Looks pretty good. ;). Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 05:26, 23 August 2007 (CEST)

Should there be a division of the "issues" section into "User issues" and "Build issues"? — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 05:28, 23 August 2007 (CEST)

Rather than making this actual policy, I may simply add this to the Sidebar in a couple days assuming no one objects (although why anyone would have a problem with this, I don't know). Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:36, 23 August 2007 (CEST)

Sounds good. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 05:46, 23 August 2007 (CEST)
I am against this, because I hate change! And I am lazy! :P Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 05:49, 23 August 2007 (CEST)
Meh, the page does no harm and I cannot see any objections (other than insipid ones such as Readem's) to this page, so I'm just gonna go ahead and add it to the side bar. It also has the value of being easier to find than the variety of templates that are used for notifying Admins. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:51, 23 August 2007 (CEST)
Update: Added to side bar. Hope this helps. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:53, 23 August 2007 (CEST)

DE, you know you can simply delete and then restore a build article to clear its votes, rather than manually deleting them one-by-one, right? - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 05:52, 23 August 2007 (CEST)

Yeah. But I prefer my method :). Of course, it does clog up Recent ratings, but, I find it's faster actually (i.e. less work for me :P) Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:53, 23 August 2007 (CEST)
Keep things consistent. IS it Admin Noticeboard or Admin noticeboard? Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 05:58, 23 August 2007 (CEST)
ULC, imo. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 05:58, 23 August 2007 (CEST)
Done. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:00, 23 August 2007 (CEST)
So do we just leave resolved issues on the page? or Admin noticeboard/Archive 1/Resolved? --User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 06:07, 23 August 2007 (CEST)
Leave them. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 06:07, 23 August 2007 (CEST)
Once the page starts getting bogged down with resolved issues, we'll simply do what GWW does and archive the resolved issues. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:16, 23 August 2007 (CEST)
Sounds good. --User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 06:18, 23 August 2007 (CEST)

Actual usage of this page

Wish I could make a flowchart of this...

  1. Leave coding issue
    1. People debate
    2. Coding issue is eventually resolved
  2. Leave IP/general concerns
    1. Admins look at it, tell who to stfu be more calm and respectful, situation resolved
  3. Leave a build whose ratings need looking at
    1. Armond gets to it
      1. Armond argues about it
        1. Huge discussion over said vote is created
      2. Armond insta-removes votes
    2. Other admin gets to it
      1. Something appropriate happens

Imo. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 07:01, 13 October 2007 (CEST)

Ye have so little faith in thyself. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 22:33, 13 October 2007 (CEST)
Psh, I subst: faith for confidence. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 06:43, 15 October 2007 (CEST)

R/me Burning Area

I just posted it but it's not in untested builds but i posted it there... Woefpoef 16:10, 13 October 2007 (CEST)

You forgot the Build: part. I moved it for you. Tycn 16:24, 13 October 2007 (CEST)

Eloc Jcg is at it again...

posted 0-0-0 on for other people making sock puppets. Gave no valid reason for a 0-0-0. I think his vote should be removed. Riff 09:35, 2 December 2007 (CET)

A) Post this on the actual noticeboard next time. B) It's a way of stopping imba-voting. I'd suggest getting used to it, no matter how unfair it may seem. It's how PvX works, and how the admins and other experienced users keep builds they know to be not-as-good out of higher sections. Cedave bad cedave (contributions_buildpage) 17:18, 2 December 2007 (CET)
Correction: What Eloc did wasn't a balance vote. For an example of a balance vote scenario, go look at anything Rapta or Tycn voted on. Chances are it's a balance vote in some form or another. Cedave bad cedave (contributions_buildpage) 17:21, 2 December 2007 (CET)
Wow, I totally feel loved. Anyways, it was an attempt to try and balance out the vote of the sockpuppet. If it's 5-5-5 a sockpuppet put, then I put a 0-0-0 in order for it to be nullified. I did no harm, it's just for an admin to see that there are sockpuppets. — Eloc 21:48, 2 December 2007 (CET)
You should have posted that there were socks on that build on the admin noticeboard. 21:50, 2 December 2007 (CET)

- ::::(Ec)Is it that much trouble to just post the suspected socks on the admin noticeboard? You cause more trouble than you try to allay. Shogunshen Sig Shen(contribs) 21:51, 2 December 2007 (CET)

These guys are right. In the future. don't do that. Just post the sock votes on the admin noticeboard for us to remove. Otherwise, we have to remove the sock vote, your 'balance' vote, and resolve any controversy surrounding the votes on top of that. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 21:52, 2 December 2007 (CET)

Login Problems

My username is User: Grobie and I cant log in, nor get the form to send me my /a new password. If anyone capable of doing so could send me the password to the email speccified in my accound, or a workaround, or the correct place to go - I would realy appreciate this. 16:15, 5 December 2007 (CET)

Just make a new one, called like Grobie2 or something. I will perma ban that one so you are not suspected of socking. ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 20:57, 5 December 2007 (CET)
Done, thanks for the advice Grobilikesmudkips 14:04, 6 December 2007 (CET)

cripshot build vote

whats going on with this? this is allowed? my vote being deleted and being called names like this? look under the cripshot pleaseTalyyn Silent Wind 21:03, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Post on the actual noticeboard, not its talk page. Feel free to present a case rationalizing your contradictory vote. Stop revoting.Shogunshen Holidaysig Shen has cookies 21:07, 20 December 2007 (EST)
I didn't revote, fvr said that I could change it...Talyyn Silent Wind 21:27, 20 December 2007 (EST)
Which you didn't. Cripshot is a build that will stay in great. Period. It's not moving anywhere. You vote was wrong as was explained numerous places. Next time you break 1RV is a ban. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 21:29, 20 December 2007 (EST)
I'm not disagreeing with you on this one Grinch, but please give a better reason for removing the vote other than grate means great or whatever. Maybe you have and you just got sick of retyping it. I'm probably missing something though, as you said you've explained numerous places. Whatever. I love you Grinch, and I miss GW for the time being. I'm getting EOTN for Christmas, so I'll see you around then. Cripshot is a great build, especially when you can get a good team to help you. Bluemilkman/Talk To Me 00:01, 21 December 2007 (EST)
The short and long of it is, if you're told to revote, that means with a different reason, not the same one. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 00:53, 21 December 2007 (EST)
See my talk. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 20:26, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Clean up please

Serveral bugs has been fixed, so a nice clean up is needed. gcardinal 03:10, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Fixed. — Skakid HoHoHo 13:01, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Build Issues

Needs cleanup imo.Bob fregman 22:55, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Issues that remain appear to not have been resolved. Archived ones that I saw were done with. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 22:55, 7 January 2008 (EST)


Don't you think there should be a "Suggestions" area? Mainly for stuff that can't be improved by Wiki/PvXcode but could overall help the site. Stuff like become more public, etc. --GoD Sig3GuildofDeals 12:57, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Could you be a bit more specific on this "stuff"? --Scottie bow Scottie_theNerd (argue/criticise/complain) 13:34, 26 January 2008 (EST)
I think that would go under "General Issues". ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 13:45, 26 January 2008 (EST)
"This section may also be used for miscellaneous issues" User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop)
Well I mean for suggestions for things that PvX could improve on. Everything seems to be "Issues" while we never have a section for suggestions. Something like adding a PvE Attributes Counter (like on the main page) would go under Suggestions. --GoD Sig3GuildofDeals 16:23, 29 January 2008 (EST)
I have to agree that a suggestions page would be a good idea. Because I looked all over the place before I found this comment. Suggestions is a recognized, user-friendly method for people to provide you with an idea. The Admin page says right on it that it's only for bringing important stuff to the Admin's attention - and suggestions are not critical. -- Sabardeyn 00:07, 23 February 2008 (EST)
I'll probably make a PvXwiki: page later... Probably at PvXwiki:Suggestions. ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   15:16, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Reducing Clutter

I've noticed that there's a lot of clutter making navigating through the noticeboard somewhat troublesome. Here's a possible solution (to those experiencing the same problem) that simply modifies the sidebar, creating 4 "subheaders". This would allow for easier navigation for users and administrators, and, for example, BM's wouldn't have to go through the entire General Issues section while going to the Build Specific Issues section, and etc...

