m (Archived Build wiping)
m (Archived Build wiping)
Line 258: Line 258:
:::::::yes, because we discuss if good builds should be archied =p. This allows someone to say "it was in great a couple of days ago, but that nerf hit it quite hard so some votes got removed, and others lowered their rating, so it should be archived". <span style="font-family: comic sans ms; font-size: 10pt;">'''[[User:Phenaxkian|<font color="#4F94CD"> ~ PheNaxKian</font>]]</span> <span style="font-size: 8pt;">[[User talk:Phenaxkian|<font color="#9400D3">Sysop</font>]]</span>''' 04:01, 5 February 2009 (EST)
:::::::yes, because we discuss if good builds should be archied =p. This allows someone to say "it was in great a couple of days ago, but that nerf hit it quite hard so some votes got removed, and others lowered their rating, so it should be archived". <span style="font-family: comic sans ms; font-size: 10pt;">'''[[User:Phenaxkian|<font color="#4F94CD"> ~ PheNaxKian</font>]]</span> <span style="font-size: 8pt;">[[User talk:Phenaxkian|<font color="#9400D3">Sysop</font>]]</span>''' 04:01, 5 February 2009 (EST)
::::::::even considering the fact that I wasn't able to revote on some of my reverted votes? [[User:Bigtymerxg4|<span style="color:blue;">'''Big'''</span>]] [[Image:Big McMonkey.png|19px]] [[User Talk:Bigtymerxg4|<span style="color:blue;">'''McMonkey'''</span>]] 04:04, 5 February 2009 (EST)
::::::::even considering the fact that I wasn't able to revote on some of my reverted votes? [[User:Bigtymerxg4|<span style="color:blue;">'''Big'''</span>]] [[Image:Big McMonkey.png|19px]] [[User Talk:Bigtymerxg4|<span style="color:blue;">'''McMonkey'''</span>]] 04:04, 5 February 2009 (EST)
:::::::::What? You should have... ~~ {{User:Frvwfr2/SigRedirect2}} 06:27, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Revision as of 11:27, February 5, 2009

Trash Builds

Just a minor thought, but add a tag to trash builds saying that "It was designed for blahblahblah" for the sole purpose of convienience. If a build is trashed and then makes it into other, im tired of checking the history of the build to move it back, and undoing previous edit doesnt always work cause if the build was revamped since it was moved into trash, one must move it back into trial/testing. Therefore, it would be more convienient to have a "Was Designed For" tag on the template for trash builds. Also, it could make voting on trash builds (which some people do) easier as you know what it is designed for. Just a minor idea, but worth putting a bit of effort into. I is *Jebus*IAmJebussig3Enter my contests! 18:21, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

i brought this issue up. Apparently when you tag for trash, you can jsut use {{Trash-build|~~~~~|HA|AB}} etc. So basically as long as you put a | after the date, the area tags can stay on there without harming the template. PheNaxKian Sysop 10:25, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
Yea, if there are extra parameters in a template, they just don't show up. And the way the templates are set up, if we made it display the areas like trial + testing tags do, it would automatically add trash builds to categories like UNTESTED-TRASH AB BUILDS. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 12:48, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Re: Pokemon images

I tried. The answer is unfortunately no. See my user page for details. If you'd like more proof than that I'll forward you the email. With <3----ﮎHædõ๘یíɳShadowsin sig 14:21, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Just wondering

[1] why this exists--ShadowRelyk Sig 17:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

It's for rating tests mainly, or just for lolz. --GoD Hammer and Sickle Guild of Deals 17:57, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Was it made?--ShadowRelyk Sig 17:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Not exactly. Basicaly that page exits as the rating page for any deleted/none existent build. you have to 5-5-5 it. PheNaxKian Sysop 18:32, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
So it just popped up out of nowhere the first time a build was deleted? And you can plainly see my 5-5-4 was acceptable--ShadowRelyk Sig 01:06, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
i'm not too sure about the specifics about how it came into existence, all I know is that it's there, and the above reasons are why. Also Frv removed yours. =p PheNaxKian Sysop 06:51, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

