User talk:MithranArkanere

From Guild Wars Wiki

Contents 1 Character template 2 pre and post 3 Lucky Star 4 some summaries 5 DS 6 Page Design 7 Should we make a userbox... 8 Control and interface 9 Page Idea 10 Technically there IS 1v1 11 Happy Birthday! 12 "PvP should always be a choice" 13 http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Feedback_talk:Linsey_Murdock#Could_u....

[edit] Character template

Your character template is really nice! Would you mind if I took some ideas from it for my future userpage? With credits to you, of course. :) - anja (contribs) 22:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I second this, and snagged it from you without thinking. I do hope you don't mind, and will definitely throw credit on there if you don't mind me keeping it. Briareus 09:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not finished, I'm a bit lazy lately, but you can use it if you like as long as you copy it. I will make some changes in some time, and if you directly use my template, your pages will get messed up. MithTalk 12:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I did just copy it, and changed it just a wee bit, so thanks a lot. I'm fairly new to all this, so coding one myself was out of the question. I came upons yours from your post somewhere in the userpage discussion, if I recall. Briareus 18:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oi! You don't have to credit me in your page! I feel awkward seen my name around, XD MithTalk 18:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] pre and post

Saw your trivia notes. Goes for more than them. Check Van the Warrior for an example. Backsword 13:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll think that I'll note tham as 'anomalies'. MithranArkanere 13:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that some are very intentional; like those farmers that join the vanguard. Backsword 13:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Orion color change or Sir/Warmaster Tydus. But some of them look just way too different. Verata changes from looking like Cloud (white eyes, black hair) to Having its own unique model. And the Ascalonian->Krytan change of Jarrel it's just too much excessive. MithranArkanere 13:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lucky Star

If someone is wondering if I like LuckyStar after seen the final version of my signature, that I'm going to keep from now on: Yes, I do like it quite a lot, XD. MithTalk 15:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm liking it too, mines similar. BTW arn't we suppose to save is as sig in the name not 'star'? --Smithy-Star 09:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] some summaries

are automatic. "replacing page with ____," "removing all content from page," and "revert edit #____ by user:_____" are automatically filled in if the edit looks like any one of those. -Auron 10:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Aaaah! What a shame! It would have been funny... well as funny as vandalism can be... MithTalk 10:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Some vandals are aware of summaries and fill them in with stuff like "totally *not* blanking this page..." Those are the best :p -Auron 10:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Backsword 10:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I have a wicked sense of humor and tend to use sarcasm, but truth is that such things it can be only slightly funny when it's an unintentional mistake that is not repeated again. For joking around we already have some user pages and other wikis like the Uncyclopedia. MithTalk 11:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DS

You seem to know a lot about Directsong and stuff. Do you know(and how) if its possible to play your own music in GW? ~ SCobra 22:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is possible. And quite easy. You just need to:

• Install one DirectSong upgrade. The Sorrow's Furnace one is for free.
• Then open the GuildWars.ds file and add the music you want to play under the playlist you want it to be.

Examples:

# Bone Palace<br/> L438:Guild Wars Nightfall Collector's Edition/01_The_Bone_Palace.wma[50] This will make the file ..\DirectSong\Guild Wars Nightfall Collector's Edition\01_The_Bone_Palace.wma play with a volume decreased [50] milibells.

To add more files, just separate them with commas.

To include the default GW playlist, add a *.

The ds_GuildWars.dll allows various file types, like wma and mp3. MithTalk 22:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page Design

hey how do did you get that gray bow around like and dislikes and stuff--Soul of misery 02:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

See it yourself: User:MithranArkanere/Profile. For now only some browsers accept the CSS3 border-radius property. In a year or two, all of them will accept it. In FireFox and other Mozilla-based browsers, you have to add -moz- to CSS3 and exclusive properties, since they are experimental and not part of the last CSS version: 2.1. So, in this case, it's -moz-border-radius. MithTalk 10:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should we make a userbox...

