User talk:Testuser2

the del tag was on the userpage, not the user talk -Auron 21:37, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Resolved. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 12:08, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Why on Earth

Do you keep un-doing the build merges I did? What is the reasoning behind having all of these pointless build pages sitting around? Zuranthium 02:44, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

The ones that weren't necessary were undone. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 13:46, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
Huh? None of these need to be saved:
And there was no need to archive this rather than deleting it:
All of the builds are covered by the general WoH and ZB pages:
Any specific variant that becomes popular can be listed on those pages. Zuranthium 18:51, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
General builds don't work well a lot of the time, which is why so many alternate and "C+P into template" build pages exist. It's fine to have both sort of "general" builds as with the last two links there. The process is somewhat fine-tuned already, so there's no need to tag those builds with a WELL tag. It's worked well enough to be something to be continued in this Wiki. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 23:21, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
Oh, and the reason I archived the Hex Breaker was actually because you made the Mo/any build. However, it is, as the tag said, outdated, since it has various skills that do not exist on ZB bars anymore (GoH, no Guardian, SoA), as well as it existing for a lengthy period of time. I hope that answers your question.
If you have any additional concerns, I'd like to point you towards our Guides section, which is really a lot more compatible with these "general" builds that aren't really builds, but templates. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 23:32, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
"General builds don't work well a lot of the time". Perhaps not always, but it does here. You don't need a whole extra page for a ZB Whirlwind Monk and those Mo/W variants don't need their own page either. The usage is self-explanatory (wow, I use this stance/skill for self-protection). The various Hammer and Ranger pages that are 7 out of 8 of the same skills are fine because the Elites are different. These Monk builds need to be welled and thus far there's no good reasoning against it. Zuranthium 16:00, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
There's been good reasoning against it. To put it simply: they were builds vetted individually to bring attention to certain skills. Regardless, there's no harm in having vetted builds (few people, if any, have problems with them) coinciding with more general vetted builds (ones that you're advocating with them). Again, what you want is probably one of the guide pages completed. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 16:45, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
Attention doesn't need to be brought to those individual skills, though. It's all player preference. If we are going to have Balanced Stance and Whirlwind Monks, then we need to have a page with every single variant, since there are plenty of other skills that are run depending on whatever the situation is. Any specific build that becomes popular can be listed as such on the general WoH and ZB pages. I am welling these builds since you still haven't provided reasoning. Zuranthium 17:01, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
The "specific builds that become popular" are better off on different pages. The builds namespace is usually for C+P template loading. Again, if you're having trouble with this "full bar" vs "template w/Optionals" discussion, look towards writing a guide. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 17:04, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
Keeping a build for C/P loading purposes is weak. Keeping a build so users can read potentially useful information concerning not-so-subtle skill choices and decide for themselves which may be better for whatever situation is what PvX is for. -Shen 17:12, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
I never referred to a single build in particular. I was referring to the bulk of the builds portion on this entire Wiki. The system is designed for these purposes. Keeping interesting or popular variants on separate pages is not harmful towards the Wiki. Again, general builds are fine, they aren't going to be deleted. It's not an all-or-nothing issue, as you seem to make it out to be. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 17:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
Not sure what you mean. I didn't say anything to draw those rebuttals? -Shen 17:23, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
... Never mind. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 17:26, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

"Keeping interesting or popular variants on separate pages is not harmful towards the Wiki." None of the variants are particularly popular. And, even if they were, they don't need their own pages because the usage for Hex Breaker, Mantra Concentration, Disciplined Stance, etc, is self explanatory. Just depends on meta and player preference, which is the point of the variants section. I'm definitely going to condense some the Eviscerate pages too. One for the W/D with Harriers and Nat Healing, one for the W/E, and one for the rest. Zuranthium 17:36, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