These are the ratings for page number zero. In other words, they were given for non-existent builds, e.g. ones that were deleted already. Ratings for builds that have been deleted after the rating was given don't show up here, since they are still linked to the original page id. One day we will remove all the unlinked ratings from the database, but for now they don't seem to hurt and ratings make up less than 2% of the whole data base, so we just leave them alone. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 08:29, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

is it just me or will it not let you change/delete your vote on that page? That Twin Tom sigThat Twin Tom 15:20, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
It won't. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 15:30, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
y? That Twin Tom sigThat Twin Tom 03:07, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
Not sure exactly - it's just something with the way the coding works that it won't let you edit or remove votes on that page. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 10:10, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Dynamic Page Lists

The Dynamic Page Lists extension has been installed. Thanks to Phenaxkian for finding it. There are many possible applications of this extension:

  • Show pages that belong to both of two given categories. This could be used to get rid of most of the build categories. Assign only one category for quality and one for each gameplay type. All the combinations like 'Good working XY builds' can be accessed by DPL.
  • Filter pages by editing date. This might be used to construct pages like GraceExpired without writing a new extension.
  • Transclude parts of other pages. This might be used for news etc. on the main page.

When experimenting with the extension, please be careful! Avoid overloading the server by too many too complex queries. When doing massive changes to the main build tags, make sure a server admin is around. If you need other extensions related to DPL, just tell me. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 10:20, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

News and PvXwiki:News

Ummm, wtf? One of these is superfluous, I am going to go with News as it is horribly out of date. If we want both, that one needs to be brought up to date, but I would suggest moving everything to the PvXwiki namespace so it doesn't boggle the search engine. - Misery Is Friendly Misery Dog obaby 04:19, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Well i moved all the actual news articles to News:*date* (so that DPL(see above) worked on the PvXwiki:News page), i was going to move PvXwiki:News as well (so it was just News) but apparently there was already a page there =s. I was going to delete it, but apparently it's in use in a couple of places (some kinda template or something), so I just left it. PheNaxKian Sysop 11:57, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
At the very least the out of date one should probably be brought up to date. I don't really understand the whole templating thing. Could the out of date page just be replaced with {{PvXwiki:News}}? - Misery Is Friendly Misery Dog obaby 10:21, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
well i could set it up so it's like the PvXwiki:News page, and updates automaticly, but that'd mean the whole newspost is displayed instead of a little bit, would that be ok? (don't think many people use it anyway) PheNaxKian Sysop 12:27, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Trash tags

I've never gotten why people go through all the builds and put the trash tag on builds after two weeks, but nobody goes through and votes on them. Can anybody explain? BarragetweakX2 Sig Lee 16:42, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

That is for builds that were abandoned, and hadn't been edited in 2 weeks, not the ones that are in testing. In testing=Will get voted on, but if left in Stub/Trial for 2weeks, then that tag gets added. ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   16:51, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
basically we add trash tags to builds that have been vetted and decided to be trash (so with 5 or more votes, the overall rating is less than 2.5), or they're abanndoned trash, meaning they've not been edited in ~4 weeks and are a stub/trial build. PheNaxKian Sysop 16:52, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
So how do I see the votes?BarragetweakX2 Sig BarragetweakX2 18:02, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
click on the rate button as you would normally. If it was vetted trash there will be 5 or more ratings, with an overal rating >2.5. If it's abandoned trash (there's a difference in tempaltes, {{trash-build}} and {{abandoned-trash}}) then there shouldn't be any ratings on it, because it wasn't in testing. It was in trial.stub, and got abandoned. PheNaxKian Sysop 18:11, 8 October 2008 (EDT)


Don't vote on builds anymore :/ There's a crap load of testing builds--ShadowRelyk Sig 17:43, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

Delete every single build that has a rating under 4.00. Then when people remake them, only the highest quality builds end up there cause tons of Good builds or Other builds deserve to be in Trash or even Great based on bad voters from the year 1722. I is *Jebus*IAmJebussig3Enter my contests! 19:54, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
no. delete shitty gimmicks, then cry more. Cedave bad  ツ cedave (☆contributions☆) 20:00, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
also, i think you meant 1772, if i'm correct in thinking you were trying to make a shitty joke. ups. Cedave bad  ツ cedave (☆contributions☆) 20:01, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Archived Builds

