FANDOM


m (p/w support)
 
Line 134: Line 134:
 
:SH builds, MS builds, random combination of fire skills... >.> &mdash; [[User:Rapta|<font color="silver">'''Rapta'''</font>]] [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] <small>([[User_talk:Rapta|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Rapta|contribs]])</small> 07:20, 7 August 2007 (CEST)
 
:SH builds, MS builds, random combination of fire skills... >.> &mdash; [[User:Rapta|<font color="silver">'''Rapta'''</font>]] [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] <small>([[User_talk:Rapta|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Rapta|contribs]])</small> 07:20, 7 August 2007 (CEST)
   
== [[Build:A/any Beguiling Shocker]] ==
+
== Build:A/any Beguiling Shocker ==
   
 
Hey Rapta I was just wondering if you could change your vote from 1-1-0 because the build CAN get a spike off and the Innovation is nowhere near 0. Thankya. --[[image:Victory_is_Mine!_.jpg‎|19px]][[User:Victoryisyours|<font color="orange">'''Victoryisyours'''</font>]] 22:23, 9 August 2007 (CEST)
 
Hey Rapta I was just wondering if you could change your vote from 1-1-0 because the build CAN get a spike off and the Innovation is nowhere near 0. Thankya. --[[image:Victory_is_Mine!_.jpg‎|19px]][[User:Victoryisyours|<font color="orange">'''Victoryisyours'''</font>]] 22:23, 9 August 2007 (CEST)

Latest revision as of 03:03, September 24, 2007


p/w support Edit

why did you put spear mastery back in? the general concensus(sp?) on the talk page was that it should be removed. - Skakid9090 07:16, 15 July 2007 (CEST)

nvm that was gwiki talk page. - Skakid9090 07:17, 15 July 2007 (CEST)

Glimmer Ninja edit Edit

Lolz. The build already had 2 points in shadow arts, just mouse over return :p -Auron 13:27, 16 July 2007 (CEST)

Crafty bastard. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 20:38, 17 July 2007 (CEST)

scythe sins ftw? Edit

I remember voting against that shit on gwiki, and it's just one big mess here. I'm tempted to just delete them all and say "try again, all in one build plx." -Auron 05:33, 20 July 2007 (CEST)

I've got nothing against that being done, rly. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 05:36, 20 July 2007 (CEST)
Done. -Auron 05:53, 20 July 2007 (CEST)

I do. As quoted by Shireen:

Was a glance and unfavor. Build runs of a completely different engine. Only comonality is they are sins with scythes. One runs for conditions, other runs for criticals. I rolled back all three votes and moved it back into testing. Even if it was a copy cat build, the proper procedure would be to place a PVX:Well tag on the front page. Not give the build a '0.0' vote. A 0.0 vote is for the absolute worst builds that has no possible hope of functioning, NOT copy cat builds. Shireensysop 05:06, 20 July 2007 (CEST)

They have completely different focuses. Okay, so what you've just done is exactly like saying 'Okay, we are moving every single sword warrior build into one. Stop posting sword warrior builds.' Do you know how RIDICULOUS that is? ~~ Napalm Flame ^_^ Napalm Flame Sig Image (talk)·(contributions) 17:57, 20 July 2007 (CEST)

