What we would need is all the pvx buildmasters and good contributors to make the first incredibly effective builds. From there we can set meta.

One thing that is possible, though, is getting the wiki running from the start of gw2. ~~ Napalm Flame >=] Napalm Flame Sig Image (talk)·(contributions) 05:06, 17 January 2008 (EST)

From the beta, yeah. That'd be awesome. And I don't think it'd need advertising or something, only on here, and on Guildwiki. Possibly on and Guru and stuff. Just as long as people ingame now that the wiki exists, it'll be vistited big time in no time. "Take a look on PvX", that's already a sentence that's used pretty much. It's in high regard of many mid-level players, so yeah. -StarSeeker | My talk 10:36, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Domains Edit

Just to add some info, at this momment we own or have access to use following domains:


gcardinal 06:42, 17 January 2008 (EST)


Because as was mentioned in the artical, A-net has already set up GW2W (guild wars 2 wiki). Perhaps we should conider doing the same, i know that's the general idea here but i mean settle on the domain name, then get ll the important things sorted (policies, tempaltes, and all the back-end work ready for sorting), so when the time comes to actually start submitting builds, we can just jump right in. so i suggest a pole for what domain to use for the second wiki (as with all things =p)PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 11:40, 17 January 2008 (EST)


This is a poll to decided what the site should be (called) for GW2 builds, in the eyes of the community PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 11:40, 17 January 2008 (EST)

1. pvxwiki.comEdit

  1. Keep it on this site. You can put a little portal or something to keep the gw1 builds around. Pluto 02:48, 5 February 2008 (EST)
  2. It can stay the same site. We can keep on contribs and userpages instead of a long transfer. Still, we can keep a database of GW1 and GW2 builds, no problem. --GoD Sig3GuildofDeals 20:37, 13 February 2008 (EST)
  3. I agree with the above two. If it remains the same, you won't lose any members or anything. Wouldn't that be the best? Just have a different link for GW1 and GW2 builds. Or different boxes, like you currently have PvP and PvE split up. Lambros

2. pvxwiki2.comEdit

  1. Seems like the best idea, keeps the name we love, while keeping builds from the diffrent games seperate.PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 11:40, 17 January 2008 (EST)
  2. I like this name best, I support this. ~~ Napalm Flame >=] Napalm Flame Sig Image (talk)·(contributions) 12:00, 17 January 2008 (EST)
    Forget that, I change my mind. ~~ Napalm Flame >=] Napalm Flame Sig Image (talk)·(contributions) 10:02, 18 January 2008 (EST)
  3. I like it Nvm, changed mind — eXtinctioN (Talk/Contributions) 12:32, 17 January 2008 (EST)
  4. The best. --71.229 12:54, 17 January 2008 (EST)
  5. Same reasons as stated above ^^ SigKarasu Karasu (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2008 (EST)
  6. Seems to be the obvious choice. Lord Belar 23:45, 17 January 2008 (EST)
  7. It seems like the best choice, since it is basically a continuation of the current site, just under a different domain. Me likes. Peace and Harmony Infidel Infidel(talk) 23:08, 18 January 2008 (EST)
  8. yay--AESTHETIC
  9. the best--Drownz 19:50, 23 January 2008 (EST)
  10. and stuff make us look too official. Pvxwiki2 is fine. - Unexist sigUnexist 05:34, 27 January 2008 (EST)
  11. It's just the logical followup to pvxwiki; GWW→GW2W, therefore pvxwiki→pvxwiki2. For better or worse, I think we should keep the same name. My other choice would be to keep pvxwiki and have GW1 builds under a portal. --Mafaraxas sig Mafaraxas 15:28, 27 January 2008 (EST)
  12. Easier to type86.86.36.63 10:53, 28 January 2008 (EST)
  13. Logic ftw. Image-Dark Morphon's SiggieDark Morphon(contribs) 06:36, 3 February 2008 (EST)
  14. Weard... I thought I already had my signature here...Styxx HLFrans 06:41, 3 February 2008 (EST)
  15. Go for it ftw Didi 17:32, 20 February 2008 (EST)
  16. I want it to stay here, but then it would get too crowded and a hassle.--Relyk 23:27, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

3. gw2builds.comEdit

  1. Same reasons as those put forward for, but seeing as it's Guild Wars 2, gw2builds just makes more sense. -- Brains12Talk 11:09, 24 January 2008 (EST)
    There's a significant difference between a .com and a .net address, which is why the votes for are where they are. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 12:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)
    Well, gw2 just makes more sense to me. Seeing as it's for Guild Wars 2 and all.-- Brains12Talk 12:51, 24 January 2008 (EST)

4. pvxbuilds.comEdit

  1. (your vote here)