An example is on my userpage (of course, the instructions part would be rewritten). Tell me what you guys think. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 14:27, 27 January 2008 (EST)

That does look better than the curent one, but wouldn't it make more sense to jsut have some sort of Nav bar instead (like On every page of Grinchs..), jsut a thought....PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 14:34, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Perhaps, but having things laid out on the side allows for easier access to the various noticeboards. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 14:35, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Sorry if this is the wrong place

I'm not sure where this is supposed to go... PvX still confuses me with a lot of things. I recently made a build I got two votes that were excessively low (in my opinion, but still..) I answered one on my discussion page, but the vote is still there. Also, I have two skills that i use in the build but the build doesn't rely on them... i set them aside in the variants section but is that too obscure? any help/guidance would be appreciated...sorry if this is in the wrong spot Ace 14:12, 13 February 2008 (EST)

You are going to want to refrain from calling people twits. See N/Me SS Nuker. Backfire and Empathy aren't a good idea, mostly because it forces a less effective attribute split, but the cast times aren't practical either. If you're going to use the optional skills in an argument, put them in the main bar. Next time there's a build specific issue, post it on the "project page", that is, the actual noticeboard as opposed to its talk page. Make a heading like ==={{Build|N/Me SS Punisher}}=== under the Build section. -Shen 14:27, 13 February 2008 (EST)

The attribute split isn't horrible IMO, the loss in curses lowers the damage from SS by 6... The premise behind it is for it to be able to be used anywhere to punish enemies for casting/attacking, Which is why Backfire/Empathy are in the build, and the cast time of empathy is the same as SS... Backfire can be slightly prohibitive at times, but is nonetheless effective if placed properly (still does over 100 damage per affected cast). Cry of frustration is a very versatile interrupt, and the rest of the dom magic line can be thrown in as the situation calls for. I apologize for calling people twits... I was rather frustrated but it was still (mostly) uncalled for. And I'm going to change the skill bar for the rest of the domination magic skills I threw in. My stance still stands that a 1-0-0 rating is excessively low... It still has an effective SS and it CAN be used pretty much anywhere making it deserve much higher than 0 universality. Ace 14:54, 13 February 2008 (EST)

That's not what universality means. It doesn't mean that it can be used in a lot of different places, but that it adapts to its specific location well.—Cheese Slaya's Sig Cheese Slaya (Talk) 18:55, 13 February 2008 (EST)
"Universality", according to PvX:VETTING, refers to how well it can adapt to a scenario beyond its design intent; not how many places it can be used in. --Scottie bow Scottie_theNerd (argue/criticise/complain) 00:31, 14 February 2008 (EST)

The design intent IS to be universal... Did you want to change the build to narrow mindedly target only one type of monster or one style of enemy..THEN change something to make it effective against something that it had already accounted for? It is built to be an acceptably effective build against ANYTHING... To move beyond the environment it's designed for... you would have to make it usable in less places first...thus defeating the purpose of the build - to be a GENERAL build. Ace 14:06, 16 February 2008 (EST)

You are saying a universal build is one that works for both PvE and PvP. We are saying a universal build is one that still functions admirably in less than favorable circumstances in the area it is intended for. -Shen 14:10, 16 February 2008 (EST)
I don't see anywhere where I mention PvP... The build is tagged for PvE General. And the area the build is intended for is pretty much anything in PvE along any of the four campaigns. And anything where you're being attacked can be considered "less than favorable" so you might want to be more specific.Ace 17:10, 16 February 2008 (EST)
Auron brought the issue up with me previously, and Ace has a point: you know what you are up against in PvE. If it is less than favourable to you, spec against it or use another build. Universality doesn't apply as easily to PvE as it does to PvP. --Scottie bow Scottie_theNerd (argue/criticise/complain) 00:22, 17 February 2008 (EST)
I must have misread "to move beyond the environment it's designed for". I figure PvE is an environment in itself. -Shen 09:30, 17 February 2008 (EST)
Going back to my original point then... at the very least wouldn't 0 universality be excessively low...even ignoring the other two offensively low ratings?? Ace 15:22, 18 February 2008 (EST)

There's three ratings now (not including mine)... In addition to being excessively low... They keep comparing it to the SS Nuker... Which by PvX's own policy cannot be used to Well the punisher because as stated in the build...the two use VERY different play styles despite having the same elite skill. --Ace 15:36, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Selfless spirit does not work in mini skill bar

Try it yourself, I've tried every possability except the right one.Styxx HLFrans 05:31, 18 February 2008 (EST)

<pvxbig>[Selfless Spirit]</pvxbig> — Teh Uber Pwnzer 05:41, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Lol? Can you read? MINI skill bar.Styxx HLFrans 05:49, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Selfless Spirit Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional

— Teh Uber Pwnzer 06:12, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Someone here failed pretty savagely. :O --71.229 06:19, 18 February 2008 (EST)

No, it didn't work. can you make it a luxon version or do you fail at doing that too? 06:43, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Selfless Spirit (Luxon) Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional
The image for Selfless Spirit (Luxon) just needed to be uploaded (which I took care of). Also, try not to assume the worst in your peers or you're not going to be very popular. --Mafaraxas sig Mafaraxas 14:32, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Sum it all up

Can anyone process Admin noticeboard and check if coding bugs has been fixed and make a to-do list that I can go over. Would save me a lot of time. gcardinal 06:27, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Main thing is that when you use a PvE skill (title track skill) have it work with the @xx function e.g. <pvxbig>[Selfless Spirit@4]</pvxbig>

Selfless spirit@4, should show duration of 13 seconds. Currently it just displays the rank you tell it and not what the skill does at that rank (this is true to all PvE skills). A possibility is to have a little section for builds giving a critical hit rate (wanted more than needed) and a "remaining attributes" section, telling you how many attributes you have left over(again just a wanted more than needed). A button on the editing tool bar (the toolbar you get when editing a page)to give you the code for a blank build page like this is something that seems very popular. The remaining issues are fairly....Meh. Don't seem overly important. =) hope that helps (someone my have to translate my craptacular use of english into something more understandable (ironically I'm English...))PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 19:29, 18 February 2008 (EST)
Bugs (first thing you said), not suggestions (the rest). --Mafaraxas sig Mafaraxas 19:37, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Categorization Suggestion

Two suggestions: 1) You might want to add Hero as a profession so users can see viable hero builds without having to wade through all of the ones that heros do not use adequately. 2) A List of builds by function might also be in order. Basically all of the builds fall into one category of character or another. Your character is a tank, nuker, spiker, healer, minion master, etc and when looking for a build user's frequently have this type of organization in mind. -- Sabardeyn 00:14, 23 February 2008 (EST)