These users want a name change ability even if once per account? Hi. Ninjas In The Sky 13:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't like much the 'political' userboxes. So I won't probably use something like that. MithTalk 14:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Control and interface

Mith,sorry to trouble you!I setup as you told,my character named Bright God,then i set a path: %GAMEPATH%\GUID WARS\Templates\UI\Bright God.txt,then i join in the game of this character,but the txt is blank!Will you please tell me the right method,thank you!--Bright亮月 02:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

XDDDDDD That's not something you do. That was a suggestion I made about how should they implement the idea! XDDDD

It's nice to see that my idea was good enough to make someone believe it was true, XD. MithTalk 12:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a pity!!!--Bright亮月 00:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page Idea

Hey Mith, your page has these edit links. Try adding __NOTOC__ to the page, it will remove them. Greeetings, --'DAVA 20:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I want them there. MithTalk 02:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Technically there IS 1v1

it is called HB, or HvH. ANet call it 1v1 on obs. Also, scrub abers will try to sologank someone on their own like the fial players they are. On top of that, rangerwars (also known as balanced GvG gone wrong) Owut 16:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That's 4vs4. With AI, less AI is you can micromanage, but still 4vs4. It's not as importnt how many players there are as how many skills are in play. Winning with 8v8 skills and 2vs2 professions depends waaaay more in luck that with 64vs64 skills and 8vs8 professions. MithTalk 16:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's as simple as this: The more variables, the less luck comes to play and the harder is to balance the game and vice versa. Which is the most balanced game? Flip a coin. Which the the less balanced...? Impossible to know, but surely one with waaay to many rules, variables and exceptions. MithTalk 22:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Birthday!

enjoy ^^ |Cyan LightLive!| 14:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh...? How didyou know...? MithTalk 21:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a page on this wiki that shows everyone's birthday. -- Halogod35 05:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

So you're old now? Backsword 10:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, the userpage is already updated. By the way, what's the link for the Birthday special page? MithTalk 14:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/User birthdays -- Halogod35 19:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's a project. And I put myself there, XD. Didn't remember. MithTalk 23:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "PvP should always be a choice"

Games like Starcraft and TF2 say otherwise. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 03:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

PvP should always be a choice. MithTalk 13:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

But, if Guild Wars is a PvP-focused game like Starcraft or TF2 (as it was when it was released), why are the devs obliged to provide non-PvP options for play? I don't see why it's fair that PvP-focused games need to provide PvE content, but PvE-focused games (for example, Fire Emblem or Final Fantasy) don't need to provide PvP content. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 16:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Dissidia proves you wrong :P but seriously, most of the PvE part of Prophecies was meant to be a preparation for PvP. You can see that in missions like Thirsty River, Thunderhead Keep, and Elona Reach. Basically, back then, the game was teasing you to do some PvP for the 'real thing'. IMO, that is what it should have stayed. 82.217.189.101 17:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Fire Emblem and Final Fantasy have PvP content in several of their chapters. Fire Emblem portable and online games all have PvP modes, and Final Fantasy Tactics and Online have too. You don't seem to understand. What I say is not that PvP must exist, but that if both PvE and PvP exist, each one should be an option players can take, and choose one or both as they will, without having the feeling that PvP is the end of the road or that the game is preparing them for PvP. In the case of GW, if that was the case, the PvP content would end when you get to level 20. And it doesn't. MithTalk 15:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Fire Emblem's PvP was practically nonexistent - no one cared about it because a. it was horribly balanced, b. you had to find someone *in real life* to battle against, which is tougher than finding someone online, and c. it was discontinued after one or two games.

You said nothing about both PvP and PvE being options - what you said (repeatedly) was "PvP should always be a choice", period, end of subject. (Furthermore, the PvP content begins at level 20 - though I'll assume that's a typo.) Even so, by your argument, why should I feel like PvE is the endgame and be funneled towards that?

You still have not answered the question I posed. Why is it that a PvP-focused game shouldn't have a PvP endgame?

