FANDOM


Vista-file-manager 50x50 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

wow

that is.. that is a low score there on the Condition Spammer. You were the king, krowman! the king! what happened? a 0.2 because a a monk might use a certain elite skill? ouch --Boottspurr 10:26, 5 August 2007 (CEST)

The logic behind that is that one use of one of the 3 most popular Monk elites (at the moment, of course) renders almost the entire bar useless. You would have spent 24 energy, and the opposing Monk would have spent 5 to give your target a +400 health heal. There are better ways to kill things than degen, though you would be ill-advised to try to do that with a Ranger. Sorry if I crapped on your build, but there's my justification for it. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 21:03, 5 August 2007 (CEST)
totally makes sense now. I just hadn't run into that many RC builds out there before, so I thought it was maybe a 1 in 20 chance to get owned by a monk. but you're right, they're starting to pop up more and more. I never really liked the build anyways, I just wanted to finally have a good way to use Virulence. --Boottspurr 15:29, 6 August 2007 (CEST)
In my opinion, it is mostly a PvE elite. Use it + Epidemic to spread those conditions like mad, maybe Necrosis for extra damage. Bring Edge of Extinction on a Barrager with Vir+Epi for quick wipes of mobs. A nuker and a tank to hold aggro, some monks and some optional chars and you'd have a decent setup for general PvE. Just make sure that the Necro with Virulence isn't also an MM, because with EoE up, your minions will be wiped quickly as well. Hope that's some useful advice. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 19:38, 6 August 2007 (CEST)

Vote

User:Dark Morphon's vote on Build:A/Me_Assacaster seems like it perhaps should be removed. He suggests an elementalist as a serious damage dealer in PvP. --Edru viransu//QQ about me 02:51, 6 August 2007 (CEST)

I agree, if he believes in such a common misconception, it should and shall be removed. Mind doing it Krowman, for obvious reasons? Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 05:46, 6 August 2007 (CEST)
I posted a message on his talk page. I can explain to him what is wrong with his logic there, and if not, I can explain to him why I am removing his vote. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 08:02, 6 August 2007 (CEST)

My Build

Hey can u try my build Build:A/any Entangled Promises? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tydb2008 (contribs) .

Sure. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 05:51, 8 August 2007 (CEST)


Pleak

Whuts bad about Power Leak? Both Builds play nearly the same. I'd say list it under variants. Asdfg 18:55, 8 August 2007 (CEST)

It costs more, recharges slower, doesn't guarantee an interrupt. Costs half your energy pool to use it, for a minimal effect even if it does connect. If you were going W/Me, I'd suggest Power Return, possibly Leech Signet for non-Spell/Chant skills. PLeak is good, but run it on a Mesmer to maximize its effectiveness. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 19:04, 8 August 2007 (CEST)
It costs more and recharges slower, however, it has an awesome side-effect. Energy isnt a problem on a warrior. The same warrior build is used for Shock which is even more costly than Pleak. And it has a guaranteed interrupt. Don't know what you were thinking while writing that. Pleak wars see regular play in high level gvg. And it isnt LoS like Disrupting Daggers.Asdfg 19:11, 8 August 2007 (CEST)
I have run leak on a derv and a war. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 19:16, 8 August 2007 (CEST)
PLeak only ints Spells and Chants. GL getting Rez Sig, HealSig, TU or something like that. Shock KDs, which is very nice. If it were a choice between 2 skills with equal costs, recharges and casts times, one being Shock and one being an interrupt, I'd choose Shock any day of the week. It only really becomes advantageous when you can spam your interrupt more often than you can Shock. Tbh, the only Mesmer int I've ever seen in high-rated play was Leech Sig, and I think that may have been some sort of experiment. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 19:17, 8 August 2007 (CEST)
We used it to kill aegis and whatnot. Very effective, speaking the secondary war was gone that day, and our BA ranger wanted to try ;). Still, a lot of guilds have run leak in the past. EW for example, or even kgyu (when they were cow, and had divine the staff Monk lulz!) Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 19:22, 8 August 2007 (CEST)
But Pleak isnt just an interrupt. It drains awesome ~10 energy without hampering the warriors ability to kill. And I can't help if you've never seen PLeak in high level games. I'll re-add it. Asdfg 19:24, 8 August 2007 (CEST)
we ran it, so it would deny 13 :P. Ahh, those were the days, everyone was running grasping and GoLE :). Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 19:28, 8 August 2007 (CEST)
Well, go ahead and re-add it then. In the future, it would be better to discuss changes that may be contested, rather than edit first, ask questions later. It prevents revert wars and promotes discussion and consensus. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 19:33, 8 August 2007 (CEST)
Old School PLeak was awesome. Drained 70 energy or something like that. And I think you might find Power Leak in the skill usage section of guildwars.com War Machine used it in a tournament IIRC.The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asdfg (contribs) .

