Mabinogi World Wiki is brought to you by Coty C., 808idiotz, our other patrons, and contributors like you!!
Want to make the wiki better? Contribute towards getting larger projects done on our Patreon!

User talk:Info

From Mabinogi World Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Various Edits

Sometimes I get the feeling that you make edits for the sake of editing. Or maybe I'm just imagining things. Tellos 14:23, 28 November 2010 (PST)

Is that bad...? Infodude575 17:27, 1 December 2010 (PST)
This wiki exists to record all data for the mabinogi game. If a page is complete and without error, then editing it further is pointless. If you question the wording or logic of a page you can discuss it in a talk page. Tellos 17:33, 1 December 2010 (PST)

...why wouldn't guides have spoilers? That's why they're guides... And why else would there be a giant spoiler banner at the top of the page? --κєνıи тαıĸ«) 17:42, 1 December 2010 (PST)

Because Admins say so. Also, G1, G2, G3, G7, G9, G10, G11, and G12 have the banner, but theres no content that reveals the plot. Infodude575 16:44, 2 December 2010 (PST)
You know Ikkisuki is an admin right? Tellos 16:46, 2 December 2010 (PST)
Perhaps... then you might be a hypocrite. Remember the "incident" with the editing on G1 page? Infodude575 16:53, 2 December 2010 (PST)
I don't recall doing anything to the G1 page, also there is no hypocrasy. Perhaps you are suggesting I'm a liar? Blue link = page, red link = no page, Gold link = Admin user page. Tellos 17:45, 2 December 2010 (PST)
See here then. Your fellow Admins say its not allowed. Infodude575 19:25, 2 December 2010 (PST)
I agree with the no-content-spoilers rule, my main reason for using the wiki mainstream guide is because it just only tells you How, but not What and Why (the real spoilers), which i want to figure out myself. Addressing the storyline in the mainstream articles should be sparingly used, and only when it helps with describing the How.--Hengsheng120·TALKCONTRIBS 21:59, 2 December 2010 (PST)

What server do you play in?

Hi, which server do you play in?--Hengsheng120·TALKCONTRIBS 06:13, 3 February 2011 (PST)


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Archery Info Update?010:43, 22 January 2016
Dressing Room Update012:37, 21 January 2016
Category Updates023:06, 2 December 2015
re: bread from nao018:45, 11 May 2014
Ingredient Hunting List801:34, 1 May 2014
Meteor strike training "abuse"?2118:30, 13 April 2014
I don't mind you cleaning up after me but...200:38, 8 March 2014
To put this aside.218:12, 28 February 2014
Removed one of my Edits1503:41, 10 February 2014
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page

Archery Info Update?

A thread, Thread:User talk:Infodude575/Archery Info Update?, was moved from here to Template talk:StyleWeapon. This move was made by Blargel (talk | contribs) on 22 January 2016 at 17:43.

Dressing Room Update

A thread, Thread:User talk:Infodude575/Dressing Room Updaet, was moved from here to Talk:Dressing Room. This move was made by Blargel (talk | contribs) on 21 January 2016 at 19:37.

Category Updates

A thread, Thread:User talk:Infodude575/Category Updates, was moved from here to Talk:Wiki Home. This move was made by Info (talk | contribs) on 3 December 2015 at 06:06.

re: bread from nao

Don't readd things decepticons remove, period. Most of the time they're doing things on my direct instruction. If you have issues, you're only allowed to bring it up as a discussion, not revert their edits.

Bread from nao is seriously useless information and is just excess clutter that no one wants to see. Yes *you* want to see it, yes pyro wants to see it, yes there are a couple others who want to see it. But surprise, surprise, the vast majority don't care about obscure details.

I'm sorry if it seems totalitarian, but the wiki needs a good cleaning from the vapid spew left by the few loudest, previously unchecked contributors. Once things are clean it will probably be less totalitarian.

Kadalyn (talk)18:45, 11 May 2014

Ingredient Hunting List

Any particular reason this page was moved to a subpage? We hardly use subpages except for user pages in the first place.

Blargel (talk)22:47, 30 April 2014

Well, its part of the skill isn't it? Also no one seemed to mind with Puppet's Snare/Unsnareable Monsters List.

Infodude575 (talk)22:49, 30 April 2014

Wait...was I not suppose to move and delete it? I saw the request while browsing changes o-o;

It was supposed to be deleted because it had lowercase in it, and that interferes with the auto correct in the search.