Sword warriors can fill different roles, my friend. A Cripslash is useful in spreading Cripple, while a DSlash is all about damage output. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 19:27, 20 July 2007 (CEST)
That's his point exactly. Same goes for Scythes, weather it's a Dervish or a 'Sin swinging the skills. --GEO-logo Jioruji Derako.> 19:40, 20 July 2007 (CEST)
...if only he made sense, perhaps then we would get somewhere lolol. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 19:44, 20 July 2007 (CEST)
Too bad Scythe Assassins suck. What you're saying about this gimmick is that every variant of a Touch Ranger deserves its own article. The fact that you're comparing Warriors to A/D's using Scythes makes your entire argument flawed. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 20:11, 20 July 2007 (CEST)
That's bias again. This wiki is all about creating and rating builds, and allowing people to 0-0-0 a build which CLEARLY doesn't deserve it just because the build 'isn't the best build in the world' is just fucking bullshit. And no, not every variant of a touch ranger deserves it's own page, especially when they are both spamming vamp touch and vamp bite, while using a few defensive stances. For fucks sakes don't you get that the only similarity is the WEAPON AND THE ELITE? And no, that comparison doesn't make it flawed. So fine, tomorrow I'm going to merge every backbreaker, every cripslasher, every single build which has the same elite as another build. Happy now? ~~ Napalm Flame ^_^ Napalm Flame Sig Image (talk)·(contributions) 20:29, 20 July 2007 (CEST)
The only needed similarity is the weapon and the elite. Other are just mix and match (they really don't matter). And if you're on a builds wiki complaining about bias, then please, QQ more. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 20:32, 20 July 2007 (CEST)
cry more more? you fail rapta =) Skakid9090 20:35, 20 July 2007 (CEST)
Napalm, it takes me 1 easy click to rollback any merges you may make, and if you follow through with your threat, I will make use of it. Don't waste both of our time. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 20:37, 20 July 2007 (CEST)
Hang on, after all I'm just 'helping' this wiki by doing what YOU all do, so no need to get bitchy to me for it. ~~ Napalm Flame ^_^ Napalm Flame Sig Image (talk)·(contributions) 22:40, 20 July 2007 (CEST)
Shush, I'm in Fort Aspenwood making faction!!!!!!1111!! — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 20:37, 20 July 2007 (CEST)

I'm going to re-iterate my point because everyone obviously missed it. Napalm, this is especially for you, since I've described it on several pages and you still don't understand. Builds can be merged if their purpose is the same.
It doesn't matter how many skills they share in common. Use your head. If they do the same thing, they're comparable; if they don't serve the same purpose, don't merge them. In this case, an incredibly gimmicky assassin wielding a scythe does the same thing as another (equally gimmicky) assassin with a scythe; they're using the same elite to achieve the same purpose (exploiting the high crit damage from scythes). Now, as soon as one of the scythe sin builds starts doing something other than merely relying on crits from scythes, we'll start talking about its purpose; but as I saw it, they both did the same thing. Any questions? -Auron 06:39, 21 July 2007 (CEST)

Err, yes. I get that bit, but they do have a slightly different purpose. One is for quickly killing foes, while the other is for spreading conditions. Picky me ftw. ~~ Napalm Flame ^_^ Napalm Flame Sig Image (talk)·(contributions) 18:06, 21 July 2007 (CEST)
That one spread Deep Wound and Bleeding as a bonus. Wow, the difference is so big. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 01:15, 22 July 2007 (CEST)

Build Changes Edit

Seeing how you're against the Marauding Master, I would advise you to not add things too it. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean you can add negative things to the page. It may be true, but let the people who test it decide. Bluemilkman 05:59, 26 July 2007 (CEST)

You make it sound like it matters. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 17:40, 26 July 2007 (CEST)
That's the reason you shouldn't be adding anything to it. It does matter. Bluemilkman 18:28, 26 July 2007 (CEST)
It doesn't matter when something of truth is added to a trash build. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 21:47, 26 July 2007 (CEST)
So, do you want me to add, "This build sucks," to the Tank Master. If I believe it's the truth, then it doesn't matter if I add it. Bluemilkman 23:15, 26 July 2007 (CEST)
Except it's not. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 05:51, 27 July 2007 (CEST)

wut Edit

what is "rapta"? is that some clever way of spelling raptor? - RAWR! Skakid9090 21:56, 26 July 2007 (CEST)

No. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 21:57, 26 July 2007 (CEST)
and what is your icon.... I MUST KNOW. - RAWR! Skakid9090 21:59, 26 July 2007 (CEST)
You should use a "—" instead of the wimpy "-" at the beginning of your sig, imo. It gives +1 to Speed. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 22:01, 26 July 2007 (CEST)
I can feel it already — RAWR! Skakid9090 22:02, 26 July 2007 (CEST)
It is gud. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 22:12, 26 July 2007 (CEST)

yeah, when? Edit

sorry i r newb and use flail O.o? Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 05:58, 27 July 2007 (CEST)