If we'd always have to discuss Variants we'd be progresing very slowly. I'd say edit first, ask questions later. Asdfg 19:35, 8 August 2007 (CEST)

It's slower to go back and RV any disagreeable edits, start revert wars, which devolve into flame wars, get admin intervention etc. Slower, and makes the community less enjoyable if one has to put up with all that drama. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 19:39, 8 August 2007 (CEST)

It's faster to add something first, then discuss since only 5% of the changes are subject to discussions. Thats my subjective impression. Asdfg 19:43, 8 August 2007 (CEST)

No, as most add ridiculous notes, that are completely irrelevant. Have to agree with Krowman on this point :P. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 19:48, 8 August 2007 (CEST)
(edit conflict) Well, this here can be an example of my point. If the same situation occurred with a user who was more devotedly concerned with getting his/her build vetted, this likely would have devolved into some RV1 breaches and admin involvement. Some users get very defensive about the builds they post, even though they become wiki property once they are posted here. There is a particular Spirit Bond Ritualist around here that is a testament to this. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 19:48, 8 August 2007 (CEST)
Protect the site and let admins decide what is better. Not getting my build vetted doesnt mean that I cant play it anymore. If a user doesnt understand that ban him. Admins should be more elitist. Asdfg 19:59, 8 August 2007 (CEST)
That's one of way of looking at it... (I'd rather be leet without being elitist). - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 20:01, 8 August 2007 (CEST)
Hehe, no. We get in trouble. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs)

 ?

Did we just delete the same thing O.o...? Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 20:08, 8 August 2007 (CEST)

ZOMG HIVEMIND. Asdfg 20:10, 8 August 2007 (CEST)
Whoa, that's eerie. Check your talk page. Really is like one mind... - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 20:11, 8 August 2007 (CEST)

Profession Bias

I think you were the one I was talking to about voting PvE builds bad because another profession can do it better. [[1]] is a prime example, if you still agree with me about it. User:Thesavvymage's vote. Bluemilkman 20:40, 8 August 2007 (CEST)

Well, other profs could do it better and that is a fine reason to vote a build down (similar to voting a Dervish healer lower than a Monk), his vote certainly is flawed. I'll remove and explain on the ratings page. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 07:41, 9 August 2007 (CEST)

Build:R/A Point Blank Ranger

I was looking at one of my builds, and it recieved 5 votes so i put it in the category other. Then when I go back to my user page i realize that the page was deleted. Can you figure out who deleted my build page and why? And if I could get it back?--Victory is Mine! Victoryisyours 20:27, 10 August 2007 (CEST)

Resolved. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 20:35, 10 August 2007 (CEST)
I did, because it is/was a duplicate of the build Build:R/Mo Broad Head Arrow Ranger (note the Variants section). It's nothing personal; I deleted a build I created that was very similar to those 2 (identical to the R/Mo except for Shadow Walk) because it was merged. I see Readem moved took care of this for you though, so no worries. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 20:38, 10 August 2007 (CEST)

Build:W/any_Dragon_Sword

Build:W/any Dragon Sword - please make sure you provide a valid reason in your rating. gcardinal 23:24, 12 August 2007 (CEST)

How's that? - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 07:47, 13 August 2007 (CEST)

MSN

plx :). I'll show you why it is a good idea :P. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 19:56, 13 August 2007 (CEST)

sockpuppets?

Mind checking out these few users for sockpuppetry?

User:Atlantis User:Genocide145 and User:Duck the Warrior. I MAY be wrong but im almost 100% positive they ARE sockpuppets.The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ni (contribs) .