Infodude575 (talk)23:07, 30 April 2014

*Shrugs* Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

If you want to change it back, that's fine.

Infodude575 (talk)22:53, 30 April 2014

I don't have a strong opinion either way. It just seems odd that we're using subpages suddenly.

Blargel (talk)23:58, 30 April 2014

Well...on a technical basis, Talent has several subpages tagged to it, but that's just cut down on the page size though. Course, there's that stupid "too many transclusions" error sooo yeah.


I think the start of it all was Commerce.

Infodude575 (talk)00:11, 1 May 2014

Or quest transclusion. I don't see why not transclude, especially transcluding lists.

Kapra - (Talk)01:34, 1 May 2014

Meteor strike training "abuse"?

Would you kindly point out where it is established that attacking Cremena is "abusable" and should not be mentioned as a viable way to train meteor strike?

Dias (talk)11:28, 8 April 2014

Erm, I think it was somewhere in Talk:Meteor Strike, or its edit history, or somehow it just popped into my head... I don't remember.

However, before we make hasty movements, lets talk about whether we should put it back in or not. Even though its minor, it can be abused to some extent.

Infodude575 (talk)16:12, 8 April 2014

Crumena is a dragon/field boss. Crumena can be accessed in G8 final. G8 final can be repeated if it is not finished. Using these facts and basic logic, you can easily figure out that Crumena is the easiest way to access a dragon if you have access to G8 final. I don't remember anything mentioning that using Crumena as a target was "abuse". In fact, if it was considered abuse, why would devCat even allow it as a target for meteor training in the first place? You'd think they built a list of monsters that count rather than a list of monsters that don't count.

Blargel (talk)17:02, 8 April 2014

How do we know that Crumena was meant to be a trainable target? The Saga: Iria dragons aren't trainable targets for who knows why (I have no idea about the one in Aces).

Infodude575 (talk)17:22, 8 April 2014

It's impossible to know the developers' intentions. However, I still stand by my opinion that it is not abuse. The Saga dragons are the only dragons that don't count and probably the only reason why is because they can't actually be defeated in a story battle, making them count as NPCs rather than bosses or dragons.

Blargel (talk)17:30, 8 April 2014

Mm, I would say that they probably didn't want to make it easy to train. But that's just baseless conjecture on my part, so I'll concede.

Infodude575 (talk)17:37, 8 April 2014

Baseless conjecture... Man. I don't even...

Ikkisuki (talk)03:03, 9 April 2014

Go away. Your useless comment and bump annoys me.

Infodude575 (talk)11:26, 9 April 2014

Don't worry; I'm leaving. Your aura of stupidity is quite repulsive on its own.

Ikkisuki (talk)20:59, 9 April 2014

I too think that it's not really abuse. It's just another training method and it's not confirmed if it's even a glitch. And MAYBE, just MAYBE Crumena counts because he has the Meteor Skill.

Nise Panda (talk)17:38, 8 April 2014

I don't even think G8 Finale spam is considered abuse considering the little amount of access people have with that. Not to mention the sheer difficulty of going alone (I mean, I can solo it, but that's me 8D).

Well, a countermeasure was put for Jenna's 100% repair which "little amount of access people have with"...

Infodude575 (talk)13:31, 9 April 2014

Well played....well played.


If they have time to patch Jenna in case of a 100% repair event that rarely ever happens, but they don't have the time to patch Crumena to not count for Meteor Strike training. Then something is wrong with their priorities. Or Crumena counting as training isn't abuse.

Blargel (talk)14:15, 9 April 2014

I fail to see how it could be considered abuse. I've yet to see anyone with a party up looking for g8 final just for training purposes, and even I were to suddenly see a cluster of party ads for that, the cooldown on meteor would still make it a time-consuming process.

Yinato (talk)09:08, 10 April 2014

Field dragons don't spawn every 30 minutes. Crumena, you can just enter once the cooldown goes away.

Infodude575 (talk)09:39, 10 April 2014
-blah blah- 30 minutes. -blah blah- once the cooldown goes away


Just going to throw a few numbers out.