As to suggestion one... we already have that... As for your second suggestion, that should be readily apparent without having to wade through too many builds. That said, feel free to start creating categories. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:21, 23 February 2008 (EST)
For future Suggestions, please don't put it in the "User Specific Issues." --GoD Sig3GuildofDeals 11:44, 23 February 2008 (EST)
Scratch that, I always think General Issues is for people, my bad. WikiNoob here. --GoD Sig3GuildofDeals 11:46, 23 February 2008 (EST)
LOL - I'm too new to builds to really be an effective categorizer for the project. Let me explain it this way... When reading most Builds in PvXWiki I have to spend a minimum of 30 minutes figuring the build out. Particularly for those builds which presume that the potential user (me) is aware of game mechanics, synergy between skills, etc that come with experience. As for the hero listing, my bad. Noticed it is in PvE, but was looking for it below in Builds by Profession. -- Sabardeyn 15:20, 23 February 2008 (EST)
Ok, well, it's definitely something we can try out... Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:11, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Podcast Suggestion

Just a proposal I thought of. --GoD Sig3GuildofDeals 21:01, 24 February 2008 (EST)

I honestly don't think anyone would be interested. --Scottie bow Scottie_theNerd (argue/criticise/complain) 19:01, 29 February 2008 (EST)
I WOOD!--XCrossfire Godlysig14 15:39, 12 May 2008 (EDT)


Any1 think we should have a catagory in the PvP section involving Zaishen? Or at least a PvP general. I Am Jebus 21:16, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Zaishen is PvE. --71.229 21:54, 26 February 2008 (EST)
Yeah, pretty much. If you want to make a Zaishen build, put it under PvP team and then talk about it being Zaishen. Tah-da. --GoD Sig3GuildofDeals 21:15, 27 February 2008 (EST)
Zaishen is a relatively insignificant part of the game. It doesn't last long, and the only reason people do it is for easy faction. There aren't many builds for it, and Zaishen guides are more appropriate than making a new category. --Scottie bow Scottie_theNerd (argue/criticise/complain) 19:00, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Build Layout Change

PvE-only skills are becoming integrated into a number of builds. The current build format has no way to show a recommended Rep level for these skills. You might want to add Asuran, Dwarven, Ebon Vanguard and Norn Rep levels. These could be added just like Attributes. Although I haven't seen it necessary as yet, perhaps Lightbringer and Sunspear levels would also have to be added. -- Sabardeyn 05:25, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

There is a way to say yto set a skill to a certain level but it doesn't work properl, put [[Skill@x]] at the bottom of the description it'll say blah at rank x but the values stay as a range atm (think it's being worked on). besides we decided that you shouldn't have a build that has to ahve a skill at a certain rank, that instead you should jsut say try and have a minimal level of X in the notes/Usage sectoin anyway. PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 08:16, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
I completely understood what you said. But that doesn't make any sense to me. Rank level, at least for these skills, is also the attribute level. For every other build in the wiki (that I know about at least) you are required to enter an attribute level. So how can a user make use of a build using the skills mentioned above without the value at which the skill performs correctly and as intended? This might not be the best place for this discussion however. Can you direct me to the original discussion on this matter? Perhaps that will make more sense to me. -- Sabardeyn 09:09, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
Has been mentioned here. Take a gander at the notes here, you should just try to follow suit. -Shen 09:34, 23 March 2008 (EDT)


About that "it's a noticeboard and not a talkpage" thing at the top: I know it's not. But it's one annoyingly huge header up there. Especially for people still having a 1024x768 monitor. Any chance it can be a bit smaller? Also blocks off half the title. (I see this: PvXwiki:Admin). Dragnmn talk cont 14:13, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

agreed. Changed it-removed Big tags and reduced font size from 120% to 105% (tried 110% but it cut of part of the "d")PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 15:15, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Much better now, ty =D Dragnmn talk cont 16:54, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Just fyi

I edited Template:Build and Template:IP so clicking the section links in your watchlist or in recent changes will actually take you to the section. They didn't work previously because the wikicode in the header is different from what actually appears on the page. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 15:29, 12 May 2008 (EDT)


Removing votes based on varying interpretations of Innovation should be restricted. The policy allows completely opposite interpretations. -Shen 17:20, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

9, yes 9 A/E pve builds

vetted with the same elite skill, variants much? i think im just saying that all the farming ones could be merged into one and set into sections for different farming areas..Majikpsilocybin 09:05, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

or maybe just have a "guide" style thing with different subsections: mesmer nuking, ele nuking, Sliver armor, daggers, etc ...--Reason.decrystallized 09:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
Doesn't really matter, we have like a million WoH builds too Antiarchangel Antiarchangel No U Sig TROLL 10:46, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
Yes but WoH Doesn't use a basic of a 3 skill combination in each build Fox007 User Fox007 sig 10:49, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
It's even worse, it's practicly the same bar with maybe one or 2 optional's different for the map 2 play. —ǘŋƐxɩsƫ 11:25, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
We have like 6 eviscerate builds too and they differ in one or two skills. Makes no sense. IAmJebus sig2*Jebus* Is I 11:41, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
Different Usages. You don't use the infinite shadow runner the same you would the raptor farmer would you?--GatessMoebius Strike IconThe Gates Assassin 11:43, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
We have like 3 WoH builds. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 15:21, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
More like 7, and thats only monk primary, there are probably a few WoH eles. --- Monk-icon-Ressmonkey Ressmonkey (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
Irrelevant. We have like 3 WoH builds in PvP (not including Runners, HB, and such), one that's more or less a guide, and PvE doesn't really matter. Anyways, this debate isn't really a debate outside of "omg, buildssss". If you want a guide, make a guide. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 15:26, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Build-Specific Issues

I always had the impression that the Build-Specific Issues section was for rates that were still in question after they'd been discussed on the build talk page or the user's talk page and nothing happened? It seems like nowadays people just complain about every vote they don't like, when it should be the unresolvable/unreasonable users' votes that should be brought up on the AN. --Mafaraxas (talkcontribs) 14:25, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

It's when two people get into a conflict about a build that isn't being resolved on the Talk page. When two people meet at a stalemate, that's when Super BM comes. --File:GoD Wario Sig.JPG*Wah Wah Wah!* 14:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Yep, that's what I thought should happen ideally. Problem is, people don't even bother trying to resolve it on the talk page (as far as I can see). --Mafaraxas (talkcontribs) 14:31, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
If an arguement keeps going "Yes! No! Yes! No! Yes! No!" then bring it here. Sometimes you can't change someones points, just remove them. --File:GoD Wario Sig.JPG*Wah Wah Wah!* 14:32, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Meh. It's easier just to do it here... ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   14:33, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
...again, that's the ideal situation both of us described in which you'd bring it up on the AN... you're saying the same thing over and over GoD, heh. And if you say so frv; I thought it might take some unnecessary strain off the admins/BMs, but I guess not. --Mafaraxas (talkcontribs) 14:38, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Hey GoD, don't you pretty much just say stfu, take it to the AN whenever anyone asks you about a vote? - Misery Is Hawt19px 14:42, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Meh, just use the board. It's not hard to check it once or twice a day for votes. Much easier than reading through RC for build talk pages. --Ibreaktoilets SignatureTab Moo 14:44, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Convention is that when it's something really trivial, it should be on the board. Or when someone refuses to discuss something. Discuss on a talk page when possible (and doesn't require intervention or whatever). — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 21:47, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Not sure where to put this, but i need feedback. The backbone of the build is as follows:

Shadow Walk Grapple Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional

So you can run in, KD someone, then get out of range without being pwned. :D Dumb Was This Username 10:22, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

That doesn't work, you loose the stance first so the K/D doesn't come into effect /FrosTalk\ 10:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
And this is the admin noticeboard. Not some place to post random build ideas. Use your talk page for that. --Ibreaktoilets SignatureTab Moo 10:25, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

suggestion: history

I would like to see the creation of a historical build PvX page - where build creators who have had a specific skill nerfed (and therefore gone from "great build" to "good" or "poor") don't feel that there contribution has been discounted. This may be the reason some of these builds keep getting updated and edited by the author even though they are no longer any good because of Guild Wars ban to prevent farming, or to make the game a bit more even handed. With an historical build section, the contributor can get the kudos they deserve for coming up with the original build- without the disappointment of simply having their work removed, edited, or slammed. All time greats (prior nerf builds) would be a fantastic page to have as an addition to PvX. Just a suggestion after reading through some of the messages and trying to find some answers to questions i need answered. Please forgive if I've posted in the wrong area or using incorrect formatting- I am very new at using this system. Thank you for your patience. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cecilhead (contribs) .

We don't do credits, if you want to know who submitted a build, check the history tab at the top of a page. –Ichigo724Ichigo-signature 17:56, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
We also do archive great and good builds that are nerfed instead of deleting them. There IS an archived build section. - Miserysig1isery (TALK) 18:00, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

thank you for fast responses and thank you to user Skakid9090 who helped me with further information about proper editing -- Glad to hear there is already an area for this! I will do more searching and study of the PvXwiki to avoid future problems. Thank you for the additional submissions from the community, including Ichigo724 and Misery for the helpful comments. Cecilhead 18:13, 10 July 2008 (EDT)


Build:Mo/Me HA Restore Condition Monk and Build:Mo/any RC Monk need to be merged. If conjure cripslash was archived cause of general cripslash, the /Me variation should be archived or at least merged. IAmJebus sig2*Jebus* Is I 23:19, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

It was archived because it was no longer imbalanced. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 23:22, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Zuranthium (talk · contribs · logs · check user · block user · block log)

TBH, he's been biasing his vote removal extremely. He did so on Build: Me/Mo Fast Cast RC and currently doing so on Build: A/E GoR Spiker. He needs to knock it off and accept a build's rating, not nitpick anything he doesn't like. --GoD Wario Sig*Wah Wah Wah!* 21:33, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

It's extremely frustrating when people do not understand the context of a build. A great deal of effective characters aren't as good when placed on the wrong team and/or against the wrong team. Zuranthium 05:05, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
already brought up before Rapta dismissed it...~PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 07:54, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
FFS, where was this guy back when I was trying to get builds vetted? I'd have half a fucking dozen Great builds. gfg. Cedave bad ツ cedave (contributionsbuildpage) 19:44, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
No you wouldn't, considering that most of your builds are terrible. Zuranthium 18:37, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

It's obvious bias. Especially since there are many other reports of crappy votes on the list below me and this GoR spiker seems to be the only one hes interested in. ----ﮎHædõ๘یíɳShadowsin sig 20:09, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

i see him removing alot of votes as in unvalid reason but uhh....This can be good pressure doesnt deserve a 5 in effectiveness either. idk why hes defending the build so hard from not getting it into other or even better, deleted --InfestedHydralisk InfestedHydralisk sig2(Talk*Contributions) 20:15, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
I'm not exactly sure how this guy got an RfBM through, but then again, I've been gone a while. Then again, again, I also almost got an RfBM through, so yah. T_T Some things never change, I guess. Makes me miss the days of Rawr and Ska ruling the wiki, almost. Almost. Cedave bad ツ cedave (contributionsbuildpage) 22:56, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
The build was vetted as Other before the Shadow Step nerfs, and now, it's a lot more viable because of it. It works very well (mainly because of the recharge on the spike, and the utility of in-and-out Shadow Stepping) but it isn't amazing. ــмıкεнaшк 22:59, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
Also, anti-melee and healing seems to be a big reason for the lower ratings, but aren't those a problem with all physicals? ZOMG, let's rate Shock Axe and the BB Sin down because they can be blocked, hexed, conditioned and out-healed! ــмıкεнaшк 23:03, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
Erm, this should be on the build's talk page. The point of this, though, is that it can be protted mid-spike. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's usually baed. Cedave bad ツ cedave (contributionsbuildpage) 23:04, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
And an Rspike can be infused. You'll have to be more precise. =P — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 23:07, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
In response to User:InfestedHydralisk's point about "This can be good pressure", though I have my doubts as to if User:Zuranthium would reason it this way, I would say is valid, because the build is tagged for RA/AB/CM, where everything is random. "This can be good pressure" is actually a valid statement the way I see it. Though you would have to ask the voter in this situation. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 23:05, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
See my most recent vote. Should be a little less.. volatile and a little more well-worded. Cedave bad ツ cedave (contributionsbuildpage) 23:15, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

I cba finding who wrote this above me but, protted midspike? WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE ON? In CM/AB/RA, good monks are not to be found. Furthermore, almost no one brings a big prot on monks in arena matches. READ THE TAGS, not everything is for GvG. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş Grinshpon blinky cake 23:29, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Oh yah. I forgot, all players except people on PvX are terrifail, right? I monk RA all the time, and I damn well bring Guardian every time, too. If I happened to come across one of those builds, I probably wouldn't even notice, because it wouldn't even make me flinch. Raw physical damage fails unless it's a fucking scythe. And even then, chances are they have DW on demand, not lame-shit auto-attack to inflict DW. Cedave bad ツ cedave (contributionsbuildpage) 23:44, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
You're a rarity. The monks that do manage to bring prots usually only bring SoA. The majority are retards that bring gole aegis and get owned by the dime-a-dozen magebane rangers. You can't rate the build based on the monk bar you run, you need to rate it based on the monk bars usually run. -Auron 23:47, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
/agree with cedave. i monk all the time in FA. There are human monks in AB too you know. But in RA, this would work, cuz there's like a million ppl, and you got 4/1,000,000 chance to actually get a monk. clearly, zuranthium got lucky in that screenshot and got a monk. As a result, he survived.19pxAce(LVPoW)NO U! 23:50, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
Yes, but he also made it to TA (I assume, because of 25 wins or so?) and got a good streak there, too. ــмıкεнaшк 23:57, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
So i herd me and Shadowsin got 15 wins syncing a BB Sin and a BB Warrior. It's not that hard if you get a good team. Or if you sync. Also, since when did we start assuming players are bad? I know we generally assume players are reasonably good. If not, let me know so I can start using that as an argument in favor of my builds, kthx. Cedave bad ツ cedave (contributionsbuildpage) 00:00, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
My point is, (As new as it sounds), Random Arenas is random. The build he ran wasn't that good, but it wasn't that bad. A lot of times are, you get a sin that is your ONLY frontliner in RA. Sin gets rolled instantly. Warrior however, doesn't. Especially with a monk supporting. otherwise, his team woulda lost a loooong time ago.19pxAce(LVPoW)NO U! 00:03, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
We assume that players run standard monk bars. There's a difference between "standard" and "I run guardian", as standard Guardian might be to a bar. The standard is likely what Auron brought up. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 00:07, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Oh dear. Here comes the PvX Elitism again. QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ. GG. I'll go hermit again until you someone gets his/her head out of his/her ass. I left here once because of this sort of thing, as have countless other users. It really doesn't make sense to assume that a site that is visited by a good number of players isn't used by a good number of players. Cedave bad ツ cedave (contributionsbuildpage) 00:12, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
I don't really understand what you're trying to say, so I'll just reply with "meh".
To provide further explanation to your "good player vs. bad player" question, a good monk would shut down anyone trying to solo them anyways, so with your logic, any Assassin trying to spike should be deleted. That's not the case here. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 00:16, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