Are huge. My suggestion is to delete or at least revamp some that could still be working, but to delete the ones that are really obsolete and not worth keeping. Of course, some builds need to be kept (shadow prison, EoE bomb. Just a suggestion. I is *Jebus*IAmJebussig3Enter my contests! 22:00, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Archived builds are Archived for a reason...we're not going to delete any. As for revamping go for it. It's advised to do so. PheNaxKian Sysop 13:35, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
i think checking achive for builds that are still decent/workable is a good idea. i looked at necro ones and found a few altho most were killed by updates/new campains

-That Twin Tom sigThat Twin Tom 02:59, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

What are you talking about, Discord is terrible. The 2s cast was hte nerf. Reaper's Mark got a nerf too. Others, meh. ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   06:27, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
people still use discord theres like teams of em and reapers tho nerfed is in tested builds That Twin Tom sigThat Twin Tom 11:36, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
Following that logic, I see people bonding in ABs, bringing vengeance in FA, monks ressing in GvGs and HA, so does that make them effective or even decent?PikaFanLightningbolt sig 11:51, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
Discord/Reapers are only useful in certain scenarios. You dont see discord anymore because its crap in PvP, 2 sec cast. In PvE tho, theres a dedicated Discordway thats in Great cause it has a better usage and is very efficient. I is *Jebus*IAmJebussig3Enter my contests! 12:01, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
ok not discord then (tho there is vetted team builds based round it) but the reapers build has been the same as the archived one That Twin Tom sigThat Twin Tom 12:02, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
not anymore I is *Jebus*IAmJebussig3Enter my contests! 12:13, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
id leave it cause people vetted it even with nerfs and thats what killed it. its was probably better bfor nerf but qualifies for other now.....That Twin Tom sigThat Twin Tom 12:17, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
Discordspike is still as viable in HA as SFspike or Eleball is, and probably more so. Also, Discord in PvE is useless against anything that isn't a boss because, if ur doin it rite, shit's gonna blow up before you can actually get a hex and condition on them. Also, you've got Necrosis. Cedave bad  ツ cedave (☆contributions☆) 15:24, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
yh i agree necrosis OWNS That Twin Tom sigThat Twin Tom 15:37, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
Discordway also provides utility, but im not going to go into that on community portal. Anyway, the point is that we have tons of archived builds, some of which arent worth keeping anymore. There are old classics, like IWAY, SP sin, and EoE bomb that should be kept, but some are really pointless and should have just been voted down during the nerf. I is *Jebus*IAmJebussig3Enter my contests! 16:51, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

PvX:BUILDARC. Read it. basically build that are in the archive we're either great (and as such deserve to be archived) or they were in good, and the community decided to archive. Basically anything in there deserves to be in there, the only exception is where it's been archived because of one update, and a more recent one has made it viable again (maybe not perfect but viable). PheNaxKian Sysop 16:59, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

cool ok :) figured most of that from archive reasons but didnt know other builds didnt get archived That Twin Tom sigThat Twin Tom 03:02, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
well we don't archive others because they never worked that well to begin with (that's whay there in other obv.) Good we say discussion should occur becasue some of the good build work well, but perhaps weren't fine tuned, or some such reason. Great we auto archive because they're the best =p. PheNaxKian Sysop 10:43, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Ritualist builds

They need to be sorted:

--ShadowRelyk Sig 02:41, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

I added the merge tags to the two OoS Smiter builds, but pretty much all of the others should be deleted/moved to userspaces, tbh. We don't archive builds that are only "acceptable". ــмıкεнaшк 21:44, 12 October 2008 (EDT)


the skills ever be updated?--ShadowRelyk Sig 08:09, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