  • you're using magic/druid talent
  • you've completed all other training requirements (which would also take a few hours)
  • Crumena doesn't troll your ass by flying up during that 5 second period before impact
  • you are on g8 final

Just for the smack a dragon training requirement, getting to the next rank/getting the master title would take a minimum of:

  • 4 hours at r3
  • 5 hours at r2
  • 75 hours for master title

Sooo, with all that in you still think it can possibly be seen as "abusable"?

Yinato (talk)10:50, 10 April 2014

He's already conceded when he re-added Crumena to the training tips section. We don't really need to continue discussions about this.

Blargel (talk)10:50, 10 April 2014

Oh, skipped that entire part when I saw the whole info-kevin thing starting up (as usual) lol.

Yinato (talk)10:55, 10 April 2014

Not to mention the fact that it's 5 against 1. All I can say is that I'm practically outnumbered and overruled.

Infodude575 (talk)11:02, 10 April 2014

I've been gone the past few days, and yes the immediate issue has been resolved as Blargel has pointed out. I do agree with the outcome, but I do not think this discussion is over in the sake of future potential abuses, would like to provide a dissent. What I am talking about is the method by which a few of you have used to determine if something is or is not an abuse. Just because a method isn't used, or isn't as useful as another abuse method or a nonabusive method should not change or determine whether or not something is or is not an abuse, in my opinion at least. It should not be based on if its practical or not to perform the "abuse", rather, it should be based on:

  • A: Whether it was stated if it was or was not intended (such as the shyllien and hillwen wallers, in which Mabinogi JP [although never DevCAT, NA, or KR] explicitly said this was not allowed and they would begin banning those caught, though to my knowledge this ban spree was never enforced in NA). In such cases, sources would be preferred.
  • B: If there was no official comment on it, there really is no way to figure out whether it was intended or not intended. That being said, this may seem problematic, but we should vote whether or not we as players in our own personal opinion, which is not relevant to what the developer believes, thinks it is an abuse or not, only after long discussion.

With the ability to revisit decisions made by either method. After re-reading my point B, I do feel wary of it, but I am solid on A. Even if A and B are crap, the method used earlier in this thread still really needs to be redone.

Anyone agree or disagree?

Kapra - (Talk)17:43, 13 April 2014

I mostly agree, and yes we probably should have some sort of system in place to determine whether something is considered abuse or not. Let me bring this up with the rest of the staff to see how we should deal with this in the future.

Blargel (talk)18:30, 13 April 2014

I don't mind you cleaning up after me but...

Do you have to make them sound so similar than they were before?

Clean up ≠ reconstructing what was there before with added changes.

That aside, sometimes it is better to simplify, rather than make large comparisons/lists to confuse players reading the guide/walkthrough/whatever. The last thing you want is extraneous information hiding the original intention of a simple guide to help players.

I'm sorry, but I'm trying to avoid that too? Maybe its because I was still editing while you ninja'd me?

I somewhat disagree with the removal of the mention of G1 Glas. Considering the fact that you have to do G1 now before 9, naturally one would remember fighting Glas; "I've killed you once before and I can kill you again." Except Glas responds with "Haha! I have new tricks up my sleeve! I replaced my Gargoyles with Crag Cows who don't drop Goddess crap. Me not E-Z this time!"

Infodude575 (talk)00:30, 8 March 2014

I guess, but there's plenty of other differences (which seems apparent according to the monster data).

Also, double check before doing a mass page edit, as I tend to do section by section consecutively.


To put this aside.

To be fair, sure, a lot of us are really harsh. Though, as several of us have told you that you walk right into it. If you want the respect that some people feel you deserve, that's perfectly fine. But if you want that respect, you need to show this site with respect, too. There were several accounts where people here have had to fix, test, clean up, or just plain do a complete run-around on pages that you have made mistakes on or goofed up. There were several times you have put something down that was not true and it had to be fixed or tested or confirmed by someone else. With that being said, putting information here is a big deal considering it is a resource for players. When given this position, most of the things told is -common knowledge-. Not just for me, but pretty much for everyone. When people come to use this site or find information, it to them is a fact, and when it isn't tested or correctly put in, players get upset and then blame the wiki as a whole. I remember years back, a user got upset because he found wrong information here and decided it would be funny to create an account, and put invalid information on the silliest pages and vandalize. He was later banned for this. If you want people to be nice, which will probably be a while; please- think before you speak, make edits, and put up information. Test out what you think of before even entering it here. Go into game, find what you are looking for, if it's fishing related, test it, if it's dungeon related, test it. Make sure what you are putting down makes sense, or else it's going to be really tiresome fixing it. That should probably sum it up. Just be careful with what you post, and people might just be less likely to nit-pick at you as often. With the exception of Kevin. ;w;

Hi I'm Anemki, and I'm a Decepticon! ★ talkcontributions06:47, 28 February 2014

I'd rather respond to this privately. Lets have a nice long chat about this on the IRC with tea, cookies, and cream, how about it?

