Guide talk:Invinci-Monk Guide

Vetting

Who invented this fucking great build ?? Any1 knows ?? DervishPale94 10:12, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Issue, this build completely lacks a rating page, probably cuz it's not a build. How are we going to get this approved/disapproved? Shireensysop 12:50, 6 July 2007 (CEST)

More than likely, it's a scripting/whatever error. If a sysop or someone of that nature can just move the script for build vetting here, then it'll be a-ok. --Mgrinshpon (^C/_T) 22:05, 6 July 2007 (CEST)

But it's not actually a build per see. What I rememd we do, is we simply move this guide to the good pve section so it can be refrenced. Its not a build per see, but an article that can be refrenced. Anyone else have another idea? Shireensysop 09:29, 7 July 2007 (CEST)

Shield of Judgment triggers Fleeing

I think the article should point out that melee foes will flee when SoJ is used. Even if they get knocked down! I tested this myself and it's clear that the interval between AoE damage has no effect whatsoever! The enemy takes a certain amount of AoE damage and will flee. This is a major downside of any AoE damage farming build so why is it consequently ignored in articles?

Because it doesn't cause AoE scatter. Or, at least, it didn't used to. If you believe it's behaving that way now, then we need a couple people to test and confirm. - PANIC! pewpewpew! 06:50, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

You know, that's real motivation. I point out an obvious fact and some seconds later is has been deleted. In fact eventhough it has been tested - by myself. If you have any doubt go Hard Mode Elone Spire and have fun watching fleeing minotaurs when using any AoE spell including SoJ for a certain time. So, guys, confirm it so we can update this article. Thanks.

omg. stfu. It's not an obvious fact. If it caused scatter as bad as you say, then no one would farm with it. Results from 1 person do not mean it has been tested. Also, basing the effects on 1 mob is not testing. Try doing the trolls outside of Droks and see if they do it. - PANIC! pewpewpew! 07:19, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

I can confirm Shield of Judgment causes some scatter, but it only seems to scatter melee mobs in hard mode, not ranged and the scatter is very slow and sporadic, i.e. not all at once. You can easily bring them back to you with a wand by hitting them once. It slows down runs a bit, but is by no means build breaking. Can confirm it causes scatter on the melee range skale and undead in Farahnar (or however you spell it) the first city. I can't say I've tested it much anywhere else, because while SoJ 55 farming is safe and easy, it ain't really that efficient and is useless in many higher end areas. Less drama please from the anonymous poster who isn't farming. The rule of thumb is, without lots of people saying the same thing or screen shots, it didn't happen. - isery -TALK 07:35, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Normal discussion

Archives

Archive 1

Enjoy! --Mgrinshpon (T) 22:20, 14 May 2007 (CEST)

---

Build namespace or not? This isn't really a build, more of a guide... -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 07:44, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

It does have builds, I suppose. Could it just be "Invincimonk Guide" in the builds namespace? There isn't a real guides namespace here. --Mgrinshpon (T) 15:09, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

I was thinking more move it to the main namespace (Invincimonk guide). Shouldn't it be lower case anyway? -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 18:13, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

Want me to? No skin off my back if you do. This should, however, remain in the builds category. --Mgrinshpon (^C/_T) 19:56, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

My argument is that, as this is a guide and not an actual build (with the exception of three builds at the very bottom - hardly a large percentage of the article) that it should not be put in the build namespace at all. As I think this decision should be made by more than the two of us, I'm going to go bug a few people to pitch in here. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 19:59, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

Maybe Builds > Guides, such as Builds > Tested (or whatever the outcome will be). Swiftslash \\ 20:04, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

That's an idea. I know I'm sounding bullish, but why not just put it in the main namespace and add it to Category:Guides or Category:Build guides? -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 20:08, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