It's not bad. Even some grammar would be nice too. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 06:00, 27 July 2007 (CEST)
Flail is bad on SP sins. --Edru viransu//QQ about me 06:01, 27 July 2007 (CEST)
It's not bad. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 06:02, 27 July 2007 (CEST)
Tiger Stance is better in every possible situation that doesn't involve a disconnected opponent and a recharging combo. --Edru viransu//QQ about me 06:05, 27 July 2007 (CEST)
Until you miss. By the way, it's a variant. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 06:05, 27 July 2007 (CEST)
If you miss with that build, you're either hexed or blinded. If you're hexed or blinded, you're not going to get your combo off, so you aren't getting any use out of your IAS anyway. --Edru viransu//QQ about me 06:12, 27 July 2007 (CEST)
It's a free and maintainable IAS. It's gud. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 06:13, 27 July 2007 (CEST)
It's not a maintainable IAS, because you won't continue hitting things after using your combo against decent opponents. --Edru viransu//QQ about me 06:17, 27 July 2007 (CEST)
What makes you say that? You can attack continiously under Flail, and after it's charged, you can use your combo or whatever, then keep attacking under Flail. It's been used a couple of times in GvG as well. By the way, it's a variant. Don't like it? Don't use it. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 06:19, 27 July 2007 (CEST)
You can't attack continuously under flail because people use wasdqe and get to ignore you for the duration of Flail. It's been used in GvG a couple of times. This is true. It has been used in GvG before people realized that it had no advantage over Tiger Stance. --Edru viransu//QQ about me 06:27, 27 July 2007 (CEST)
Except it doesn't end if one of your attacks doesn't hit, and doesn't cost energy. The fact remains that it's a viable variant. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 06:45, 27 July 2007 (CEST)
I think we might as well just stop arguing and silently disagree, because I've think we've pretty much covered all of the pros and cons of both. I still think Tiger Stance is better. Flail may be a decent variant, but it's still bad, imo. --Edru viransu//QQ about me 06:51, 27 July 2007 (CEST)
teh neverending arguement ended =O — RAWR! Skakid9090 06:53, 27 July 2007 (CEST)
Is that what this was classified as? I probably should have paid more attention then. O_o — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 07:08, 27 July 2007 (CEST)

Build Deletion Edit

Do you know if Build:Convicted Wounder was deleted? Please respond on my user page--Metal enchantment Metal Enchantment (talk · contributions) 05:30, 28 July 2007 (CEST)

This? — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 19:55, 28 July 2007 (CEST)

mel derv Edit

what else are you gonna use? vital boon for extra health, which mel gives? more attack skills, when you dont have the energy for them? it's the best skill choice, and optionals suck anyway. — RAWR! Skasig Skakid9090 20:47, 28 July 2007 (CEST)

disrupting dagger, fool — Skuld 20:50, 28 July 2007 (CEST)
It's not really required that you keep Mel up 100% of the time anyways. The interrupt with Disrupting Dagger is nice, or a Wild Blow. In any case, it's really optional. I'll add some more stuff to the Variants section. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 20:53, 28 July 2007 (CEST)

Rapta's Builds Edit

You have a lot of balls ripping other people's builds apart, but as far as I can tell I don't see any of your own builds. Much less a build that has been vetted. If you know so damn much about what makes a good build, why do I not see 5-5-5 builds in the wiki with your name on it mister high and mighty? Greevar 05:20, 30 July 2007 (CEST)

this is a buildwiki, expect your build to commented on. — RAWR! Skasig Skakid9090 05:22, 30 July 2007 (CEST)
I've also written more builds on this Wiki than you've got days registered. And also, those builds are horrible. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 05:27, 30 July 2007 (CEST)

I expect constructive criticism! Not "You're build suxorz n00b! Why did you even post it?" Come ON, if he's knows so damn much then he should know how to fix it. That's the thing, he doesn't! BUT AT LEAST I TRY! GIVE ME SOME CREDIT FOR THAT! Help me! Don't ostracize me! Greevar 05:30, 30 July 2007 (CEST)

That last build was not horrible! If you did the math you would see that it does a lot if damage. I did the math. 370 damage minus what armor negates. Greevar 05:33, 30 July 2007 (CEST)

Maybe your build is, like most, not only horribly bad but unfixable. I haven't seen it, so I don't know, but that may be the case. --Edru viransu//QQ about me 05:36, 30 July 2007 (CEST)
Also, what you just said is nowhere near what I posted in a ratings page. You might want to try reading it before starting a foolish rant on my talk page. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 05:38, 30 July 2007 (CEST)

