Archive talk:D/any General PvE Avatar

General Discussion

Heh does anyone like my variant?--NanoMan (talk • contribs) 08:55, 20 May 2007 (CEST)

• Build:D/any Mel Dervish (primer follow-up) Shireen 09:11, 20 May 2007 (CEST)

This is such a waste of an elite, even the primer is better. AoM with no skills to exploit it = lose. Tycn 12:53, 20 May 2007 (CEST)

I'm unfavouring this. RIGHT NOW. This so badly sucks, I have a wild blow/wearying strike AoM derv for PvE and it would own this without using any skills... LOL x/ '~^\^^/~' Napalm Flame (talk)(contributions) 12:57, 20 May 2007 (CEST)

I believe Rapta changed this build around a lot after it was favored. Perhaps we should look at the original version, and see if that's why this build was favored... it's here. -- Nova -- (contribs) 15:02, 20 May 2007 (CEST)

Agreed, old version is better (not much though). Delete please, don't see how the heck this got through. '~^\^^/~' Napalm Flame (talk)(contributions) 15:20, 20 May 2007 (CEST)

So this is where it went! I was wondering where did this build get lost into. Old version was definatelly better although it could still use some touching up. It's still a build that is good basis for many good variants when you get better skills later ingame and so on. Such as Mystic Regeneration and other avatars and with a cheaper energy cost avatas like Avatar of Balthazar and Avatar of Dwayna and maybe even a zealous scythe, Chilling Victory becomes a great option instead of Mystic Sweep. Anyway I agree about deleting this one, needs rewriting. -Mooo 15:53, 20 May 2007 (CEST)

Delete Tag

You should ask an admin to check the build before slapping a delete tag on this. It is a favored build according to this history that came over from wiki. Delete tag removed. Any admins want to make a ruling on this? Shireen 04:43, 21 May 2007 (CEST)

Imma slap an {{admin review|deletion of vetted conflict}} tag on it. ‽-(єronħ) no u 04:45, 21 May 2007 (CEST)

Sure, I can give a ruling here although I by no means speak for the Admins as a group. There is plenty of precedent for builds on GuildWiki going from favored to unfavored for whatever reason. Just because a build becomes favored doesn't mean that it then becomes proof against being changed to unfavored, or, if need be, deleted. We can all agree that GuildWiki's vetting system wasn't stellar, and, as previously mentioned, I am sure we are all aware of numerous occasions on which a bad builds was favored. Therefore, it would be my opinion that the deletion tag should remain since it may in fact simply be a bad build. All that changes is that we need to be a little more cautious about actually deleting the build since the fact that it was vetted may indicate that it has some merit. Otherwise though, that is still no reason not to allow the community to rule in favor of deleting a build if they so choose. Consensus can always change and I see no conflict here. *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:49, 21 May 2007 (CEST)

Assuming no one objects to this line of reasoning, I would say that my judgment (as an Admin this time) would be that the Administrative Review Tag be removed (both because I have rendered a judgment and because I feel there was no conflict to being with), and that the deletion tag be put back onto the build so that the community can decide the validity of such a tag (obviously with a final decision being made by an Admin. *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:51, 21 May 2007 (CEST)

I have no problems with that, though someone may want to speak to the original delete tag author about his way of saying the build was bad. Shireen 04:54, 21 May 2007 (CEST)

Sounds good, I like the idea of obliterating the old policy... ‽-(єronħ) no u 04:54, 21 May 2007 (CEST)

Hmmmm... saying it sucks wasn't very politic, but, it wasn't some kind of policy violation either. People are free to say whatever they like about a build as long as it isn't an attack on the author himself/herself. Now, I guess there could be a question of whether saying a build sucks is a poor reflection on the author and thus an attack... but, I don't know I would go as far as to say that. If it gets out of hand, I can always do something about it, but, for now, I don't see it as a real issue. *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:59, 21 May 2007 (CEST)

Whats the plan Rapta? Shireen 05:37, 21 May 2007 (CEST)

(edit conflict) Not sure what crack I was smoking when I re-did the attack skills, but VS+CV are back. The original was a laughable build, really. Come on, a Dervish using Deep Wound in PvE? A conditional AL boost when you have Conviction to choose from? This is the standard, cookie-cutter PvE AoM build. Also, Zealous + Attack Spam is win. Rapta 05:40, 21 May 2007 (CEST)

Whatever you were on, was obviously potent. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 05:43, 21 May 2007 (CEST)

The synergy is also there (although keep in mind that synergy only exists if it's necessary and doesn't actually hinder a build). AoM isn't enough to make Chilling Victory and Victorious Sweep worth using on max health targets in later areas of PvE (ie, torment demons). That's why you have Vital Boon to give you a further boost, while being a cover ench for Zealous in case there's hex removal. Rapta 05:42, 21 May 2007 (CEST)

zomg, enough Edit Conflicts Rapta >.>. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 05:43, 21 May 2007 (CEST)

Yes, Wearying Strike should be included; nothing matches it in damage (including the 150 or so "damage" inflicted via deep wound, naturally; deep wound is a surefire way to kill torment demons before they get their 5-second shout finished). Also, I was thinking D/Mo with draw condi as a variant; with the energy management from zealous, you can afford to make a fat condi stack disappear.
Dervishes are overpowered, we all know that; but settling for 50 damage attacks when you can get 100+ and spammable deep wound is a waste. PW:WELL, remember? -Auron 11:49, 21 May 2007 (CEST)

The aforementioned D/Mo already exists. Tycn 12:17, 21 May 2007 (CEST)

Hm... delete the d/mo, add it as a variant to this one... and add heart of fury and wearying strike to this as core. That would be optimal. -Auron 12:21, 21 May 2007 (CEST)

Please, no convic. Make it optional or add MR. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 00:53, 22 May 2007 (CEST)

I smell a revert war starting... Shireen 02:06, 22 May 2007 (CEST)

zomg, nano stop changing the build! I don't want to violate RV1, but I will contact an admin. My last edit was not a RV, merely restoration. This will be my first and final RV. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 02:21, 22 May 2007 (CEST)

I've only changed it once to it's old version the current version sucks and I think we should talk about it first. If you want a build that doesn't work and caused this whole crazy problem fine keep it up. Whatever. Edit: I also changed it to give a varient but that was it. I never changed the real build.NanoMan (talk • contribs) 02:34, 22 May 2007 (CEST)