GWShack need to update first. They do have a more recent version than our current one, but GCard is the only one who can do the update, I left him a message a while ago, jsut wait i guess. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 09:23, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
Temporary solution: Get him to do it everytime we have updates. Permanent/longer-lasting solution: Learn from him.PikaFanLightningbolt sig 09:34, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
temporary solution, GWShack need to update, they're not necessarily up to date themselves, even the one i saw (that is newr than our current version) doesn't look like it's the most recent update. Permanent/longer-lasting solution, it requires server side access iirc. That means the only other person who could is Hippo. Besides a database is being worked on remember, it'd be better to get that up and running, that way we can control the descriptions. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 09:47, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
We could just make a Skill namespace, make a <noinclude visible part of the page and then set template-style values in the included part which would be searched for in the skills. I'd imagine that's sort of what Hhhippo and Gcard are working on, but I can't be sure. I think I'll actually try putting together a sort of demo right now. Cedave bad  ツ cedave (☆contributions☆) 21:53, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
I'm getting tired of people spamming wtf every time Izzy buffs a new skill :/--ShadowRelyk Sig 04:00, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

The "any" profession icon

Asterisk <--- that isn't the same size as the other profession icons (which are 25px by 20 px) and so it doesn't align with the others (see here). I tried uploading a new version myself, but it was cropped to the initial size (18x19) automatically. It's just a minor issue, but I like to bitch about details, so if anyone could fix it, or let me know how to do it myself, that would be nice. ^^ ــмıкεнaшк 16:06, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

Triple Warrior GvG Builds

The above builds are all essentially the same, tbh. They all use the same three Warriors, a Ranger, and the usual Flagger+Monks. The only significant differences between the four builds is the fifth character, which, really, have very similar roles. Build:Team_-_GvG_Triple_Warrior and Build:Team_-_GvG_Dual_Ranger_Condition_Pressure are also nearly identical, save for an interchangeable Ranger and Warrior. Most of those builds should be archived or merged, imo. ــмıкεнaшк 22:01, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

Isnt there also a testing triple warrior balanced build thats featured rite nao? Error converting thumbnail:Image:JebusSigNew.jpg IAmJebusSig5Enter my contests! 22:10, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
That one isn't quite as close as the four I mentioned above, tbh. ــмıкεнaшк 22:13, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
3 and 4 are pretty much the same, one with pressure from conditions, one with bigger damage. 1 and 2 aren't as close though. Having Cripslash, Magehunter, shock axe, ia/cripshot, SoR smite/Plague signet, backline, and HC runner should be used.--ShadowRelyk Sig 04:06, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Build:N/A Cultist's Fervor Doomspike

any1 know where i can fidn a vid of this in action?... That Twin Tom sigThat Twin Tom 15:49, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

This was posted on its talk page. ــмıкεнaшк 15:53, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
didnt see that and search utube but nothing came up......found it now looks awesome shame it got nerfed That Twin Tom sigThat Twin Tom 15:59, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
This is an even better video tbh.--TheHunger 16:04, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Problems with confirmation

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but I can't confirm my email account for some reason. I've tried two separate email accounts, (one SBC and one gmail), but I can't find the confirmation either way. Checked the bulked folders for both and it's not being filtered in anyway. Maybe it's an internal problem? If anyone could help me with this I'd appreciate it, thanks. -Wounding Strike1*DeathyD

Internal Server errors

They keep popping up--ShadowRelyk Sig 11:04, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

And they're driving me nuts. Karate Jesus 11:08, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
ironicly i got one clicking edit. Talk:Main_Page#error_500_-_internal_error. They've been going for a couple of days. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 11:20, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
Why? Is something wrong with the server? I get one almost every time I click Main Page or my userpage. Karate Jesus 11:23, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
i just get em randomly...cause of my lucky mainly when tryin to save an edit That Twin Tom sigThat Twin Tom 11:39, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

PvE Farming

Basically every mob farming build is either a 55, a shadow form, or a sliver in some way. Tbh all we need is:


  • Classic 55 monk (Prot spirit/healing breeze/shield of judgment) (which is outdated imo)
  • SoA 55 monk
  • Spirit Bond 600 monk
  • 55/SS
  • 600/SS
  • 55 necro (both Spoil Victor and Spiteful Spirit versions)
  • 330 VwK rit
  • Visage/Famine 55 farm
  • Two man rotscale farm