Sure. Could use also point to the build(s) you suspect them of cheating on? - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 23:39, 13 August 2007 (CEST)

Yep, sorry let me find them. Ni sigNi 23:45, 13 August 2007 (CEST)

Build:N/Me Echo Life Transfer, Build:W/Mo PvE MoPper Ni sigNi 23:48, 13 August 2007 (CEST)

It appears you were correct. I'll take care of it. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 00:13, 14 August 2007 (CEST)
Isn't that a bit harsh a way to speak to them if they only appear to be sockpuppets? :P --Edru viransu//QQ about me 00:14, 14 August 2007 (CEST)
I could've said "You are correct," but then I would've sounded like a game-show host. ;-) Anyways, all's well that ends well. That W/Mo was already unfavored though, guess I only removed those votes for principle's sake. Oh well. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 00:18, 14 August 2007 (CEST)
 :P. I am super cyber-cop. Ni sigNi 00:35, 14 August 2007 (CEST)
Man, I totally said they were sockpuppets in my rating on that wammo. -.- wahhh Shido 03:02, 15 August 2007 (CEST)

TB

You have? I have a Paraspike GvG Build that might be a good model for the one you are working on now? Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 02:48, 15 August 2007 (CEST)

I don't. Maybe I'll download it. The one I posted is HA though. I'm getting a bunch of corporate mumbo-jumbo when I Google "team builder..." - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 02:51, 15 August 2007 (CEST)
gogogo Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 02:59, 15 August 2007 (CEST)
Got it. I connect to a TB Server now, no? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krowman (contribs) .
I have never really used TB, as it is faster just saying a build, but yeah that is the basic idea. Cheese Channel, and the password is Cheese. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 03:20, 15 August 2007 (CEST)
I'm connected, along with about 150 other people. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 03:24, 15 August 2007 (CEST)

TB stands for Tuberculosis. And you just downloaded it. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ/〛 04:00, 15 August 2007 (CEST)

I <3 you Grinch. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 06:06, 15 August 2007 (CEST)
I <3 me too... —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ/〛 06:12, 15 August 2007 (CEST)
Oh, internet. –Ichigo724Ichigo-signature 06:14, 15 August 2007 (CEST)
Don't be shy Ichigo! This can be like the 60's, and we can all <3 Grinch together...in the totally un-gay way. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 06:19, 15 August 2007 (CEST)
There's two types of love in this crazy, messed up world of ours, hard and fast. And I give it both, but only to the ladies. It's why they call me... THE ZAPPER —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ/〛 06:24, 15 August 2007 (CEST)

MSN

If you get a chance tonight, could you get on MSN messenger for a few minutes? Thanks in advance. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:07, 15 August 2007 (CEST)

Sure. Can't stay too late tonight, working at 4 tomorrow morning. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 05:16, 15 August 2007 (CEST)

Build:A/D Dark Shadow Forge Runner (Archived)

Deadly Paradox no longer affects skills such as Shadow form, and Dark Escape. Only Attack skills :). Was favored on Guild Wiki, if I remember correctly, thus it would have no ratings. It appears the old version, Luo tagged for deletion and created a new one, via Copy+Paste. Hope that clears things up. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 06:49, 15 August 2007 (CEST)

You are wrong. --User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (T/C/RFA) 06:48, 15 August 2007 (CEST)
How so Frv? Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 06:49, 15 August 2007 (CEST)
Where is this change. It has always affected SF. It disables attacks, halves cast and recharge. --User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (T/C/RFA) 06:52, 15 August 2007 (CEST)
It was created as an archived build on GWiki. DP still does affect SF, I was just playing around with it recently on my SF Sliver farmer. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 06:53, 15 August 2007 (CEST)
Hmm, it appears as though you are correct :P. I do not understand the reasoning then. Perhaps VoS replaced them entirely? I'll ask Luo. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 06:57, 15 August 2007 (CEST)
lol@readem —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ/〛 07:00, 15 August 2007 (CEST)
Because it doesn't affect dark escape anymore iirc. –Ichigo724Ichigo-signature 16:42, 15 August 2007 (CEST)

Oh gr8 timing, lulz. =s --User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (T/C/RFA) 07:02, 15 August 2007 (CEST)

Build:A/W Flourishing Blades

So what would you suggest to the person that was updating the build, make a new one so that it can be deleted per Well or whatever because it's like the archived one? If it can be made to work, then it should be updated and put back into use. I don't know if there is a policy about this or not, but that's how I feel it should be. Bluemilkman 02:56, 16 August 2007 (CEST)

