Difference between revisions of "Talk:Glaive of Prune"
CommanderC (talk | contribs) |
(Reply to Buddy Lee) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:Lol. There is nothing to worry about. It is actually a good weapon. In older versions of the game glaives were almost as bad as scythes, but that was changed in 0.10 I think. --[[User:CommanderC|CommanderC]] ([[User talk:CommanderC|talk]]) 20:39, 16 September 2013 (CEST) | :Lol. There is nothing to worry about. It is actually a good weapon. In older versions of the game glaives were almost as bad as scythes, but that was changed in 0.10 I think. --[[User:CommanderC|CommanderC]] ([[User talk:CommanderC|talk]]) 20:39, 16 September 2013 (CEST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Well now I just feel silly, per the usual. Thanks though. I'll cease worrying about feeling "pruney" or whatever it says. (seriously, I thought your character would slowly turn into a damn prune if you wielded it long enough!) --[[User:Buddy23Lee|Buddy23Lee]] ([[User talk:Buddy23Lee|talk]]) 21:38, 16 September 2013 (CEST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::Considering how willing to kill you the game normally is, I wouldn't put it past them :P By the way, unless you feel like bullet-pointing every last unrand in the game, I'm going to undo your edit here : / No offense, it's just breaking from the form we have everywhere else (and I think it looks a little tacky. We had it without bullet points to better match how intrinsics are listed in-game when you examine an artefact). Are you alright with that? --[[User:MoogleDan|MoogleDan]] ([[User talk:MoogleDan|talk]]) 22:14, 16 September 2013 (CEST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::::Totally, and sorry for any waste of time with that. I try to be bold in my editing which means I have to be equally willing to see my frequent overreaches get reverted. I'm still trying to get used to the style and convention here, so expect a lot of silliness from me as I try to gain my bearings. As a rule, I don't take anything personally and I always defer to more experienced and prolific contributors like yourself. --[[User:Buddy23Lee|Buddy23Lee]] ([[User talk:Buddy23Lee|talk]]) 23:14, 16 September 2013 (CEST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::::Definitely feel free to experiment! Honestly, it's not even like you ignored the existing format here; the unrands are about halfway through a clean-up process right now... Anyway, in general, I wish there was more discussion around here. If you think we can change the current format to something better, definitely bring it up on the Discussion pages for discussion; the majority of the people on here are actually pretty friendly when you get them paying attention :P --[[User:MoogleDan|MoogleDan]] ([[User talk:MoogleDan|talk]]) 23:30, 16 September 2013 (CEST) | ||
Latest revision as of 22:30, 16 September 2013
It seems like we should provide some content here that addresses the whole turning into a prune thing. (i.e. is it worth using?) As a player, I've always been too afraid to wield the damned thing when I find it, but if there was clear info here as to what you could expect in doing so, I might have been more bold. I can only assume that other people might visit this article for similar reasons. --Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2013 (CEST)
- Lol. There is nothing to worry about. It is actually a good weapon. In older versions of the game glaives were almost as bad as scythes, but that was changed in 0.10 I think. --CommanderC (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2013 (CEST)
- Well now I just feel silly, per the usual. Thanks though. I'll cease worrying about feeling "pruney" or whatever it says. (seriously, I thought your character would slowly turn into a damn prune if you wielded it long enough!) --Buddy23Lee (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2013 (CEST)
- Considering how willing to kill you the game normally is, I wouldn't put it past them :P By the way, unless you feel like bullet-pointing every last unrand in the game, I'm going to undo your edit here : / No offense, it's just breaking from the form we have everywhere else (and I think it looks a little tacky. We had it without bullet points to better match how intrinsics are listed in-game when you examine an artefact). Are you alright with that? --MoogleDan (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2013 (CEST)
- Totally, and sorry for any waste of time with that. I try to be bold in my editing which means I have to be equally willing to see my frequent overreaches get reverted. I'm still trying to get used to the style and convention here, so expect a lot of silliness from me as I try to gain my bearings. As a rule, I don't take anything personally and I always defer to more experienced and prolific contributors like yourself. --Buddy23Lee (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2013 (CEST)
- Definitely feel free to experiment! Honestly, it's not even like you ignored the existing format here; the unrands are about halfway through a clean-up process right now... Anyway, in general, I wish there was more discussion around here. If you think we can change the current format to something better, definitely bring it up on the Discussion pages for discussion; the majority of the people on here are actually pretty friendly when you get them paying attention :P --MoogleDan (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2013 (CEST)