Yeah that was my other idea. Since there are and will be more guides like this(general barrage, interrupt, etc) having all 'guides' on one place makes more sense than putting them all under builds. Since guides and builds are very close in their actual content I think Guides might as well stand under builds, as a subcategory. Swiftslash \\ 20:15, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

Are they similar? I don't see how it's all that similar - one lists attributes and skills, while the other gives suggestions and recommendations based on certain situations and a given goal. I honestly think it would be a bad idea to keep this in the build namespace - gw:Invincible Monk never was. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 20:45, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

They're similar since both give guidelines on how to spec your character and play it. Guides are more general while builds are more in depth. Swiftslash \\ 21:16, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

I will vote for creation a new namespace Guide: . Only more and more guides will be needed. But it is IMPORTANT to remmber that build does NOT dublicate a policy. Sliver and HoD based 55 build is not the same thing. GCardinal 23:13, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

I agree that we should keep guides out of the builds namespace, especially once we have a vetting system in place, it will just complicate things. Everyone remember how long that Dire Pet Guide was kicking around in the untested section on gwiki? As for whether to create a guide namespace or add it to the main namespace and assign it to a category of guides, either solution seems fine with me. -- BrianG 01:00, 16 May 2007 (CEST)

To me this isn't a big deal. Either solutions will do fine IMO. As long as it looks pretty on the site and is easy to access I could care less to be honest. Swiftslash \\ 01:29, 16 May 2007 (CEST)

Let's be honest, what else do we have in the main namespace? Not too much. And if people want to look for a guide quickly, are they going to type in the search box "Guide:Monk guide" or just "monk guide" or "ranger guide" or "invincimonk guide"? And tbh I think the guide namespace looks ugly. >.> -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 01:34, 16 May 2007 (CEST)

Your issue is easily countered Armond, with redirects. But I think it would be a good way to organize guides by using the "Guide:Monk" or "Guide:55". My only real reasoning behind this is just because it would look more professional, neat and all that. Redirects could be made for someone typeing "guide to monks" to go to "guide:monk" And of course there should be a link on the main page to a guide category.--Sefre File:Sefresig.pngT*C 03:44, 16 May 2007 (CEST)

Sorry if some of this was commented on above. Just adding my two cents to the discussion.

On the article, I fully support the idea of guides; but keep them out of the build namespace. As BrianG pointed out, guides really aren't vettable in the same way. I think they can just go into the Main namespace. Categories can do a better job of organizing, no need for a namespace for guides. I don't see any problem using the main namespace for it.

Within this particular article, I would STRONGLY encourage the community to remove the three builds at the end. Those should be in their own articles, so that they can be trully vetted. The guide can then link to the individual build articles to show the example builds. As it is now, their placement reads to me as a sneaky way to suggest specific builds while bypassing the vetting process for them (whatever vetting process eventually goes into place). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:48, 16 May 2007 (CEST)

Heh, once again Barek and I agree. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 06:51, 16 May 2007 (CEST)

Alright, I have the first two up at Build:Mo/D Mystic 55 so that's that. I'll remove them now and post a link at the bottom. --Mgrinshpon (^C/_T) 14:53, 16 May 2007 (CEST)

I'm not sure. Invincimonks builds are common knowledge, and rely on the same basic skillset, so it may be better to just have one article on the concept, than a ton of very similar builds differing by 1-2 skills.

Maybe to keep it as a build, just one build for each type of Invincimonk but a lot of variants. Otherwise all the "M" section is the same build with slight tweaks.Egon 00:54, 27 May 2007 (CEST)

The point of this page is to give a general understanding of the invincimonk build theory to those who don't know it, and to act as a springboard to example builds. If certain builds should be merged, that should be brought up on the talk pages of said builds. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 22:20, 27 May 2007 (CEST)

So this is the template for other guides huh. IMHO, lame Toko 02:13, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Heroes and Fun?