Infodude575 (talk)12:32, 28 February 2014
With the exception of Kevin. ;w;


-thumbs up-

Ikkisuki (talk)18:12, 28 February 2014

Removed one of my Edits

Edited by author.
Last edit: 07:09, 5 February 2014

I know this is a really delayed response to this but a while ago you removed something I added to the Fusion Magic page about ego wands. I'm not sure I understand what you put as a reason for removing it but my post was accurate. You can indeed use a ego wand if it is a Crown ice wand to help someone get fusion bolt, even if it has more than a level 6 social level. I used my social level 29 ego crown ice wand 3 days ago to help a friend get it. I would change it back myself but I'm not sure how to do it and don't want to mess with the page. Could you change it back?

Godwrath1 (talk)06:03, 5 February 2014

o - o All Spirit Wands can get chain casting.

"This does not apply to Spirit Weapons made with advanced wands like the Crown Ice Wand because they can not get chain casting." This sort of makes it sound like as if Adv wands cannot get any sort of chain casting. Which is why I think infodude took it out, because i was slightly confused looking at it as well.

Nise Panda (talk)06:15, 5 February 2014

"This sort of makes it sound like as if Adv wands cannot get any sort of chain casting." They can't.

If adv spirit wands can get chain casting at soc lvl 6+ then why did my wand at soc lvl 28 not have it? In fact, right on this wiki's very own page for spirit weapons adv wands aren't listed as being able to get chain casting. Only the basic fire ice and lightning wands are.

Godwrath1 (talk)06:38, 5 February 2014

If you test it again and it works don't be afraid to replace the information. Doubting a fact is not sufficient reason for deleting it without verification. Certainly always try your best to make the thought as clear as possible.

WhitePass (talk)09:53, 5 February 2014

I am 100% certain that they do not get chain casting. I had that ego crown ice wand for almost 2 years and was nearly constantly harassed by my former guild mates for choosing it because they all said it was pointless to ego a wand that "Didn't have CC".

Godwrath1 (talk)12:58, 5 February 2014

So wait, its ONLY Fire Wand, Ice Wand, and Lightning Wand, and nothing else?

Infodude575 (talk)10:32, 5 February 2014

While the information I posted is accurate I went and reread the Magic Fusion page and saw

" must not be a Spirit Weapon Fire Wand, Ice Wand, or Lightning Wand".

Which, back when I made the edit I assumed it meant all wands that were of those elements. Now I understand it was talking about only those 3 wands, making my addition redundant and unnecessary. It is that part of the page that seems to have lead so many people to be confused so maybe the wording of it needs to be revised somehow.

Godwrath1 (talk)13:13, 5 February 2014

I guess its also the spirit weapon page's fault for not mentioning that either.

Infodude575 (talk)13:34, 5 February 2014

Second Generation wands (The speed ones) do not have chain casting.

レキシス・ミカヤ (talk)11:03, 5 February 2014

From spirit social? You're not confusing with normal upgrades are you?

Infodude575 (talk)11:07, 5 February 2014

They can not get Chain Casting by upgrades or by spirit social level.

Godwrath1 (talk)13:01, 5 February 2014

Not that I recall. Granted, I never had a second generation wand, but I did recall several players in JP's servers did not have chain casting on theirs. course things change, so who knows.

レキシス・ミカヤ (talk)11:09, 5 February 2014

Just to add to this, I knew second tier wands cannot get chaincasting, but does this apply to Dittes Lightning Wand? That was added long before the more recent ones that cannot chaincast.

Kapra - (Talk)02:23, 10 February 2014

Dittes is a first gen wand ego.

レキシス・ミカヤ (talk)02:32, 10 February 2014

So it should chaincast lightning bolt? Have we ever tested this?

Kapra - (Talk)03:01, 10 February 2014

I recall my friend had one and faintly remember it does have Chaincasting.

レキシス・ミカヤ (talk)03:41, 10 February 2014
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page