  • Degeneration SF (burning speed, mystic corruption, radiation field, etc)
  • Daggers SF
  • Holy Scythe SF
  • Sliver SF
  • Fire Nuke SF


  • Griefing/Sliver (55, SF, Armor of Earth/Stoneflesh Aura, Obby flesh)

Other interesting ones

  • Paragon HM Dead Sword Farm
  • NFT farms
  • Death Blossom farmer

For mob farms only. Just a suggestion, seeing as there are like 8 raptor farm builds out there. -- Jebuscontests 20:57, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

tag them with WELL then.... ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 07:33, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
"No. Doing that causes massive, massive, massive, articles. If it's more detailed to explain usage, it deserves it's own page" -Skakid" We can't delete every single build based on the fact they share the same build.--ShadowRelyk Sig 11:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
yes we can...if needs be use subpage like [[Build:Mo/N 55 Farmer/Necromancer bosses]] or something, it's better than having 50 articles with the exact same build!. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 12:10, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
Skakid was proved wrong after all, as we merged about 8 eviscerate builds and maybe 5 wounding strike ones. I also believe that his point was directed towards the cripshot/IA/Burning Arrow/BHA/Magebane/Empathic/Expert's Dexterity builds. -- Jebuscontests 15:00, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
The ranger builds were all used differently while the Eviscerate builds were interchangeable. You miss the point that just because it's the same build it has the same exact usage, which they don't, if a massive list of farming builds is annoying then make the subpages--ShadowRelyk Sig 11:06, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
Or we could do no work and the system could continue to work. Also, now when people search for "Destroyer Core farmer", guess what pops up, a build that can farm destroyer cores, osht! - Misery Is Friendly Misery Dog obaby 11:09, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
The eviscerate builds had different usages, just slightly so. Likewise, the 55 or 600 or SoA or sliver builds are essentially the same, with one or two skills differing and a slight change in mechanics (maintaining a different enchantment, etc). The ranger builds are different enough that they werent merged (note that im pointing out Skakid's quote, not supporting it) and some farming builds are incredibly similar. -- Jebuscontests 20:46, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
Zzz, ignoring people nice--ShadowRelyk Sig 22:08, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
wut u mad about internal server errors? -- Jebuscontests 22:15, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
It's my opinion that the farming builds are different enough that they deserve their own space. The 55/600/SoA all function differently, just like the Ranger builds, just because they achieve the same thing doesn't mean they achieve in the same way. If you want to go around archiving/merging all the farming builds that are repetitive, I'm fine by that, but if it means no one will know how to farm this stuff unless it's put in usage, where everything would eventually become cluttered. I'd only merge the builds that function the same and don't need specific usages for areas where a general usage is useless.--ShadowRelyk Sig 17:00, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
tbh seearch really needs to be sorted out its pretty bad That Twin Tom sigThat Twin Tom 17:07, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Build:R/any Generic Support Ranger I didnt make this, but i was trolling recent ratings and i found this, i wtb thoughts on whether we should keep this. -- Jebuscontests 23:35, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

i removed the WELL tag becasue i actually want some real discussion going on about it, a generic bar would be better than 5 different ones with jsut a different elite. Look at the Eviscerate Warrior, that's a merge of about 5 builds >.> ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 07:46, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
True, but we unmerged the W/E shock axe variation because it was a major enough separation of the generic eviscerate build. In this case, the elites require completely different usages (cripshot, BA, IA, BHA, ER) etc. I'm not against merging the builds, nor am i against keeping them, but this is just a point i'd like to throw out there. -- Jebuscontests 14:03, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
we unmerged it because shock axe was the eviscerate build from what i understood, so having it as a variant seemed stupid. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 14:12, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
So is there any reason not to make subpages for similar builds like all the Ranger builds? Because that's what a generic build is suppose to achieve.--ShadowRelyk Sig 19:41, 5 November 2008 (EST)

AB builds

This needs to be moved to Build:Team - AB Balanced because this is what should be run in ab for balanced. When we get Build:Team - AB Dual Physical vetted we can merge Build:Team - AB Ninjaway, Build:Team - AB Dual Warrior.--ShadowRelyk Sig 00:06, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Debate Room