Hello, great guide/build(s), my question is there an ideal team build for heroes that is proven to work? Or will all these "team" builds work fine with heroes, or will there have to be a lot of manual hero control? Can the AI perform as needed? Thanks Slipmat 16:20, 18 May 2007 (CEST)

The reason heroes are not desired is for two reasons: AI sucks (generally, tons of manual managment) and AI takes loot. For multi-person farming, a human is ALWAYS better. --Mgrinshpon (^C/_T) 16:56, 18 May 2007 (CEST)

Well, if it's just me and one hero, i don't mind splitting the loot, yet I understand that it would be near impossible. Thanks for the reply Slipmat 03:48, 23 May 2007 (CEST)

You have to remember- if there's a 2 man farming group, a human will almost always be available if there's a money to be made. There's just very little reason to use a hero but it CAN be done. --Mgrinshpon (^C/_T) 23:45, 23 May 2007 (CEST)

See Also

why dont you put the 330hp ele? it falls under the invinci catagory.Mgelo21 05:13, 3 July 2007 (CEST)

Well, it isn't exactly a monk, and this is an invinci-monk guide. Dark Morphon 10:57, 3 July 2007 (CEST)

shouldn't there at least be a link to the 330hp ele though, i mean you've got the 130hp derv and a 55 SS necro they're not really invinci monks as such in the norm sense, if someone says invinci monk to me I'd think monk primary prof. everything else is just an invinci farmer...Phenaxkian 13:16, 28 July 2007 (CEST)

Secondary Monk, uses Protective Spirit or Protective Bond. It's basically using the concept of Invincimonk- Lower damage and then negate, outheal, or regenerate it but using a monk secondary. Simple enough really. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ〚^₮/_ḉ〛 16:00, 28 July 2007 (CEST)

Soo...

what are we gonna do with this? it's sitting in untested with a testing tag on it. will this be deleted? will guides be updated to have rating pages? blah? - Skakid9090 20:19, 17 July 2007 (CEST)

Name

Firstly, "Guide" shouldn't be capitalized imo. Secondly, does anyone else hear them called "Invinci-Monks" instead of "Invincimonks"? -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 02:24, 24 July 2007 (CEST)

Never. It used to be called Guide:Invincimonk Guide. How does Guide:Invincible Monk sound? —ǥȓɩηɔɧ〚^₮/_ḉ〛 21:25, 28 July 2007 (CEST)

Just a heads up that there is no Guide namespace and this is Guide:Incinvimonk Guide in the Main namespace so you might as well make it without the guide prefix. -- Nova -- (contribs) 21:05, 4 August 2007 (CEST)

There is indeed a guide namespace. We keep guides in it. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 02:07, 5 August 2007 (CEST)

Oh, wait, I see what you mean. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 03:28, 5 August 2007 (CEST)

Someone made Invincimonk guide redirect here. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ〚^₮/_ḉ〛 04:01, 5 August 2007 (CEST)

that's this guide -_-........Phenaxkian 18:57, 5 August 2007 (CEST)

Right, which is what I said. Someone made that link redirect here. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ〚^₮/_ḉ〛 19:16, 5 August 2007 (CEST)

I like Guide:Invincible Monk, or just Invincible Monk. But we need to decide (in policy) if we're going to have a guide: namespace. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 23:12, 5 August 2007 (CEST)

We have a builds namespace, why not have a guide one? —ǥȓɩηɔɧ〚^₮/_ḉ〛 23:39, 5 August 2007 (CEST)

I've already mentiond we need one on the build naming policy.....(PvXwiki_talk:Build_Naming_Policy)Phenaxkian 00:24, 6 August 2007 (CEST)

Article format

Holy crap, this was written almost exactly in the format of the syntax I just typed up today. Didn't even notice this guide. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 05:59, 21 August 2007 (CEST)

All the guides were written like this. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ〚ŞƳŞŌƤ〛 06:01, 21 August 2007 (CEST)

great minds think alike eh? — Skakid9090 06:06, 21 August 2007 (CEST)

Farming locations?