Sure, create the second one. We have builds in archives that are very similar to vetted builds, such as Build:W/E Shock Axe and Build:W/E RA Shock Axe. I don't know why someone would want to recreate that build when you can create much better builds with the buffed Moebius and NF skills, but be my guest. Just don't expect it to pass with flying colors. If it ever comes back into use. then yes, it should be updated and "put back to use." Until then, it should remain in the archives. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 03:04, 16 August 2007 (CEST)

Build:A/D CS Scythe Assassin

I don't understand why you would rate a 0 on all of those qualities. I think that is an abuse of the rating system and all you did was intentionally lower the rating. I am probably one of the few who currently use the build and I disagree with your opinion. Not only is it at par with a MS sin, it could possibly be better. If you disagree with me than give me proof you have actually played it. Stickypanda 03:08, 16 August 2007 (CEST)

Violate Real Vetting policy less, please? --Edru viransu//QQ about me 03:09, 16 August 2007 (CEST)
Don't have to give proof. No, it is not as effective as a Moeb sin Moeb/DB spamming works out to ~40 armor-ignoring AoE damage every 2 seconds or less. That's with only 2 skills. That damage can further be buffed, you can take some utility, Crit Agility of course, some attacks like TF, and you become a PvE machine. Consider that the CS build has no source of Deep Wound. It's great in PvP, and even more effective in PvE; 20% of a level 28 monster's max health is a lot. The monster becomes easier to kill because of lowered health, and a little by the healing reduction, so your whole party benefits because he dies that much faster. All you are doing is damage; too many people undervalue utility, yet it is often the most important part of a frontliner's bar. So, Effectiveness is nil. Universality? It works against foes that don't block, blind, have hexes etc. Not very useful, especially when you think about all the evasive Ranger stances in NF. Innovation? Nope, we seen these all over Gwiki and PvX pretty much since the day Scythes came out. This is a gimmick build, and we don't give points for that. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 03:16, 16 August 2007 (CEST)
Also, I don't give points to users who sock. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 04:09, 16 August 2007 (CEST)
But 0's indicate that it doesn't even work right. ‽-(єяøהħ) no u 04:14, 16 August 2007 (CEST)
The guy has 2 Accounts Eronth... Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 04:17, 16 August 2007 (CEST)
I didn't make the build. 71.163.28.45 20:21, 17 August 2007 (CEST)
And? ‽-(єяøהħ) no u 20:39, 17 August 2007 (CEST)

Have Some Time Now?

You said you wanted to chat on MSN some time today. If you're free now, I'm online. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:47, 16 August 2007 (CEST)

Build:Rt/any Grasping Bomber

um i'm just asking for an opinion on a vote's validity on my build. i'm referring to zuranthium's one since he speaks of skills that need improvement (?!?) and making a build with different purpose than mine, and not judging my build in particular. he seems to me he hasnt tried it and/or doesnt really have a point there. Also in the case you stopped by and and wished to do that, i would appreciate your vote on my build since i need an opinion from an experienced player. --Morten 13:27, 17 August 2007 (CEST)

I did indeed judge your build in particular. It's bad for RA and tagged for usage there, simple as that. The remainder of what I wrote is what I feel would need to be changed by ANET for it to become a much better build for areas of the game outside of PvE and AB, which is just fine? The more people talk, the more ANET is bound to notice. (signed now, sorry) Zuranthium 00:45, 18 August 2007 (CEST)
i don't intend to be rude,but i'm talking to krowman,i already answered you in your userpage. don't forget to sign your comments, too. if you want to help, just expand your "bad fot RA" statement with good reasons and i'll accept them --Morten 21:06, 17 August 2007 (CEST)
He as explained his vote plenty, and then some on his talk page (which you guys shouldn't do btw, do it on the build discussion page so that people viewing the build can read through discussion that is pertinent to it). Even though anything can work in RA, that's no reason for us to vet anything, or everything. Tbh, I'd be curious to know how the skill balances affected the build. It's a nuker, so run it in PvE or AB, like he says. Nuking, in optimum circumstances (a full party of stupid opponents), can damage 4 people; it diminishes in effectiveness outside of PvE and AB. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 23:38, 17 August 2007 (CEST)

Small Request

User:Krowman/Build:Me/E GoR Domination Mesmer

Make public please ^^ The fact that it lets you chain shatters or Diversions or Energy burns every 10 seconds scares me. =P — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 03:20, 18 August 2007 (CEST)

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