(reset indent) I don't mean to be an ass by what I said, but the goal of this site is to share builds with players, and I imagine it wouldn't hurt to start assuming players use these builds, eh? Cedave bad ツ cedave (contributionsbuildpage) 00:16, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, but discussing how a player uses the build is different from discussing how effective the build is, isn't it? — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 00:26, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Saying a monk doesn't know how to use Guardian is the same as saying an assassin doesn't know how attack chains work. Cedave bad ツ cedave (contributionsbuildpage) 00:28, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
I'm not sure what you mean by that. But either way you look at it:
a) You assume the two players being discussed are good. The Monk guardians up, whoever runs the Melee (in this case the generic GoR build) switches targets, spikes other things using the given skills. Stuff dies.
b) You assume they're bad. Assassin presses 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-(9). Stuff dies.
Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 00:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Except the good monk would have more than just Guardian on his bar. WoH, for example. And, maybe the Sin's dyslexic and goes right to left? Cedave bad ツ cedave (contributionsbuildpage) 00:38, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
In a recent run in the international dist. RA 12/14 monks where dual stance WoH with guardian(Yes i ran into a monk and sometimes 2 on every fucking team I faced.), the other two ran similar bars but with Return. If your talking dip shit American district yeah any monk you get there probably is going to blow. I went 6 victories on a team with no monks using GoR "Spiker". In any case, builds shouldn't be judged by the stupidest person(s) (AkA:American District) they can kill. It's not going to do you any good to kill a team with out a monk if you have trouble when you run into a team with one. In most of the arguments made i've heard, well all you have to do is wait out the stances or, wait out the guardian but with all this waiting what good is spike on command? If your doing what you should be doing and autoattacking something while waiting then there is no point to the shadow step, if your waiting around behind a wall or on a cliff your leaving your team w/o a 4th essentially. ----ﮎHædõ๘یíɳShadowsin sig 02:32, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
What happens while you wait out the stances is that most monks will put 3 into , say tactics, for balanced stance. That lasts 8 seconds. Your hex primer is only good for 10 seconds. The only possible way to do the rest of the chain in under 2 seconds would be an IAS, which this build doesn't have. Guardian has a shorter recharge than GoR. It can be reapplied mid-chain and render the chain ineffective. While it may pressure the monk, you realize your assassin has only 70 armor and its in the enemy backline, so while you're pressuring the monk, you can get rolled during the process easily and lose before you go for the second try in the chain.19pxAce(LVPoW)NO U! 12:34, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Stance monks fuck over any assassin spike. So you can hardly count that as a counter, unless you are going to hold that against the others. ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   13:01, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Id hold that against the others, except theyre tagger for things other then RA. Spike sins in RA are bad. --- Monk-icon-Ressmonkey Ressmonkey (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
There you go then, Frvwfr worded it pretty well. What people are complaining about is something evident in every Assassin telespike. Complaining about your spike being healed through is stupid. You're running a spike build. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 14:05, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
I remember a time when it wasn't even considered a spike unless it did at least 500 damage, 600 with DW. Cedave bad ツ cedave (contributionsbuildpage) 14:07, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
I wouldn't waste time putting these "number limits" on spikes. And last I checked, User:Zuranthium said that it isn't purely a spike build, so the entire complaint about "this spike is bad" is pretty null already anyways. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 14:13, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Well it's certainly not pressure, so WTF is it? Selket Shadowdancer 14:17, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Pressure spikes or spikey pressure, you can call it whatever you want. - Miserysig1isery (TALK) 14:18, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
(EC) I was about to add, it is in no way pressure, if it is then, well it's like a very bad warrior kind of pressure that sort of spikes ever 15 odd seconds. It is very meh at best, btw, Zur voted it great, that's very QQ Frosty No U! 14:20, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Well, I could go around removing every vote that's not between 3 and 4.5, but that would defeat the purpose of the vetting system. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 14:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Imho it needs a vote wipe, there are a lot of votes that don't actually understand the build, and a lot that over-rate it, the previous version of this that had Dark Prison was vetted in other, just because they got nerfed and the shadow step was changed does not mean that should be higher, since essentially its the same build, just with a worse shadow step (then before the nerfs). Frosty No U! 14:28, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Vote wiping is reserved for rating pages with rampant stupidity and for moving a build back to trial/stubs, and not for "working" builds being discussed by 100 people. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 14:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Actually, Frosty, Shadow Fang is a better skill for the bar than pre-nerf Dark Prison. It was simply overlooked. Zuranthium 23:16, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

(indent reset)tbh, Rapta is handling this as well as anyone could so I give him credit there. He's not being biased at all, removing votes equally not based on whether he likes the build but with actual good reasoning. That's how it should be done, but sadly it's not how it's BEING done.Blackened SigBlackened 14:41, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Saying that BB isn't a fair comparison is like saying it's not fair to compare GoL to WoH; they accomplish the same purposes, but one is probably better than the other. I'm hearing that you're "constantly spiking to get down a Monk's prot". This is R-fucking-A. Any Monks who do bring prots will just prot up until you are easily smushed (like most Assassins) or until the game ends. I'm getting a 1000 different ways this build works when really it's just a spiker with a short downtime but an incredibly weak and slow spike. Also, honestly, Dont told him to STOP REMOVING VOTES unless they're RETARTED. And by retarted, I mean like "lol this iz shit lol terribad" not long votes with reasoning. So, I want a different admin and a different BM to stop overlooking the build. --GoD Wario Sig*Wah Wah Wah!* 16:29, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
The only thing that the build really has against it is the lack of IAS (although it can still spike within 7 seconds or so) and the delayed DW (which, if you prefer, just take Twisting Fangs.) Those two might bring down the effectiveness to 3, but the build still works well. The Build:A/any BH Spike Sin and Build:A/any Deadly Arts Spike Sin both spiked within the same amount of time and dealt a similar amount of damage, but the GoR Spiker can use its chain twice as often. ــмıкεнaшк 18:04, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Those builds have actual condition pressure. its kinda hard for a monk to gaurdian if hes dazed, and even harder for him to gaurdian impale + SoTs.----ﮎHædõ๘یíɳShadowsin sig 18:10, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Shield Bash, Balanced Stance, and Disciplined Stance say hai2u. Any of those will ruin the chain for 20+ seconds. The old SP Sin, which was favoured over BH (attribute spread is the only good reason I can see for that, though), would have been countered by Holy Veil, too, but that didn't stop Sins from using SP. ــмıкεнaшк 18:23, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Considering that they'd prolly go ahead with D-Prison. 19pxAce(LVPoW)NO U! 18:27, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Holy veil didnt counter SP as much as it counters this. SP was faster, Hit harder, and had a respectable deepwound to boot. And anything Shieldbash Balanced Stance and Disciplined stance does to those builds, it does to this build only worse.----ﮎHædõ๘یíɳShadowsin sig 18:40, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
You COMPLETELY do not understand the Renewal Sin if you think that a SP Assassin has a better chance of killing a stance Monk. Zuranthium 23:16, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Nope, because this chain can be used again within 10 seconds (unless you hit a Shield Bash) while the SP/BH sins still have a 20 second recharge if they use Iron Palm as their only knockdown, and take Falling Spider over Black Spider Strike. ــмıкεнaшк 18:46, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