5. gwbuilds.netEdit

  1. From the insight of a web developer, this name is the best option for professionalism, ease of memory, and really sounds like it would be a key domain of a powerful information resource. I vote this one. - Lord Xivor 20:14, 17 January 2008 (EST)
  2. Second choice would be PvX2wiki. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 23:49, 17 January 2008 (EST)
  3. Seems more professional, memorable, and doesn't carry over the taint of PvXwiki in GW over to GW2 imo. ~~ Napalm Flame >=] Napalm Flame Sig Image (talk)·(contributions) 10:04, 18 January 2008 (EST)
  4. Sorry guys, this does sound better IMO. I also like the idea of some 'portal' to keep them separated, but still together (shared users or databases, but different subdomains) SigKarasu Karasu (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2008 (EST)
  5. Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 17:46, 18 January 2008 (EST)
  6. Lord Xivor already said it, it's more professional. — eXtinctioN (Talk/Contributions) 12:29, 24 January 2008 (EST)
  7. Yep ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 14:34, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

6. guildwars.noEdit

  1. (your vote here)


Polls are always stupid. Discussion should decide what the name should be. Grinch@School 13:20, 17 January 2008 (EST)

I vote we have a poll on whether or not he's right. --Ibreaktoilets SignatureTab Moo 13:24, 17 January 2008 (EST)
I vote we have a poll to see if we should have a poll to see if he's right or not!PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 13:24, 17 January 2008 (EST)
I think we should assume to have a poll to see if we should have a poll to see if he's right or not, untill proven otherwise or substituted by a better plan SigKarasu Karasu (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2008 (EST)
I believe the best solution would be to have a poll to see if we need to have a poll to see if we should have a poll about he being right. User Godliest Icon ritualist GΩdlﺄεﻯt™ -_- 13:59, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Or maybe a poll about how stupid this is. Moar discussion, plz. (I wanted to say 'wtf?' but I guess this wasn't the right moment after all.) -StarSeeker | My talk 14:54, 17 January 2008 (EST)

I like pvx2wiki. — Skadiddly[슴Mc슴]Diddles 20:18, 17 January 2008 (EST)

People would confuse the site to not be connected to this one if we name it something completely different. Imo, seems the only suitable name. — ViYsig5Victoryisyours (talk/pvxcontribs) 21:19, 17 January 2008 (EST)

honestly, im not a professional web designer, so i dont know is this is feasible, but wouldnt it be easier to keep both sites under the same domain? such as "" for GW one and "two.PvXwiki,com". That way "" would be sort of a portal site, and we can plan WAY ahead to future GW games :) feel free to ignore this if its completely rediculous.--Coloneh 22:48, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Actually, that's not a bad idea. Lord Belar 23:46, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Like um.. and BaineImgBaineTheBotter 01:53, 18 January 2008 (EST)
And that is superior to PvXwiki2 how...? — ViYsig5Victoryisyours (talk/pvxcontribs) 06:51, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Because you still use the old url,, but only as a portal. So, superior because A: the name stays, and people already know it. B: people who haven't heard of 'the new PvXwiki for GW2!' yet, will eventually see it when they try to reach this PvX. -StarSeeker | My talk 07:59, 18 January 2008 (EST)
so is this an option?--Coloneh 19:13, 18 January 2008 (EST)

I like the idea of the portal site. That way you can keep them together and shared for a few resources, but the builds or guides wont be mixed. I've changed my vote to too.. SigKarasu Karasu (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Portal site Edit

So, is it possible or not, or could somebody look into it? I don't have a clue when talking about web designing or stuff, except for cheap forums. If it's possible, add it to that poll? Thanks in advance. -StarSeeker | My talk 05:56, 19 January 2008 (EST)

Skill database Edit

Last I've heard, a skill database for GW1 was still in the works for here so we wouldn't have to depend on GW or GWW. Why not prepare for GW2 and create a quickly-loadable database when the info on skills becomes available? We'd still be competing with the other wikis for people, but we'd still (theoretically) get a chunk of users we wouldn't otherwise have. Also, might want to keep in mind that a URL with 'builds' in it wouldn't make as much sense if we do end up having a skill database. --Mafaraxas sig Mafaraxas 23:40, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Don't get why we can't have builds in our url if we have a skill database, but we're working on a skill database for this wiki. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 00:59, 21 January 2008 (EST)
It just subtly implies that we only have builds, imo. Sort of like how calling one child the "good child" implies that the other children are bad. Anyway, since no one else mentioned it I thought I'd bring it up. --Mafaraxas sig Mafaraxas 01:09, 21 January 2008 (EST)

Oh dear fucking JesusEdit

Please don't. Please. I'll give you anything. (Literally - anything)

Anyway, I think you've forgotten where guildwiki came from. When gw2 comes out, every website will have meta builds. You'll be competing with this and this. Which means you have 3 options:

  1. you can try to compete with the good fansites, in which case you'll be quite small, like gameamp, for example, or go extinct completely (I prefer this option)
  2. you can copy them, and be different
  3. you can jump right in to doing what you're doing now, and remain a bottomless pit of stupidity and fail