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 16:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That question is absurd. GW is not a PvP focused game. It no longer matter how it started. All that matters is what it is now. PvP should only be a choice. As it is PvE too. For example, in Unreal Tournament and Quake arena, I never player the PvE parts. All I played in those games was the multiplayer modes. I had the choice, I could play one or another. But it still has one mistake compared to other Unreal and Quakes: the PvE part feels like mere training or the PvP parts. And that's why I didn't play those PvE modes, they were boring. In the other Quake versions, I played both. And what's more important, in those games, like in GW as it is now, you don't have to advance in one made to play further in the other. A PvE character needs to get to the Port City, but the Player, the important one, can still make a PvP character and start right away without having to play through PvE. PvP is fully a choice. And it doesn't matter much for PvE players either, since they will have less than level 20 most of the time until they reach the City Port. MithTalk 21:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"But, if Guild Wars is a PvP-focused game like Starcraft or TF2 (as it was when it was released)"

"Why is it that a PvP-focused game shouldn't have a PvP endgame?"

Try again. This time, don't waste our time. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 22:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

GW is not a PvP-focused game. And PvP is never and endgame. The only end-credits are in PvE. They even added end-credits for Prophecies. That was the final touch to the PvE-PvP split, along the split on the skills. You don't finish Prophecies and go to PvP, you finish Prophecies and then do whatever you want, being it go to Factions, try HM, do Prophecies all over again, leave the game and go make yourself some cookies, eat the cookie dough raw. Hm... cookies... I don't really like cookies. Can I have chocolate instead? Have you ever tried Milka chocolate? It's the best! ...

Anyways, players (at least most of the ones I talked to ingame) no longer feel as if PvP was the next step in GW. That's how things are now. And you keep bringing concepts from ages ago. In time they will be more than 250 years ago. MithTalk 22:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I. Am. Not. Talking. About. Current. Guild. Wars.

I am asking why any PvP-focused game shouldn't have a PvP endgame. Why shouldn't TF2 have a PvP endgame? Why shouldn't Aion? Your blanket statement "PvP should always be a choice" is ridiculous when applied to a PvP-focused game, including but not limited to GW at release.

Do you need any more clarification, or are you going to once again ignore what I'm typing unless you can twist it to be irrelevant?

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 22:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Focusing a game towards PvP is never a good idea. You broad your market by adding both PvP and PvE modes and letting people choose the one they want. Some like cooperation, and some like competition. Cooperation builds peace, competition builds war. You can't have Yin without Yang. MithTalk 16:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You do realize you can say the exact same thing about PvE? And yet, amazingly enough, plenty of great games focus on one or the other exclusively. Sorry, but your bad theorycrafting doesn't actually work when you realize that not everyone enjoys bad PvE and fears PvP in any form like you do. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 20:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That's when a game only have one of them. If a game have both, if the PvE part it's just some kind of training for the PvP part, the PvE part is no good. Exanmples of that are games like Quake Arena, Unreal Tournament, or the first days of Guild Wars. What's the point of fighting against environment if the environment has any depth or plot at all? If I just want to play with a set of rules meant to fight against other players, I just play against other players. MithTalk 16:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Feedback_talk:Linsey_Murdock#Could_u....

Video of Mike O'Brien flat-out stating that GW was built for PvP. --71.196.158.69 04:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That exact link was posted in that section already. I'm willing to bet it was approximately five comments down from where you stopped reading. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 05:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That video has ages. And as I said, that was a fixed mistake. Don't cling to the past. MithTalk 13:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be interested in knowing how you came to the conclusion that the PvE/PvP focus was a "fixed mistake" and not simply a change in focus on the developers' part. Other games have done this - as an example, WoW changed the focus of nearly every class in their latest expansion. Every class in the game received an overhaul; hybrids were made capable of performing multiple roles and being effective in those roles, pure DPS classes had a number of kinks worked out of them, classes other than the warrior were made viable tanks, etc. Why can this not have happened with Guild Wars as well? -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 16:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Lol Mith just Lol Lilondra 15:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Any use of WoW in my Talk page as point fo reference, comparison or otherwise will be ignored. WoW is a mistake itself and that's a point I will not admit discussion about. MithTalk 15:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