if u spike faster u get an easyer chance of Shield Bash and the stuff --InfestedHydralisk InfestedHydralisk sig2(Talk*Contributions) 18:48, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
as in faster recharge --InfestedHydralisk InfestedHydralisk sig2(Talk*Contributions) 18:49, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
If you spike twice as often, you can kill twice as often (or deal twice as much DPS, if you don't like to auto-attack during your chain's downtime)! The build shouldn't be voted down based on its counters, because everything has counters, and this isn't especially susceptible to them. ــмıкεнaшк 18:59, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
untrue, most 20 recharge spikes can actually instant kill tbh, on the other side, GoR cant rly kill fast enough --InfestedHydralisk InfestedHydralisk sig2(Talk*Contributions) 19:04, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
All the builds you are using to defend this have been archived do to nerfs anyway. and its not the counters but the ease the counters of this build can be pulled off. ----ﮎHædõ๘یíɳShadowsin sig 19:06, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Both of those Deadly Arts Sin builds (BH, or even SP before the aftercast nerf, but that doesn't affect the damage in your spike) can't instant kill because their chains do little over 500 damage (including Deep Wound) and GoR deals more or less the same amount. Hell, the BB Sin can barely kill a target with 600 health (much better than 500, but adrenaline build-up in RA is baed for a Sin), and Monks usually have 630-650. I was also the one who finally archived the SP build, too. ــмıкεнaшк 19:12, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
And the fact that the SP build was archived (or should stay archived) means that the GoR spiker is one of the better Sin spike builds we currently have. ــмıкεнaшк 19:13, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
BB sins are the best spike sins in the game. Its horrible in RA, AB, and CM. All spike sin are horrible there. HB is really the only place for spike sins. --- Monk-icon-Ressmonkey Ressmonkey (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Just because there is one build that is better compared to other builds, doesn't mean it has to be good. It's like saying, which is best, a rotten banana, rotten apple, or a rotten egg? Clearly rotten eggs stink, so no for that and rotten bananas are gooey and barely edible. Rotten apples are the best in that group, but a normal apple > rotten apple. 19pxAce(LVPoW)NO U! 19:19, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
ur making no sense.. also, ofc a normal apple wins..a normal is good, a rotten is bad --InfestedHydralisk
Stop comparing the Glyph Renewal to SP or BB Sin. Seriously. Different play styles, even if they share similarities. To use an example, it's akin to comparing a Dom Mesmer to a Migraine Mesmer. Zuranthium 23:16, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

InfestedHydralisk sig2(Talk*Contributions) 19:21, 23 July 2008 (EDT) SP/BH Sin Spikes were the normal apples, but the SP Sin is going rotten so it's time to replace it with more apples (GoR and BH.) I'm hungry, nao. =P ــмıкεнaшк 19:23, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

mah point is that rotten apples, bananas, and eggs were once good, but over time, they went bad. Just like old sin spike builds. SP builds were once great, then over time, Anet nerfed em and made em useless. This build is more like a rotten apple and is inferior to other builds (the normal apples). Either way, that quote should go on grinch's epic quotes page. 19pxAce(LVPoW)NO U! 20:09, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
What are you even saying? Is the GoR one good or bad because I couldnt tell from those statements what ur opinion was. The fact is, shadow step spikes are nerfed badly. the GoR build goes around that, but loses everything that made them good (speed, difficulty to prot against). The BB sin is really the only good remaining spike sin outside of HB. --- Monk-icon-Ressmonkey Ressmonkey (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
I got that the GoR Spiker is Chicita Banana, TBH. It really didn't make much sense. --GoD Wario Sig*Wah Wah Wah!* 20:18, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
i think its bad, and you just stated it quite nicely, ressmonkey. 19pxAce(LVPoW)NO U! 20:20, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

What a bunch of fruits. - PANIC! Panic sig4 sexiness! 20:20, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

My pun to joke ratio just broke it's meter, TBH. My family is notorious for puns. --GoD Wario Sig*Wah Wah Wah!* 20:22, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
I wouldn't take a BB Sin to AB or RA, tbh (even though I am tempted to do so by taking "FGJ!".) Although the BB Sin is, no doubt, the strongest spike sin we've got, and even has a comparable recharge to the GoR Spike Sin, adrenaline is baed for a Sin in RA/AB because you can't usually rely on your teammates to protect you while you auto-attack to acquire that adrenaline. Currently, the BH and GoR Sins are the only ones I would run in RA/AB because they don't need adrenaline. ــмıкεнaшк 20:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
my point is that though a build may be better than other nerfed builds, it doesn't mean that its the best build out there. 19pxAce(LVPoW)NO U! 20:29, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
I agree, it isn't the best build out there, but it's one of the best builds of its type. The majority of dagger spike builds have been nerfed, but this one gets around those nerfs, and can also be used more often. ــмıкεнaшк 20:32, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Ok, so the banana is better than the orange, but not better than the apple, which is not better than the orange. o.O I give up... Skie M 20:33, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
@Mike. It doesnt matter if its the best of its kind, its still not good. Spike sins dont have self-heals which are needed for RA, and dont have AoE or high DPS which is needed for AB, and CM needs defense + AoE + speed boosts. --- Monk-icon-Ressmonkey Ressmonkey (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
@Skie. Where do you get the orange from. Its normal apple > rotten apple > rotten banana > rotten egg. 19pxAce(LVPoW)NO U! 20:53, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

As I said above, stop trying to think of the Renewal Sin as a SP Sin. It's not, and that's likely part of the reason you've not done so good with the build if you tried it for a few matches in RA and then gave up. Zuranthium 23:16, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Zuranthium, your build is a piece of shit. No one that's respectable runs it. Ok? Get that? It's a piece of flaming shit that doesn't make it to top 20 because it's fucking terrible and top 20 players on QQ forums already told you so. But you come here with your BM status and make sure it passes easily despite the fact that it's bad. Get that. It's terrible. Blessed LightSnow Bunny 01:41, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
SnowBunny, are you talking about the GoR assassin he is trying to push through, or about the Me/Mo RC? The sin is an RA build and I don't think there is a top 20 RA ladder. If he did go and post an RA build on QQ I am really going to have to go and find that thread for I predict it to be hilarious. - Miserysig1isery (TALK) 04:15, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
LMAO, you're so completely inept SnowBunny. It goes beyond annoying, into pathetic and disgusting. Zuranthium 04:36, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

