looked at the versions of the images submitted for that weapon and Silverleaf's version was really stretched up (I can show you a pic of how it was looking). So in my ignorance I reverted the image back to its previous version. But after I did that Silverleaf's image was something completely different. And it was actually a good picture. So can you look at both versions and decide which one should remain be displayed for that weapon? :) --Johnnyrodrigues 15:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC) weapon link How the image was showing up

Linkie

Hiya mate, just one small quick message, sorry to bother you.
I see you're using in your signature, and it looks great. But, could you please save it onto your P.C./laptop, and re-upload it as [[File:User_Johnnyrodrigues_Sig.jpg]] or such? The Signature Policy (link in section header) says you have to use a file that's unique to your signature.
Once you've done this, you can just click on the image in your signature (somewhere you signed after changing the image) and edit the top of the image's page with #REDIRECT [[User:Johnnyrodrigues]], or #REDIRECT [[User_talk:Johnnyrodrigues]] if you prefer.
Thanks in advance, and we're delighted to have you here. If you have any questions, please do just give me a shout. Thanks! A F K When Needed 15:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up :) --Johnny Rodrigues 02:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Consecutive win streaks in RA

→ moved from Feedback talk:John Stumme

that solution did work but there were to many qqers so ra never saw the fix. oh lol i thought u linked to when they changed costume brawl.. - Zesbeer 22:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

costume brawl wasn't really fixed... they just change the entire party after every match, its still possible to sync but because unlike RA you dont get bonus pts for consecutive wins nobody even bothers... Johnny 01:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Nobody bothered to sync in CB? No bonus for consecutive wins in CB? Sir, I think you had the wrong format. Before that update, it had a "9+(number of consecutive victories up to 41)" system for Gamer points, which was removed because of both syncing and the re-randomizing. It is a fix in that it prevents syncing for more than one match. Even with the re-randomizing, people were syncing and I dare say the loudest qq'ers of that change were, in fact, syncers (I know that was the case for at least a couple). -- Konig/talk 02:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

No, people synced CB, but they don't anymore (or they're really dumb to do it) because even if you do get to be with your friends in one match it randomizes every following match and because they removed the increased rewards for every consecutive win. The point is, they didn't fix syncing. Johnny 12:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"people synced CB, but they don't anymore" "they didn't fix syncing" But... you... they... GAH THAT MAKES NO SENSE! If people do not sync that means that they fixed syncing because people do not - and in fact cannot sync (for more than one match)! So yes, that was fixing syncing. Not the issue in the system that allows syncing, but they still removed syncing therefore fixed the problem of syncing. -- Konig/talk 12:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference in can sync and want to sync. People can sync, they just choose not to because there are no benefits to it. --Johnny 12:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

No one's arguing against that. But when people are re-randomized every match, it removes the ability to sync (aka "can sync") for more than one match, making syncing pointless except to assure victory of that first match. Whether there's a bonus for consecutive wins or not doesn't matter, as syncing merely improves the odds of victory (quite greatly, might I add). -- Konig/talk 12:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Actually it doesn't remove the ability to sync (aka can sync), it only demotivates people to sync (aka want to sync). It's pointless because of the lack of rewards. If people didn't get anything from syncing then they probably wouldn't sync. Even with scrambling of the party, if people were to get an ecto for every win, they would just quit and re-sync. It would be no trouble at all.

This may work for CB but it doesn't for RA. Mainly because it would be extremely painful for people to get more than 5 wins and with this update arenanet showed that they wanted to bring more people to RA, make it easier and reward people for winning. --Johnny 12:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't agree with you. 1) Yes, people can sync, but they are "un-synced" after the first match. 2) There's still motivation to sync without consecutive rewards by the fact that syncing improves odds, so the change in reward didn't demotivate.

In fact, the rewards were pretty much boosted for syncers, except for the fact that they re-randomize now. So if anything, except for long consec matches, if they didn't do the re-randomization people would of been more motivated to sync. So your earliest comment on this ("you dont get bonus pts for consecutive wins nobody even bothers") is wrong.

The fact that in order to remain synced you have to leave and re-start is a damn good fix I'd say, as that means no consecutive wins for syncers. And yes, it is a fix - not a total fix, but a fix - because it removes the capability to have consecutive wins. If the re-randomization were added to RA with no change to the rewards, syncers would get absolutely no benefit outside a better shot at getting that first point from the second match's victory.

"Mainly because it would be extremely painful for people to get more than 5 wins" So what side are you on? Re-randomization doesn't make it that much more painful tbh, and you don't even need five wins anymore. Two wins gets you one point, and you get an additional one for each match. So really, it does the most damage to syncers, which are currently at the best standing in RA no matter what.

Please try to be more clear, because it really sounds like you're starting to contradict yourself. -- Konig/talk 13:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"There's still motivation to sync without consecutive rewards by the fact that syncing improves odds, so the change in reward didn't demotivate." No there isn't.

"In fact, the rewards were pretty much boosted for syncers, except for the fact that they re-randomize now." from 9+X pts (up to 41, for total 50) to 15 pts per win, its not boosted.

"The fact that in order to remain synced you have to leave and re-start is a damn good fix I'd say, as that means no consecutive wins for syncers" this is tied to the randomization of players every match and means no consecutive wins for anyone for that matter, even for honest players.

"And yes, it is a fix - not a total fix, but a fix - because it removes the capability to have consecutive wins." So you punish honest players for trying to get consecutive wins, good job here.