From the rating page of the D/Rt Splintering DW Dervish build "Yeah, another random melee build with Splinter Weapon thrown in. Nothing too good, nothing new. Bad choice of enchantments, 2 attacks... 1-0-1" Those were your exact words. I thought the point of the real vetting policy was to make sure quality builds get listed, not give pompous asses an excuse to beat down the creativity and explorative discovery of others? So tell me how your comment contributes to the quality of the build? Also, and this is a message for everyone, this wiki seems to assume that everyone who comes here has a UAS title on their GW account. It wouldn't hurt to have some builds based on the limited skill pools for the benefit of new characters or just new players. Greevar 05:48, 30 July 2007 (CEST)

Too bad policy rather says we can't: "There is no point, for example, in storing a basic fire nuker build that lacks an elite but is easy to prepare (buying skills, weapons, armor, and runes) when the same site can easily store a much more powerful and focused build." Rapta's vote is right, by the way. Your build has too few attacks, bad enchants, and is hardly innovative or creative. --Edru viransu//QQ about me 05:52, 30 July 2007 (CEST)
That derv build is terrible, read my vote on it. -Auron 05:54, 30 July 2007 (CEST)
Alright, you all think it's bad. But you actually gave constructive criticism. Now I know WHY it's bad. Thank you. Greevar 06:00, 30 July 2007 (CEST)
You obviously don't know what constructive criticism is. Bad choice of enchantments - put better enchantments. Too few attacks - add more attacks. And so on. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 06:01, 30 July 2007 (CEST)
And I'm asking, which enchantments are good? Mystic regen? Ebon Dust Aura? gimme a clue. Greevar 06:07, 30 July 2007 (CEST)
Heart of Fury owns. Stick something useful, cheap and that can be kept up constantly in and possibly Heart of Fury. --Edru viransu//QQ about me 06:10, 30 July 2007 (CEST)

Trashing Builds Edit

Hey, do you mind not trashing a build that has been changed since it was voted on? It's in trial. But you can't wait to send another one of my builds to the trash can you? Greevar 03:36, 31 July 2007 (CEST)

Take it easy. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 03:36, 31 July 2007 (CEST)
I apologize if my comment seems heated, but I did edit the build and moved it back to trial builds. Then I come back a Rapta himself tagged it as trash. No explanation or reason, just tag it for trash. Greevar 03:52, 31 July 2007 (CEST)
He probably moved it based on the ratings page. Could be an honest mistake, assume good faith. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 04:00, 31 July 2007 (CEST)

Cool it Edit

Less Elitist shit plx, ty. Don't make people think you are "attacking" them. In other words, "Don't be a dick". Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 03:55, 31 July 2007 (CEST)

Lawl. Since when is being elitist = being a dick? — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 04:07, 31 July 2007 (CEST)
/wants to know what Readem's talking about. --Edru viransu//QQ about me 04:15, 31 July 2007 (CEST)
Greevar. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 05:39, 31 July 2007 (CEST)
Still no idea what you're referring to. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 07:10, 31 July 2007 (CEST)
>.> I don't have time for this shit...and I have a hell of a lot of time. Ask him youself. Read above this section, and what do you know :O, there is a user known as greevar *gasp* </sarcasm> (in case ya didn't know) Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 07:14, 31 July 2007 (CEST)
??? Rapta unfavored his build (builds?) and it looks like Greevar took it personally. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 07:29, 31 July 2007 (CEST)
Exactly, and now he thinks that Rapta is against everything he does. Now either Rapta explains that those are not his intentions, or he is going to real soon. We all know what happened when I made a user leave Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 07:37, 31 July 2007 (CEST)
Funny thing is that Six didn't actually leave, as his contribs shows. --Edru viransu//QQ about me 07:41, 31 July 2007 (CEST)
Yeah >.> ain't life a bitch lulz :P. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 07:43, 31 July 2007 (CEST)

lol Edit

hehe existing builds exist? ORLY? The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Skakid9090 (contribs). 07:14, 7 August 2007 (CEST)

SH builds, MS builds, random combination of fire skills... >.> — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 07:20, 7 August 2007 (CEST)

Build:A/any Beguiling Shocker Edit

Hey Rapta I was just wondering if you could change your vote from 1-1-0 because the build CAN get a spike off and the Innovation is nowhere near 0. Thankya. --Victory is Mine! Victoryisyours 22:23, 9 August 2007 (CEST)

No you can't. The primer itself s 25 energy and after maybe one spike, it's useless for 2 minutes. But I suppose 1-1-0 is a bit harsh. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 22:30, 9 August 2007 (CEST)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.