I'm pretty sure I know which of those you will choose. I don't know what to suggest. I don't know if a solution exists. It's worth thinking about, though, isn't it? --Skakid makes me hard 00:21, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Or you could just get the fuck out. Not only are you wrong (lol water trident warrior?), but you're dumb. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 01:59, 27 January 2008 (EST)
And got the worst name ever. Godbox GodlyCompanion-cube 11:08, 28 January 2008 (EST)
Haha water trident warrior, never heard of that before but it sounds funny.Styxx HLFrans 06:43, 3 February 2008 (EST)
I ran a conjure frost water trident warrior way back in prophecies days, when I had no idea what I was doing, and both water trident and conjures were pretty bad. I didn't know about bull's strike at the time, but thought "man, I sure wish I could stop people from running away from me!" Water Trident seemed only natural at the time. Even when I first heard of bull's strike, I thought "wtf? you have to hit people that are moving with your axe? Does not make sense!" Also, a ran a water trident war in RA a few weeks back and got some laughs out of it. It's really not terrible... but "Coward!" wars do the same thing, only more effectively. Anyway, sorry for hijacking this guy's discussion. I just felt water trident wars were more interesting and more important than what he was saying. Pluto 02:46, 5 February 2008 (EST)

We are bigger then Guru Edit

Just so we are clear about that. And we dont have "omg omg wtb wtb" forum. gcardinal 04:01, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Alexa may not be the most reliable way of getting statistics, but if they're even halfway accurate, we've got a ton more hits than their builds forum does. And I agree, the lack of forums to spam "wtb/wts/wtt" is a plus (though we probably make up for it in wtf chains and the like). I'd also like to think that our mods are less stupid, but that's just me... -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 04:22, 5 February 2008 (EST)

PvXwiki2 is for newbs?Edit

"The only people who genuinely need all of the content that we have to offer are those who are new to the game"! If this is so the front page will have to be very different. A newb would want all the starter builds and options on where to go from there. Their question will be 'Why do I die in 5 seconds?'

We could display [ [ Category:Primer Follow-up | GW2 Beginner Builds ] ] somewhere on the new GW2 home page. Kiteeye 16:24, 10 February 2008 (EST)

We don't do newbie builds, we assume the user has access to all the skills and items available, they're max level with max atts. etc.(somewhere at som point mentioned this, cba to find it though) Also when you quote-point people to the place of quoting, i for one have no idea who/where/when that was quoted....PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 16:57, 10 February 2008 (EST)
"While a a lot of people on this site may simply enjoy discussing builds for the sake of doing so, the only people who genuinely need all of the content that we have to offer are those who are either new to the game or perhaps those who are new to PvP." First paragraph on the project page. Selket Shadowdancer 05:45, 21 February 2008 (EST)
That's true. As an experienced user you don't need this page, you design your builds yourself; going here is only an option if you should happen to be extremely lazy. New users go here to get a basic understanding of how builds work and how to design successful such ones. I'm on a mmo forum and there I encounter beginners and newbs to GW quite often, and in mostly I find myself linking to GW and PvX. They are often happy for showing PvX as they can go there and see what works and what doesn't. PvX is mainly for newbs. Godbox GodlyCompanion-cube 14:40, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Don't forget the farming builds. Even experienced players don't know all farmable areas and how to farm them.ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 14:46, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
The only "Newbie" Section that is truly aimed at new players is the (premad build) and (premade-Followup) section that I initiated sometime last year. Due to lack of interest those sections have not been expanded. I see Guildwiki aimed more at the mid level player, those trying to improve their skills to reach that Elite Status. There is much more theory, discussion and explination that is better organized in our builds when compared to other sites. I love the idea of getting a solid system similar to this up and running for GW2 and I will give my input for any system that is designed. Shireensysop 16:31, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

A problem with builds maybe?Edit

I may sound stupid suggesting this,b tu Guild Wars 2 may or may not have a set number of skills. I haven't been keeping as up to date as any one possibly can, but it may have play style s bit like WOW, with a lot of mini icons all over that you can use, instead of a large bar of 8 skills. (I kno some people that play WOW, so don't call me a noob for the reference) Does anyone know about this? Uberxman1028 22:19, 22 February 2008 (EST)

That would be insanely stupid imo, as the 8-skill system is mostly why this incredibly more balanced than WoW (unbalanced like hell and developers got no clue about the game and its classes at all) --Rimo 12:39, 8 March 2008 (EST)
Like Rimo said, they will put a limit on otherwise it'd jsut be stupid and crap (they'd esentially ahve to turn GW into a huge Grind Fest because it'd be so easy....)PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 12:44, 8 March 2008 (EST)
While it may be stupid it's still a possibility that should be kept in mind, especially since one of the developers have stated that the system will be very (maybe said that) different from the current system. Godbox GodlyCompanion-cube 14:31, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Seperating Them, But on the Same Site Edit

I think it might be a good idea if we had lead to the site that could redirect them to the sub sites which would be something like or, ect. 14:13, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

That's one of the options being considered, iirc. --71.229 17:54, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
well we have a portal site idea (where they're both under the same site but diffrent sections or something like that.) the only problem with what the anon (71.229 (jk =p)) suggested that i can see is that it would mean having to register 2 extra domains instead of the extra 1 (i would assume anyway....might be wrong) PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 18:28, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.