"LMAO, you're so completely inept SnowBunny. It goes beyond annoying, into pathetic and disgusting." Comments like this make me wonder if you should even be a BM at all. Selket Shadowdancer 05:02, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm telling the truth. He needs to know that his behavior is out of line, stalking my user page and other responses with comments that are hostile...and don't make any sense? Zuranthium 05:47, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
So rise above it and just ignore him then, someone of your position shouldn't take the bait really. Selket Shadowdancer 06:32, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
It's enforcement. A reminder to calm down and examine his poor decisions. Zuranthium 07:11, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Once upon a time there was a little kitten who knew he was right. Even when all the other little kittens told him he was wrong, he still knew he was right. And when he tried to convince the kittens he was right they all kept telling him he was wrong because they knew that they were right. Four days later, they were still arguing over who was right. The little kittens couldn't realise it was all srsly srs bsns and it doesn't really matter either way. But do you know what happened, kids? Panic killed them all with a cue ball in a sock. He beat their little squishy kitten bodies until they finally stopped squeeling and died. Then he flayed off their soft, furry kitten skins and made the world's most omgwtfbitchin' coat. Then he went out whoring and drinking until the wee hours of the morning. What's the moral of our story? I like violence and whores. Oh and you should all STFU and let it go. - PANIC! Panic sig4 sexiness! 05:17, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree, all this drama over a build in a videogame is laughably ridiculous. Selket Shadowdancer 05:30, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Now, see, that was pretty funny! But, no, this matter isn't over yet. It's not really drama to me - I am actually thoughtful about the issue, as it relates to whole RA build section on this wiki and how it should be handled. Zuranthium 07:11, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
TBH, 90% of the stuff in the RA section is kinda meh in RA anyways. Most of it was designed for TA, GvG, and so the author slapped on a RA tag for the hell of it. For example, Shattering Assault sins are BAD in RA, but they are still in teh great RA category. --- Monk-icon-Ressmonkey Ressmonkey (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Zur, this would be over if you would just fucking drop it and let the build get trashed like it should be. Ojamo SigOjamo Tell Me I Fail 14:07, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Why would the build be trashed? It's better comparatively to the others because of the nerf, and was acceptable before the nerf. ــмıкεнaшк 14:20, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
The point of the rotten fruit analogy was that although this build may be better in comparison to nerfed builds, it doesn't mean it's a good build. 19pxAce(LVPoW)NO U! 14:22, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Except it IS a good RA build, given how well it's performed. Which is entirely the point. *face palm* Zuranthium 20:07, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Performance in RA doesnt mean a damn thing cuz of randomness. Youde be getting just as many kills just as fast by running a shock axe and without all the counters. --- Monk-icon-Ressmonkey Ressmonkey (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
So every RA build should have its tag removed or be trashed because there's no guarantee that it would work against a good player, right? 100%. You're an idiot. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş Grinshpon blinky cake 20:43, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Most of the RA builds should have their tags removed. But thats not at all what I said. I said a shock axe has better damage output and has fewer counters then a spike sin. --- Monk-icon-Ressmonkey Ressmonkey (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Performance in RA certainly does mean a damn thing for an RA BUILD. Seriously, WTF. What do you not understand about what I've said - the consistency of a build in RA should dictate how effective it is, if it is an RA build. And no, a Shock Axe isn't always better. Perhaps it is better overall, but I don't see anybody arguing against that and it certainly doesn't take away from what this build can do. Zuranthium 21:07, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Actually Shock Axe, as amazing as it is, would perform at its worst in RA, AB (and CM, but I've never actually done it >.>) because of adrenaline. This build takes advantage of the fact that - many others run builds that require adrenaline or any other preparation - by delivering an early spike. BB Sins are also very inconsistent in RA because of the need for adrenaline, which is why I refrain from playing them there. Shock Axe, being a mêlée character, would also suffer from the same counters as the GoR spiker, but some of them affect the build even moreso, because you can't/shouldn't gain adrenaline when you're hexed with Faintheartedness, Price of Failure, Empathy and the such whereas the GoR Spiker can take down that Necro before he gets the chance to hex you. Anything that requires adrenaline also requires some decent support because they will be targeted and shut down before having the necessary amount of adrenaline. The GoR Spiker actually is a very universal build for RA, AB (and CM, again) because it performs well without good support. Now, if people ran Shock Axe with "FGJ!" or Enraging Charge on their bars, it wouldn't be such a big problem. XD ــмıкεнaшк 20:54, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

So, if I take a Necro to RA, I'll be sure to use my anti-melee on Warriors last because they pose the latest threat (unless they take Enraging Charge or "FGJ!") I'm not saying they don't pose a threat, but building 8 strikes of adrenaline doesn't happen instantly in PvP. "FGJ!"+Enraging still works for PvE. =P ــмıкεнaшк 20:57, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Shock Axe and BB Sins are fine. Nothing in RA is always going to do really well. It's all just relative levels of consistency. Zuranthium 21:07, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
BB Sins are not good. Shock Axe is decent. The fact is a sin spike (especially without an IAS) is countered by a decent monk. A good shock axe can kill a decent monk or score kills against it. A good GoR spiker cant. Thtas whta makes the GoR spiker bad. --- Monk-icon-Ressmonkey Ressmonkey (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
You are very confused. BB Sin can work, it's simply a bit more dependent on team. A good shock axe is more consistent, however it will not score ANY kills against a decent monk by itself. Pretty much nothing will score a kill against a decent Monk by itself. A Shock Axe with some offensive support will score kills. Guess what, though, so can a good GoR Sin can. That is what you clearly do not understand. Just stop talking about things you don't comprehend. It has been perfectly stated here - . Zuranthium 21:43, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
And that's why the build isn't intended for use outside of RA, AB and CM, because Monks (or good Monks) aren't common, and anti-melee is. You aren't going to use Eviscerate->Executioner's/Body Blow if you were hexed with Price of Failure before you even started building adrenaline. Any physical is fragile, especially in RA, AB and CM because they often go without support, but the GoR Spiker is actually dependable for those types of PvP. ــмıкεнaшк 21:51, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Yep. It's an echo of my "good monk would shut down anyone trying to solo them anyways" statement above. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 22:23, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Ummm... Aurons wrong. The fact is that if you want a good RA build, you have to assume the enemy will have a monk and you wont. If a build cna function under those circumstances, its a good build. Otherwise, it isnt. The GoR spiker isnt a spike at all, its slow and can be countered by hex removal 4 seconds into the spike. Any decent monk will counter it every time. It also has no protection or self-heal, so if u dont get a monk, a ranger can just attack you once with apply poison on and let you slowly die and theres nothing you can do about it. Not to mention that d-shot will screw you if theres a decent ranger on their team. --- Monk-icon-Ressmonkey Ressmonkey (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
No, Auron is not wrong. Yes, hex removal can be an annoyance, but there are ways to get around it and not let that absolutely ruin you. You're just not very sneaky. This build is not called "GoR Spiker" either, so stop using that term. It doesn't solely get kills solely through single spikes. This other statement you made is total fail - "The fact is that if you want a good RA build, you have to assume the enemy will have a monk and you wont." That's just....NO. Zuranthium 23:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Apply Poison and D-Shot will ruin most physicals because people barely bring self-heals/protection. If the other team has a good Monk, and you don't, you're pretty much screwed anyway. 90% of the physicals ran in RA are blockable (while target-swapping is also gud), so there really is no difference. Physicals were meant to be easily countered because they usually deal the most damage, and the majority of them are the same, so you can't judge a build by its counters, because every build has them. ــмıкεнaшк 22:57, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Rapta (talk · contribs · logs · check user · block user · block log)