So anything you dislike or disagree with is a mistake. Noted! --71.196.158.69 15:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

WoW is an sole exception. I don't disagree or dislike anything. I just refuse to admit that WoW should have ever existed. Blizzard should have spent all that time and resources to Diablo III only. MithTalk 15:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

...You cannot expect people to take you seriously when you say that. I could have picked any game in the world - I could have compared Fire Emblem 9 and, especially, 10 to 7 and 8; I could have picked tetris and its re-releases and made the same point. You cannot, in a debate, completely ignore a point simply because you don't like it and then act as though you're justified and your opponent is wrong in bringing up the point - if you want to see how ridiculous that looks, google Scientology or Kent Hovind.

Please address the question. Put your hand over every sentence in the paragraph except the first and last and read it again if you want. The WoW example was merely evidence, and you can think about and answer the question without reading the evidence - you simply don't have the right to complain that I didn't provide said evidence.

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 16:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Then you do that, you pick any other game, and done. No need to soil other people's pages with the mention of WoW. MithTalk 19:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I think the existence of FE8 is a big mistake. An insult to the rest of the series. Koda Kumi 19:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I do not need to pick another game, as my point is valid even without the mention of any game.
2. I have already pointed out two other games.
3. I have provided instructions for how you can respond to my post while ignoring the mention of WoW.
4. You have no real right to claim that WoW's existence is a mistake any more than I do to claim GW's existence is. Furthermore, you have no real right to claim that I am "soiling" pages by mentioning WoW on them. Would you prefer I speak of meatspin?

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 19:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have the right to claim anything, my country has freedom of speech as one of its basic rights. Now, a talk page of a user page is to talk with that user. If you talk to me about WoW, I will consider you are not talking to me. And although there is rights to speek freely, there is no rights to make others think the way you want, no mater how much you would love that. So, if you are not talking to me in my talk page, the message is pointless, and your own talk page would be better for that. I could answer the message, but you - not me - will have to remake it without using WoW. This is like when you visit someone else's house. If they take out their shoes and direct you to do the same, you don't answer with reasons about how you think about taking your shoes off, you just take your shoes off. MithTalk 20:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Your facts are greatly mistaken (you have only the rights your ISP and current site grant you, and neither of those apply to proper debating techniques), but I'll honor your request.

I would be interested in knowing how you came to the conclusion that the PvE/PvP focus was a "fixed mistake" and not simply a change in focus on the developers' part. Other games have done this. Why can this not have happened with Guild Wars as well? -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 20:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Anything they change they change for a reason. And that reason won't usually be be a mere whim. What I call "fixing a past mistake" may be the same what you call "change of focus". But it's all the same. You release something thinking it will be good, you receive feedback and that feedback tells you that what you though were wrong, so you change what you did and wait for feedback again. That's a process of trial and error. So any change you do following that process will be 'fixing a past mistake'. MithTalk 20:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Fallacies:

1. Assumes ANet interpreted feedback correctly (see Izzy's, Emily's, Gaile's, or Linsey's talk)
2. Assumes GW is a better PvE game than PvP game (see any competent reviewer's review)
3. Assumes proph and factions' PvP focus was a mistake rather than NF and EOTN's PvE focus (see above)
4. Assumes ANet doesn't do things on mere whims (see Game Updates and/or Developer Updates)

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 20:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

1. No, I assume that Anet listen to feedback. The feedback namespace and the responses in here from Anet employees are proof of that. And that I LIKE the things they do according to that feedback. If I think that something is wrong, when they change that they fix a mistake.
2. GW is both a good PvE and PvP game, and I will always consider reviews of any kind completely irrelevant. They are always subjective, it doesn't mater if they are made by a single person or by polls. Someone liking something won't guarantee that I would like it too, each person must try something individually to know if they are going to like it. Inscriptions are a good example of that. They are a great addition, one of the best changes they made. And yet there is still people that would say otherwise.
3. Factions PvP focus IS good. I was around the time when Factions was added when they moved most PvP to the battle isles. Yes, there are things like the competitive missions, but you don't have to play through the entire game to get there, you make a PvP character and go there directly anytime you want.
4. Anet never does something on mere whims. It's a process with many step and many people in each steps. And of course, the things they do can never be liked by all players. As you said, feedback is interpreted by humans, and humans are not infallible. You may not believe this, but as uncanny as it is, there are still a bunch of retrograde people that want GW to go back to 'old school' days and some nonsense like that.

