User talk:Relyk/Archive 1

Hello, Relyk, and welcome to the Official Guild Wars Wiki! If you need help with anything, don't hesitate to add a message to my talk page. I highly recommend that you check out the "Welcome to the wiki" page - it's extremely useful as an initial guide. Best of luck and happy editing! — ク Eloc 貢 15:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Metal eh ? Lilondra *poke* 09:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

He took that band of the month thing from my page incase you didn't know. — ク Eloc 貢 23:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Relyk

Could you please remove the personal attack from your user page, I don't really appreciate it. Misery 00:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you please learn to grow up, seriously--Relyk 00:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You're one of the reasons pvx has gone to trash imo--Relyk 00:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi please remove the "Fail Is Misery ..." message from your user page as it's considered a personal attack and is a blockable offense. --Kakarot 01:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's his ign, im showing my love for him--Relyk 01:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Weird how there is no character with that name. --Kakarot 01:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Its "Fail Was Misery" then--Relyk 01:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of that it's removal has still been requested by the person and going by the way you responded to him it's doubtful that you're simply "showing my love for him" as you put it. So the request still stands as does it being considered a personal attack. --Kakarot 02:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If you insist on the need for saying that someone fails on your userpage, I freely volunteer myself in Misery's stead. Free publicity is srs bsns. Vili 02:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Put me on too, maybe I'll finally get more hits on my suggestions page so I can get some feedback. --Jette 02:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

hey hey hey! dont forget briar! lol. go ahead and chalk me up for ur troll sheet. haha. :PBriar 23:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Briar

You guys are terrible--Relyk 03:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

y u no liek meh? Q.Q --Jette 03:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I want my name back >:( b.r // talk 03:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Depressed homicide is not a name to be proud of ;)--Relyk 23:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) "You're one of the reasons pvx has gone to trash imo" this is again true lol with the return of M. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 13:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Grow Up

Grow up. Would be nice. We'd have more mature suggestions on PVX and here if would either go away or grow up. :)

Hey Relyk. That random IP doesn't seem to like you very much. Misery 16:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That picture is pretty old ^_^--Relyk 01:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wandering Eye

I find three problems with your edits on this skill page:

1. Comparing AI skill behavior between one and another, I always find this to be a very bad idea. Because first of all it creates more inconsistency in the wiki. How? Careless people will make changes on only one half of the comparison and totally ignore the other half, in this case Clumsiness. The same idea should be expressed in that page only in the other way back to Wandering Eye.
2. But then...even that I find it to be very wrong. Comparisons should be done between the general default AI behavior to: (in this case) hexes and the particular skill on topic. Which means you should double-check with the page Hero behavior regarding the group (hexes in this case, which the page currently does not have and cries for development) and also make sure to confirm in Hero behavior/Unexpected behavior. Once we have the regular behavior of how the AI and Heroes use hexes, is when "anomalies" or bugs"" should be listed. But we don't use templates of such kind. So far all skill pages I have checked, the common practice is to just make a note.
3. The third issue is Documentation Talk:Hero_behavior/Unexpected_behavior_Archive_1#Documentation_Fail your edit summary is very poor, because it doesn't really say anything. We need to know the "why" of your changes like this:

• Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/AI skills usage/Skull Crack
• Mind Freeze
• Talk:Putrid Flesh

And by the way, I do find both skill mechanisms to be different and should not be compared because with:

Clumsiness, its more like a hex for prevention, and

Wandering Eye, its more like a hex to mitigate incoming damage. After years of watching AI behavior I can tell that heroes will give priority to skill functionalities by going literality through the description; and these two are not alike. Yoshida Keiji talk 14:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Literally from the description, you would expect they require the same pre-condition for casting. They are hexes that prevent enemies from hitting with attacks proactively. The benefits of using one or the other are what differ the two skills. I agree about the inconsistency, because Clumsiness was implemented first, I consider it the default behavior rather than just behavior associated with hexes. I considered Wandering Eye exhibiting anomalous behavior. My assumption is that Clumsiness was implemented with normal hex behavior, where heroes just spam it on enemies. When Wandering Eye was introduced, they implemented intelligent behavior to only use it on attacking foes. Heroes don't take into consideration for AoE effects and treat them as single target (Clumsiness wasn't originally AoE). In terms of intentions from AI, they don't use Clumsiness for prevention on multiple foes while Wandering Eye is explicitly designed to mitigate damage from multiple sources. The lacking summary was because I wasn't sure an anomaly tag was appropriate on the page but went with it. I realize the argument that the skills function differently, but I still view that heroes would require the same conditions to be met for either one to be used. The behavior is likely intentionally different, so that would be wrong to say. I will say that heroes don't take the AoE effect of Clumsiness into account when they use the skill, which is due to the AoE effect be added later on in the mesmer update. That puts them at a disadvantage when Wandering Eye is much more efficient. You would expect the hero to prioritize using Wandering Eye first because it's cheaper and has a longer recharge. The hero instead uses Clumsiness because it treats it as a standard hex and will use it at any time while it waits for the conditions for Wandering Eye to be met, you then get the discrepancy. That would fit under the unwanted behavior section, as the skills themselves work as implemented (if not intended) by the programmers.--Relyk 22:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Your arguments validate my observations rather supporting your analysis. Let me explain:

Clumsiness

"Hex Spell. For 4 seconds, target and adjacent foes are hexed with Clumsiness. The next time each foe attacks, the attack is interrupted and that foe suffers 10...76...92 damage."

Wandering Eye

"Hex Spell. For 4 seconds, the next time target foe attacks, that attack is interrupted and all nearby foes take 30...94...110 damage"

• The pre-condition is not the same. Clumsiness doesn't need one. But Wandering Eye would aim for an already attacking foe: the next time target foe attacks
  • What I mean with: "-Going literally through the description-" is that Clumsiness has two sentences. While Wandering Eye has only one sentence. I am 100% sure that AI reacts to the first sentence only of all skills, regardless of the second functionality; unless the second one has its requirements met without need of the first e.g.: UA.

• I don't think implementation (campaign release) is involved here just because one is Core and the other an EotN skill. However I do agree that Clumsiness has the same behavior of "General Hexes": cast it when ready for usage. If you re-read yourself you may find your own contradiction with:

Literally from the description, you would expect they require the same pre-condition for casting.

they implemented intelligent behavior to only use it on attacking foes

• Which mesmer update are you talking about?

• Energy cost and recharge. These do not affect AI selection, instead watch the hero bar with skills recharging and also take a look at the hero's energy bar.

• Finally, I disagree with your edit from a different aspect than Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF)'s opinion at Talk:Clumsiness#This_w.2F_Wandering_Eye. My reason its because of AI functionality literal priority, as I started saying. And I think you should rephrase your anomaly report to compare to "General Hexes behavior" rather to Clumsiness. While you are at it...also make sure you don't use two negatives in a same line with: ..."not"..."not"...

• If you think this talk would be better in Wandering Eye's discussion page, don't forget to link it too. Which makes sense with TEF's comment to initiate discussions in the relevant pages rather your or anybody else's talk page. Yoshida Keiji talk 12:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I read it as meaning similar behavior for when the hero will use it, they just omit the extra wording. Are you saying that the description implies the hero will use the same behavior as Empathy and Signet of Clumsiness? After considerable revising of this paragraph, I stand corrected of misinterpreting the language Anet uses in their skill descriptions. In terms of single foes, both hexes have the same result yet the hero behavior differs between the two skills. I would argue that Clumsiness's behavior is inconsistent with all other skills that require the condition of an enemy attacking to have an effect. Perhaps the AI behavior of treating Clumsiness as a normal hex is simply outdated and I consider it poorly implemented compared to the other skills :/ Prevention, as in discouraging enemies from attacking, has no meaning in PvE, which is the context I'm considering in my arguments. Update referring to was Game updates/20080206. I agreed on your point that the anomaly tag wasn't appropriate in the context.--Relyk 20:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)