General asshattery regarding my vote/votes on the GoR Sin build. If someone doesn't do something about it, I will. Cedave bad ツ cedave (contributionsbuildpage) 14:36, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Your previous votes weren't terrible, but the build isn't worth 0-0-0. The weighting of the ratings on the different criteria is defined by this policy. Voters who don't agree with the current weighting should address that on the policy's talk page. It is not admissible to give false ratings on individual criteria in order to circumvent the weighting scheme. Vote balancing is also baed. ــмıкεнaшк 14:47, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
If vote balancing is the only way to get opinions across, then so be it. --GoD Wario Sig*Wah Wah Wah!* 14:48, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
I'm old school like that, yo. Cedave bad ツ cedave (contributionsbuildpage) 14:51, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
I'd encourage you to stop advocating bullshit on the Wiki, but I believe tons of other Sysops have already tried to do so in the past. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 15:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Side note: What's the difference between it being on the Talk and the AN? --GoD Wario Sig*Wah Wah Wah!* 15:07, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

It's for notices, not for talk. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 15:08, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

A/E GoR Sin (talk · rate)

i srsly don't see anything wrong about rapta. he's just doing his job. Cedave's vote is a balancing vote, which i don't think is allowed and can be removed. GoD's vote copies tab, but not same rating. just rate it the same as tab and its a valid vote. 19pxAce(LVPoW) NO U! 15:28, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

This has already been discussed before. Someone may agree with another's sentiments, but not on the rating that they gave. ╠╣Ω¥†\/[ÞΩ┌┐Ð] 15:29, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
either way, rapta ain't a problem. Cedave's should be removed, Guild's should be restored imo. 19pxAce(LVPoW) NO U! 15:31, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
It's not an issue about the build as it is Rapta's adminship and privelages, TBH. The debate around Rapta has basically grown out of the build, and other admins have been asked to look at the issue. --GoD Wario Sig*Wah Wah Wah!* 15:32, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
How's Rapta abusing his adminship and privileges? 19pxAce(LVPoW) NO U! 15:35, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Ace, that vote was probably the.. ohh... 17th one I made? I finally got fed up with trying to get a serious vote through. Through, now apparently he's satisfied with a nice 3 in effectiveness. $20000 says he removes it if I change it to 2. Cedave bad ツ cedave (contributionsbuildpage) 15:37, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
I removed the vote because it states that you're a supporter of vote balancing, hope you don't mind. And take a break, you've been warned enough of your obsessive behaviour in getting your vote across even though it's invalid. I already said I'm not tolerating malicious voting. Breaking policy to try and get a point across is unacceptable in your case, with your history as a user. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 15:40, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
How so? You'll have to make yourself clearer on how one "grows out of the build". I was the first second admin to intervene, and I removed all votes with invalid reasons, regardless of the rating. You seem to not understand the concept of the vetting system after being here so long. All your points have been refuted either in your vote or on the talk page. Enough is enough, I'm tired of people making stupid edits and votes, and I will remove them regardless of what another admin may say if the vote is blatantly wrong. As for you specifically, it's safe to say that very few would follow PW:AGF when dealing with your edits, since too many of them are simply examples of trolling behaviour and attempts at policy manipulation. My points on the build's talk page regarding your conduct on this Wiki specifically (note that I'm not talking about the build) is more than enough. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 15:40, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Actually, I was the first to intervene with restoring Skakid's and Goldenstar's votes and leaving a note on Zur's talk to refrain from removing more votes. Not that it changed anything because the votes were removed regardless. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 21:37, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Fixed. =P — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 22:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Proposed Guidlines for Rating builds

moved to PvXwiki talk:Practical Testing


People should read this (or at least the first part) before posting here, imo. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 00:18, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

It needs another section dealing with BM's and vote removal to be worthwhile, tbh.
But jokes aside, that person seems to have the same stance as me on 3RR and its counterpart here on the Wiki, as well as when to block. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 00:37, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
Z could get some benefit out of reading the "Conflict of Interest" section ;o - Miserysig1isery (TALK) 03:00, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
And the entire rest of the wiki could benefit greatly from reading the "dirty laundry" section. -Auron 04:20, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
imo, looks like something Captain Flowers would write. If everybody on this wiki was like him and Mindspillage, this wiki would be a better place, and that ideal would work with PW:AGF, but the problem is: that's not the case. There are trolls, vandals, etc. on the wiki. 19pxAce(LVPoW)NO U! 23:35, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

With the recent update...

Should we just freaking archive everything and restart? 4srs. Cedave bad ツ cedave (contributionsbuildpage) 20:19, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I think we should. Btw, anyone wanna PvE? ;D Big (<3) PEW!! BigSigPic 20:23, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
There's a freaking flood of builds.--Relyk IkeR e l y k 20:35, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
in the excitement, people are overdoing it. hard to know what's really good, what's too good and going to be nerfed, and how it stacks up with existing builds.--reason.decrystallized In real life, pokemons would be used as sex toys. 00:09, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
I just want to re-iterate that Rangers have bows for a reason. 100 armor vs. elemental doesn't make up for you being squishy against the derv, warrior, or sin who just gutted you. On a similar note, Expert's Dexterity gives you +2 to Marks for a reason. Use it. Cedave bad ツ cedave (contributionsbuildpage) 01:47, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Where to go?

No message is being sent to my email for the pvxwiki activation thing. Idk where to say something about that. hlps plz? AxeUberxman1028Signature3Man!not as rawr as you think... 22:07, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

It doesn't work with some email addresses. It seems to work fine with Gmail, though. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 01:40, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Yeah make a g-mail account. Raskagain Rask Attack! 06:42, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Game update, 8/21/2008


  • Genocide against smite boon monks (Smiter's Boon totally destroyed for PvP)
  • Disrupting Lunge is deemed too powerful (despite its targeting issues) (20s recharge)
  • Glimmering Mark damage buffed by 5 per rank, otherwise unchanged

Greven 17:59, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Old news is old. Wait for gwshack update or our own skill database to be finished. Supposedly Disrupting Lunge got nerfed due to RaO axe. MudkipMisfate /wave 18:00, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
I hadn't seen it mentioned anywhere. Not talking about the skill tooltips, but mentioning it for the builds that are going to be impacted -Greven 18:12, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
The death of Smiter's boon is too big to not notice. Raped in the ass with a pitchfork. MisfatemudkipMisfate /wave 20:19, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
That's an impressive analogy. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 21:30, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
That's a painful analogy, more correctly. Cedave bad ツ cedave (contributionsbuildpage) 23:09, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
Point 1:Its an analogy that makes me horny.
Point 2:Which end of the pitchfork are you using? I is *Jebus*IAmJebussig3Enter my contest! 23:22, 21 August 2008 (EDT)


Since we basically missed two and a half weeks, pretty much every build that isn't vetted is in there. I'd advise leaving it alone for a week or so since many of them will be edited. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 15:43, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

QQ. I'd just cleaned it out after i got promoted. ~PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 16:07, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
Well, if you really want to go through and get all 776 of those (actually probably less, since many are both abandoned and trial/stub), go ahead :P But keep in mind that we have two weeks before any new ones start popping up there. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 18:18, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

What ever happened...

To that box that followed you down on the page saying "This is not a community clusterfuck, Please refrain from discussion. Dipshits." I miss it.----ﮎHædõ๘یíɳShadowsin sig 01:19, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

meh. that box was annoying and if memory serves, that was removed before DB crash. ☆Imbagon♥McSteve☆(LVPoW) Cuz Steve said so... ツ 02:21, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Burning Point Blank Ranger

→ Moved to PvXwiki:Admin_noticeboard

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.