"If the re-randomization were added to RA with no change to the rewards, syncers would get absolutely no benefit outside a better shot at getting that first point from the second match's victory." syncers wouldnt even get to the seconds match, while honest players would just get more frustrated, even greater job here.

It seems you're the one making all of the confusion here, I've explained it all pretty simple and if you still don't understand then I can't help you. --Johnny 14:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

For the points: It's boosted for the initial matches - which is enough motivation to sync. Again: if it were just the point changes. (Clearly I'm not the only one misunderstanding something). And yes, there can be consecutive wins - atm, consecutive wins is based on the individual, not the team (if someone leaves and someone else takes the team's place during the next match, the team will have consecutive wins, but the new individual will not), so the only difference is that each match is just as unknown to how you'll do as the first match normally is, but consecutive wins still exist.

"Punishing honest players" wasn't the point - the point was that it was a fix, because it removes the point of syncing (as we both agree upon). It isn't the best fix - as I said (well, I said total fix, but same thing practically) - but it's a fix, which has been my argument the entire time. I honestly fail to see why non-syncers are at all upset by re-randomization. What's the downplay for them? Oh, they get a new random team! Just like their first random team! So it's just more of the same thing that they agreed to in the first place... where's the issue in that? Why is re-randomization such a punishment for non-syncers? Because I honestly don't see it and you never say why it's a punishment except that it "hurts them" because they "won't win" (which is 100% bs - if "honest" players can win their first match, they can win their second or third with re-randomization). So tell me, why won't they win? Why would their second match be so worse than the current first that they cannot win? For the "honest" player, the current situation is worse because they're more likely to hit syncers. -- Konig/talk 15:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

First: "100% bs - if "honest" players can win their first match, they can win their second or third with re-randomization)" you can't predict who you are going to get on the next match ... unless you're an alien or you have psychic supah-powerz.

Second: lets set this straight, people play random arenas for the consecutive wins and they want more than 5 wins because you get more glad points and the new rewards. You can ask any non-troll players in RA. Recently it's very hard to find a decent party (a monk and some people who actually contribute to your success) so naturally when you do get them you want to stick with them. If people got a mending Wammo or a Necro spamming flares or a random guy who leaves or never connects on their next match people will either resent them or the system. Which will make people stop playing the format. Syncing needs to be stopped at the root which is in the match making process, not shuffling every match and making virtually impossible for anyone to win more than 3 times in a row. How does the match making system need to change is an entirely different discussion. --Johnny 15:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"you can't predict who you are going to get on the next match" Just as you can't predict who you'll fight or who you're with for the first match. I fail to see why this is a problem - oh, and btw, if re-randomization is implemented, you'd be sure to expect a different reward system. After all, it's random arenas. Either way, I doubt that re-randomization would be added (or even return in CB next Halloween) due to the massive amount of qq'ers that got a form of what they wanted. Again, a form of a fix - never once said there were no better options, and if it is possible to stop syncing "at the root" then I'm sure it would of been done. Systems are naturally flawed when built from scratch like a lot of things from Prophecies. -- Konig/talk 16:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"Just as you can't predict who you'll fight or who you're with for the first match."

I'm happy that you are finally getting something. Of course you cannot predict anything, from your team or anyone else's team, for the first or any of the matches, which makes it even more difficult to play for the consecutive wins.

"you'd be sure to expect a different reward system"

The problem isn't the reward, it's the abuse that syncers cause. You can't balance stuff because of syncers, or you'll risk unbalancing the game for non-syncers. You just need to fix what's letting people sync in.

"Either way, I doubt that re-randomization would be added"

I doubt it too, but because it doesn't fix anything.

"and if it is possible to stop syncing "at the root" then I'm sure it would of been done"

Like a lot of stuff that need fixing and aren't a priority and take huge amounts of time to take care of. Like the bot banning sweep that took well over 6 months to happen. --Johnny 16:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This won't get anywhere as it's obviously a matter of opinion on whether it "fixes" things or not - or rather, there's no enough evidence due to the fact that re-randomizing was used so little and not for RA so we're just disagreeing over "what ifs." As such, I'll merely state once more one thing: I don't see the issue which you bring up. Or rather, I do see what you're bringing up, but I don't see it as an issue. It being "you cannot predict anything". -- Konig/talk 16:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well for one thing we can agree that we disagree, I'm just sorry that after all this you couldn't understand it. I just have one last question, do you play RA? --Johnny 16:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't go assuming that I don't understand - I do understand what you're saying, I comprehend and know what you're saying, I just don't agree (that it's harmful). There's a huge difference between agreeing and understanding. It comes down to whether or not one views luck being a part of the system good or bad - you clearly view it as bad. And, to add onto that, whether a constant equal standing dependent upon said luck (that is, a situation of "if you're good now, you may not be next time" rather than "if you're good, you're good"). Again, this argument has been falling down to opinion. And I RA on occasion, and for the record I do CB (and the other festival arenas) as much as I could when its available. -- Konig/talk 17:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"a situation of "if you're good now, you may not be next time" rather than "if you're good, you're good""

You say you understand but you keep missing the point, you play these arenas as a team so it doesn't matter if you're the best/worst player in the game. If your team sucks you'll probably lose. So it's irrelevant if you're good/bad now or later. It really comes down to team play and how everyone plays. --Johnny 19:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"You" can be used as a plural pronoun, you know. -- Konig/talk 06:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)