Would it be an idea to perhaps have a list of farm-able locations. If you think about the idea of the guides (IMO anyway) is to help out newbies, in this case newbies to the concept of invincimonking, so perhaps having a list of good farming places, which could either be where you can clear a lot of enemies, or where there's good loot (e.g. gates of kryta), and if so then if you can do it in NM or HM maybe?-just a thought, other peoples thoughts on the idea? PheNaxKian (T/c) 17:31, 29 August 2007 (CEST)

[1] —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ〚ŞƳŞŌƤ〛 18:02, 29 August 2007 (CEST)

Counters

We should have a place where we can slap on an in-depth list of major counters, like barbs, conjure, etc. Things that aren't completely obvious like interrupts, excess degen, and enchantment removal. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 08:01, 4 October 2007 (CEST)

Under usage probably. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 12:39, 4 October 2007 (CEST)

Doesn't feel right imo. The old 55 build on GuildWiki discussed it under farming locations (choosing where to farm, specifically). Perhaps it's time for a new section, though? -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 17:30, 4 October 2007 (CEST)

No, I mean make a new section that is directly below usage. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 22:49, 4 October 2007 (CEST)

That would work. Do you want to do the honors, or shall I? -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 01:11, 5 October 2007 (CEST)

Meh, too lazy. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 01:12, 5 October 2007 (CEST)

solo

i just thought of a great solo farmer it can be used for the uw or fow just with some minor varients add me in game the build is mo/a and a spirt bonder under the great monk C and i wont be on till thursday sorry--Lucky121 (talk*pvxcontribs) 01:14, 14 November 2007 (CET)

Or you could post it? -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 02:37, 14 November 2007 (CET)

Shield of Judgement and Mo/Me... an idea

I wondered if you could improve the 55hp monks survability in UW (not to mention an easier run) with this build: <pvxbig> [build name ="55hp UW interupt safe monk" prof=Monk/Mesmer Healing_Prayers=2+3 Smiting_Prayers=12+1+3 Protection_Prayers=9+3 Inspiration_Magic=9 Divine_Favor=1+3][protective spirit][Arcane Echo][Healing Breeze][Spirit Bond][shield of judgment][mantra of resolve][essence bond][balthazars spirit][/build] </pvxbig>

Do you think the energy gain from balthazars and essence bond can compensate for the energy lost due to resolve mantra? It would certainly make the build much more secure against graspes and aatxes with their nasty interupts. And of course you could keep SoJ up all the time.

I also often encounter pulls of aatxes with a popping up nightmare that could not be aggroed alone. It will die from stripping your enchantments... a normal 55hp monk would now have great difficulties with the aggroed aatxes, especially in hard mode. This one can safely cast the energy gain skills after Mantra of Resolve (and Protective Spirit of course) and avoid certain death that way.

Smite hex

Okay, smite condition is listed, but not smite hex. Can someone who knows this new interface add it?

SoA - 600

This guide should be expand by adding 600 to SoA based builds OR has to be split in all the different kinds (55,130,330,600 whatnot..)-- Karasu (talk) 09:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Should this guide be changed to different health levels of invinci-monking?, e.g. 55,130,330,600?, as is mention in the post above. I know abit about 55 monking and 600 but SoA and spirit bonding I've never heard of, thats why imo the guide should be changed to mainpoint health settings. Then go through ways of becoming invincible at those health levels, whether it be spirit bond, SoA or regen. Some feedback please.Consitini 11:43, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

I believe there is some information about SoA 600, add more info if you want, it's a wiki, you're free to edit pretty much what you want. Be bold, if someone reverts your edit(s) ask them why and see if you cant reach some sort of compromise or even persuade them to your view point ;) (or they may point out why your edit is needed, but hey that happens as well). ~ PheNaxKian talk 14:59, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

K I'll get around to changing it/cleaning it up when I have more time.Consitini 23:09, January 5, 2010 (UTC)