I obviously talk from the point of view of the player that I am, but you seem to respond as If I was talking for Anet or something like that. MithTalk 21:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Btw, neither one of you is going to win this argument. Mith can argue forever that, over time, GW has evolved into a primarily PvE game (which it has). That's not to say that GW particularly shines in PvE. It doesn't comparatively (read any review); however, it's PvP does and always has. Which is Armond's perspective. The game WAS designed from the ground up for PvP and a lot of those elements still remain. Tbh, you're both right (although I agree with Armond much more). Karate Jesus 21:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I never saw this as an argument anyone can win. I just write down what I think. But hey, if I'm going to win something, I may try harder, XD. MithTalk 21:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I once heard someone say "arguing online is like participating in the special olympics. Even if you win, you are still retarded." On a more serious note, combat in GW is at its best when every participant is 20th level and has maximum armor (the mechanics are designed that way). In PvE, the levels of your opponents change every 5 minutes, as well as their armor. So with those statements combined, logically PvE in GW is inferior to PvP... if PvP would actually be balanced, that is. Koda Kumi 21:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well....you get the point. This is a cyclical argument....which seems like a waste of time. But hey, don't let me tell you your business. Karate Jesus 21:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

@Koda: That quote is awesome because you can see how ridiculous it is by replacing online with any other medium.

@KJ: Mith isn't arguing that GW has evolved into a primarily PvE game; he's arguing that GW's historical PvP focus was a mistake.

@Mith: Feedback namespace just shows that ANet is allowing people to leave feedback, not that they're reading it (and, as they've very rarely cared about player feedback, it's unlikely that they care about the feedback namespace). Also, if you're going to keep blowing off my arguments because you don't like the evidence I point out, instead of ignoring the evidence and addressing the point, this isn't going to go anywhere (and neither will a lot of things you do in life).

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 22:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence. Where are the little plastic bags with the tags? As I said, that video has ages. In the last PAX, they stated that GW started from the concept of Magic cardgame - which s as PvP as a cardgame can be - but from one point in the past to the present a lot can change. When change comes, some adapt, and some long for the past. GW has become now a great game with both PvP and PvE, and being different modes, they can't be both balanced in the same way. Well, PvE can't be balanced at all! Balance is something you do between two equal sides. You can do that with two sides of humans with the same numbers, but not with humans an the current machines. Since it's technologically impossible to balance PvE, slowly but sure, PvE has been completely separated from PvP, to the point of the PvE/PvP skill split. You do not prepare to PvP by using a skill that will have a completely different behavior in PvE, do you?

They tried something, which was actually impossible, so they changed and changed and the changes brought us here. There are only two kinds of updates. Those that add content, and those that fix the already existing content. Both PvE and PvP modes existed since the beginning of GW, so if the PvP/PvE split was not an addition, it was a fix. You don't fix something if it's not broken, so there must have been something wrong if they had to fix it. So there was something wrong, and now that thing that was wrong is no more. So they fixed it. PvP and PvE not being split was a fixed mistake. That focus on PvP was a fixed mistake. Well, you don't get to this conclusion if you think that there wasn't anything wrong and it was fine as it was, and I don't. It was wrong and they fixed it. That's what I see with this two eyes the gods gave me.