Discussions on the good/bad points of a build can quickly get out of hand. Look on Goldenstar's talk page, where there is a huge argument that happened in about a half hour. My suggestion is a room where people can just duke it out verbally, as long blocks of text where PvX:NPA and PvX:STFU are being violated kinda disturbs the build talk flow. -- Jebuscontests 21:41, 4 December 2008 (EST)

That was generally the idea about the forums, you can bitch and moan without worrying about policies, or any of the admins QQing about something. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 12:07, 5 December 2008 (EST)
But nobody is going to go to a completely different URL to do this, and IP addresses arent going to make new accounts. Seems simpler to have a link to the debate page on the main page or the bar on the left, and have the debate room itself be a part of PvX, not a forum. -- Jebuscontests 15:27, 5 December 2008 (EST)
but the point being is that such a page would still have to follow policy. So you either go to the forums to bitch and moan at/about each otherm or you have to suck it up i guess. >.>. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 15:37, 5 December 2008 (EST)

"Fake" updates

Really annoying for people to make theoretical builds.--Relyk chtistmas2ChristmasRelyk 22:23, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Oh wow i was checking guildwiki...--Relyk chtistmas2ChristmasRelyk 22:24, 11 December 2008 (EST)
Ye, check the updates. They're real. -- Jebuscontests 22:24, 11 December 2008 (EST)
No u--Relyk chtistmas2ChristmasRelyk 13:13, 13 December 2008 (EST)
But tbh, FUCK OFF UNTIL THE UPDATE IS FINAL AND LIVE. - Misery Is Friendly Misery Dog obaby 13:15, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Palm Strike is NOT a lead

Looking for a good assassin build I noticed that all the ones with Palm Strike in the name are wrong, because they all treat this OFF-HAND as if it were a lead. Palm Strike has to follow a lead it can't be the lead itself.

Palm Strike counts as a off-hand attack and does not have to follow a lead attack. Fox007 User Fox007 sig 11:08, 14 December 2008 (EST)
It's called a leas skip, that way you can compress your combo and get off more dual attacks. Other lead skips include golden phoenix strike, black spider strike and falling lotus/spider after a KD. - Misery Is Friendly Misery Dog obaby 11:14, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Looking for build

I was searching trough the warrior section and I noticed the generic Backbreaker warrior is gone, anyone knows where it went?Jelmewnema 17:57, 27 December 2008 (EST)

W/any Pulverizing Backbreaker Banaantje 18:01, 27 December 2008 (EST)
The other one, there was another one that was a copy/past of all other hammer kd builds. Jelmewnema 18:07, 27 December 2008 (EST)
This one, where did it go? Wasn't archived, no redirect to a moved version?Jelmewnema 18:15, 27 December 2008 (EST)
Phen deleted it, doesn't say why. Auron added a delete tag with the reasoning of "Backbreaker sucks." ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   18:30, 27 December 2008 (EST)
can't say I remember why, there were a lot of deletes so I probably went semi-auto and took Auron's word for it. Restoring and putting into testing anyway. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 07:16, 28 December 2008 (EST)
I think what it was, was that the delete tag had been there about 3 days, and no-one had objected, so i took that to be everyone agreeing. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 07:19, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Unvetted builds

We often get people complaining that there builds aren't getting voted on. I've had a thought, basically we create a template which says "this build hasn't been vetted on in (insert a pre determined time period here)" and it would be put into an "unvetted build" category. This enables users to see which builds have been around in testing for quite a while, and still need vetting. Thoughts? ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 08:31, 28 December 2008 (EST)

I'd be all for it, hate having builds that everyone ignores--Relyk chtistmas2ChristmasRelyk 08:33, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Rating Watchlist

So that every time a build on your watchlist gets another rating, it can alert you. JebusJebussigchristmasMcMouseContests 12:51, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Actually a pretty good idea. Or allow watching ratings pages. Not sure how much coding either option would require though. ¬ «Ðêjh» (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2009 (EST)

The rule that a build with PvE-only skills can't have a hero tag.