One interesting thing about the human mind is that every single person can have one different opinion about anything. If there were only one opinion and everyone shared it, the world would be heaven on earth. And believe me, HEAVEN IS VERY BORING. You can come to my talk page and say something a thousand times, and I may repeat myself a thousand and one and nothing will change. Focusing in one mode was a fixed mistake. I think it was a mistake, and I saw how they fixed it with my own eyes.

Oh, and what's more important. I have never expected anyone to take anything I say really serious. "As serious as it can be" at most, which in this case isn't much. After all, we are talking about a videogame, XD. I have watched enough Monty Python to KNOW that nothing on earth is actually serious. Here's an explicative video. XDDD MithTalk 23:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried reading all that. I really did. There was just too much ridiculous for me to be able to. I'm sorry, but I just can't begin to formulate an appropriate response.

Here's a few hints:

1. Forensic evidence isn't the only type of evidence in existence.
2. TCGs don't have PvE by definition.
3. Changes can be made that are neither additions nor fixes. Humans (and especially ANet) make mistakes.
4. The definition of game balance isn't what you think it is.

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 23:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Either you are taking the joke too far, or I naively though you would notice by now how pointless this discussion is. Fortunately, I read and write rather fast, XDDDDD.

1. You can't be serious in this one, you just can't. I mean, I wasn't serious, and I think anyone would have noticed that, XDDDD Now matter how hard you try, you can't tell me what I think. I'm the only one that can say what I think, no mater how many times you come here and try to show 'evidence' with old videos and quotes from PvP players and developers, I will still see urging players towards PvP gameplay in any way as a mistake, and any change that removes or reduces such urge as fixing such mistake. You only have to see the Crystal Desert Missions. In no way you will play in them in a similar way you'll play in their PvP counterparts. Will you bring the same builds to the Doppelganger fight and a 1v1 skirmish? Would you bring the same build to Heroe's Ascent and Thirsty River? PvP changes much more frequently than PvE. Their paces are different, their gameplay styles are different. They are different modes. And so PvE can't be treated as a mere tutorial for PvP. Making the a game like that will be a mistake, and any change that takes the game away from that will be fixing that mistake.
2. TCG? You mean trading card games? I have seem computer-based trading card games with no multiplayer at all. By definition, a trading card game is "a game played using specially designed sets of playing cards." It doesn't matter if the cards are virtual, the rules are the same. Even the minigames in Final Fantasies count as trading card games by that definition.
3. When humans make mistakes they can usually fix them again, or at least avoid repeating them again. No single update in GW was wrong. Even when they added the extreme loot scaling, it was right. And when farmers complained in unison as a massive sea of whines that tore the sky and made the star fells and they changed it again to ignore rare items, it was right too. Even if you create new issues, if you fix something, a fix is a fix. Then there are fixes you may or may not agree with and not consider them fixes at all, but that's completely subjective.
4. I think that game balance is "a concept in game design describing fairness or balance of power in a game between multiple players or strategic options". (XDDDD) Now, you can balance the game to make PvE fair for all characters, but in no way you can balance the game between NPCs and players, and that's what I call "balance PvE". In PvP both sides will always be in equal footage. In PvE players will always have the upper hand. One is designed to have 50% wins with players of the same skill, and the other to have 100% wins after players achieve a certain level of skill (or read a certain page in PvXWiki, XD). All you can do in PvE is remove excesses, and that's what Anet did when they made skill changes to add excessively profitable farmings, and why they are keeping an eye on Speed Clears.

Now, although I could go on forever, I think it will be better for you to end this here. You can say you 'won' the discussion if you want and all. Judith, bring him the bouquet and the crown, please. XD MithTalk 02:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

r u srs? you ignore posts comparing valid things from legitimately competing games because it's a "mistake?" I don't see how armond bothered to argue with you at all, it would be impossible without you basing arguments in reality or logic. -Auron 02:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

<<No single update in GW was wrong. Even when they added the extreme loot scaling, it was right.>>

wait a minute...

<<No single update in GW was wrong.>>

/facepalm -=- Koda Kumi 09:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

YESH!!! Suffer my wrath! Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-haw! XDDDD MithTalk 16:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)