Let's get rid of it :> 10:05, 23 January 2009 (EST)

It's not a rule, you just better have a viable hero version without the PvE skills. - Miserysig (talk) 10:08, 23 January 2009 (EST)
Okay, lets take this build as an example. It doesn't have any pve-only skills in the main bar, so it can have a hero tag. But no one would take a warrior hero, would they? Ask Anonimous. Brandnew. 10:10, 23 January 2009 (EST)
What Misery said. So long as the PvE-only skills aren't essential to the build's function (ie Imbagon) then there's no reason you can't have a hero tag with suggestions for replacement skills in Variants. - Panic sig7 10:17, 23 January 2009 (EST)
That doesn't support your point, it's an opposite point. Also, that's a pretty bad build. - Miserysig (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2009 (EST)
Cleave is worse, but that's another thing altogether. Also, this is becoming quite a discussion, where should we move this to?PikaFan19x19px 05:44, 30 January 2009 (EST)
What? It's like 5 points, it's hardly a huge discussion. If you mean discussions about Cleave, they should probably go on builds with Cleave in them. The Community Portal talk page is actually for these kinds of discussions that don't belong anywhere else such as site direction and possible policy changes. - Miserysig (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2009 (EST)


Hey, I couldn't find the right place for this, but I am having problems with my login. I can't rate any builds because my email address in not verified, when I try to mail the code, I never get the mail... Please can someone help me or refer me to the right place... P.S. I meet all requirements for rating except the email address... Thanks Anwyn 05:35, 30 January 2009 (EST)

We have issues with this occasionally due to our servers sucking ass. The two things you can do is keep trying or make a gmail account and try that. For reasons unknown gmail accounts tend to work. It's only for verifying email for voting so don't worry, you'll never have to use the email account again. - Miserysig (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Archived Build wiping

Some builds are completely obsolete, even for an archived build. Stuff from 2006 may have been the meta back then but the question is, is it really worth keeping as an archived build? A build archived because of a meta shift three years ago is all but forgotton. There would be exceptions, like really famous builds (shadow prison, boonprot) but the archived build section is pretty huge. Discuss. Jebuspachi-1-1.jpgMcPachirisu 21:05, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Since PvX is about tracking metas, i'd say yes it is. You can learn a lot about the history of HA and GvG and how the current metas developed and why from the old builds--GoldenGoldenstarStar 21:07, 1 February 2009 (EST)
The purpose of a wiki is to record information so that if someone wants to see it they can., Since the builds worked at one time I'd say that they are worth keeping. ----ﮎHædõ๘یíɳShadowsin sig 00:48, 5 February 2009 (EST)

If it's worth keeping all the crap everybody has posted over the years (talk page archives) I say it's definitely worth keeping the builds. RickyRicksawsmfacevantof 01:18, 5 February 2009 (EST)

what about those archived that were merely acceptable? Barely making the cut shouldn't count towards history. Big Big McMonkey McMonkey 01:20, 5 February 2009 (EST)
To be honest those builds shouldn't have been kept outside the userspace.----ﮎHædõ๘یíɳShadowsin sig 01:21, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Don't we only archive great builds? RickyRicksawsmfacevantof 01:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)
I hate you Ricky. If that's the case, then I suppose that's fine. Big Big McMonkey McMonkey 01:25, 5 February 2009 (EST)
we auto-archive Great (so if they get nerfed out of existance and were in great we archive it). However we sometimes Archive good builds, but only at a community consensus. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 03:48, 5 February 2009 (EST)
I dunno. Frvv or however you spell his name has been going around and removing a lot of votes off of builds, making once-great builds into good builds. Doesn't that have some bearing on this topic? Big Big McMonkey McMonkey 03:57, 5 February 2009 (EST)
yes, because we discuss if good builds should be archied =p. This allows someone to say "it was in great a couple of days ago, but that nerf hit it quite hard so some votes got removed, and others lowered their rating, so it should be archived". ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 04:01, 5 February 2009 (EST)
even considering the fact that I wasn't able to revote on some of my reverted votes? Big Big McMonkey McMonkey 04:04, 5 February 2009 (EST)
What? You should have... ~~     Frvwfr2   Frv Boston  talk    admin   06:27, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.