The /W variants qualify as "popular". The /E qualifies as "interesting". Again, "don't fix something which ain't broke". Feel free to add some sort of guide page or /X Axe/Hammer/Sword/Bow build pages, as long as it doesn't interfere with the existing ones. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 17:40, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
There are a bunch of different /W variants. Same for /A . We gonna make pages for all of those? You've still not answered how the page itself helps anything. It just takes up space so, yes, it is broke. Where can this be put up for a public vote. (and, btw, Whirlwind ZB is not interesting. That's a fricken ZB Mo/E with Whirlwind instead of an actual Monk skill. Wow, amazing) Zuranthium 20:28, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
Don't blow things out of porportion. You're getting way too worked up over such a minor issue. Should additional variants arise that are noteworthy, they will be documented as such. If you don't see the need to have those builds, then fine, you have your opinion. There are certain builds that I don't see necessary in keeping, but it's as I said, there are others who prefer to keep them there. This isn't a debate of "it's here too", more a case of "people contributed, vetted X build, it's a good build". There's a common phrase that addresses these things. Oh yeah, it's "deal with it". There's plenty of things that many people don't "like" about certain things, but needless to say, sometimes they're there for a reason. You might dismiss that reason as "not a reason", but nevertheless, it's a reason. That's what I'm telling you. And really, there's little to complain about here. You have your treasured "general" builds with a variant stack without explanation or description. Just leave it at that. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 20:37, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
Dude, I'm just trying to organize crap around here. I said that's what I wanted to do in my mission statement for becoming a BM and I assumed that's part of why I was given the job? Where can we do a poll on this subject, you didn't answer that. The builds need to organized as either a single page with some of the popular variants listed, or it should be a different page for each secondary...Mo/W ZB, Mo/Me ZB, Mo/E ZB, Mo/A ZB, etc. Zuranthium 04:38, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
Yes, and I can say for many of us on the Wiki that we appreciate what you've been doing overall with the builds section. I'm merely giving you my stance on the issue of deleting a lot of vetted builds that we have, and that is that the /X secondaries can be left where they are right now, since they are well written builds, well rated, and usable. I don't believe that builds need to be organized on the same page (I don't see any "new incoming" builds that make a build of each secondary needed immediately, but that's also a viable idea you're putting forth), and would prefer "general" information on a guide page rather than a build page (not that I dislike these "general" /X builds you've been authoring). I apologize if I came off as rude/harsh in my last reply to this topic, but for now, my current stance on deletion of those builds is no, because I don't think it's needed at all. I know that you disagree, and we can leave it at that. However, I'm not going to be available for the remainder of this week for much, so feel free to continue discussion on a general page like the Community portal talk page or another public page you see fit. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 21:58, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
As a sidenote, I rather like the "separate secondaries" idea you've brought up. It allows us to avoid masses of variants on single pages, and bring more attention to specific skills on the main bars. Just a thought. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 22:00, 17 March 2008 (EDT)


Just one question, why did you remove it? Asking because of pure curiosity. Godbox GodlyCompanion-cube 17:45, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

It's a broken link. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 17:45, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
Oh, and if it was the correct link, probably because it's unfavored. And remember: only featured tested builds are placed on the list. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 17:46, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
Oh, I feel outdated. The last time I changed featured was way back and for some reasons there was some red links then so I assumed you always changed. Thanks for the info. Godbox GodlyCompanion-cube 17:52, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

well tags

where in PvX well does it say i cant put them on trial builds? Antiarchangel Antiarchangel No U Sig NO U 19:13, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

I wondered that too. ~~ Napalm Flame >=] Napalm Flame Sig Image (talk)·(contributions) 19:14, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
Trial is considered to be "under construction". Builds "under construction" cannot be voted on, and for the same reason, cannot be WELL'd. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 23:22, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
a build under construction would be a build stub would it not? Antiarchangel Antiarchangel No U Sig NO U 23:39, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
There is no concrete definition, but yes, it primarily constitues the builds where voting is not permitted. So that includes basically the Stubs section and the Trial section. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 23:43, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
Uh, last I checked PvXwiki:Editing Builds#Trial, WELL tags are supposed to be placed in trial. By the time it's in trial, it should be complete enough to tell whether or not the concept is workable. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 23:11, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Some guy crying about a ban

never knew you're a nigger 14:46, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Resolved. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 14:49, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
so i herd someone owned you rapta ~~ Napalm Flame >=] Napalm Flame Sig Image (talk)·(contributions) 14:58, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
Not rly. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 14:58, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
Unless you're talking about yesterday's GvG, then yeah, we got owned pretty hard. Damn Koreans. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 14:59, 16 March 2008 (EDT)


A) I know how to switch my IP within seconds, im just really lazy, and I don't need to flame every second. B) How long did you ban Hide-And-Seek for? 20:28, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

A) GFY? B) One week, starting the fifteenth. --71.229 20:30, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
much <3?----ﮎHædõ๘یíɳShadowsin sig 20:33, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
OP is you? --71.229 20:34, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
dats de 22nd, merci. also, wtf is GFY? 20:34, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
Go fuck yourself is a ballpark guess. I really don't know though. Great fat yaks is another guess. --GoD Sig3GuildofDeals 20:37, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
Good For You tbh. --71.229 20:37, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
Ooooh... Funny story, when I played Runescape (used to), I told a guy "g4u" and he got all pissy. I meant "good for you" not "go fuck yourself". Still, they're similar; you may be so overjoyed you go fuck yourself! --GoD Sig3GuildofDeals 20:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
mmmm... and 71.229 or whatever your IP is, he posted on my old IP's talk page that there's a quicker way to change my IP. But I'm lazy and he's fail, so yeah. and also, Good For You = gfu... not GFY... 20:41, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
@GoD: [2]
@anon: He was probably referring to proxies. --71.229 20:42, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
Just so you know, it's also possible to ban entire ranges of IP from the Wiki. Not that I care if you care or not (which you probably do, since you like to whine about it so much). — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 21:41, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

tbh, the chance of me getting the same IP thats banned is pretty slim to none. Go for it Rapta. you seem to have excess time on your hands 22:02, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

also, i really havent truely whined about it as much as you've been more pissed off at me. I mean, you coming up with lame phrases after you ignore me on Guild Wars. "Got anything to say, wait to slow your ignored!" unless you 10, that's not viable. Your telling me to "lern2troll" when you're epic fail at it. But, whatever Rapta ;) 22:04, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Right. That's why you span over two accounts and a few threads of spam to try and annoy me, and continue spamming my talk page right now just to try and redeem your pathetic attempts at trying to annoy people. What's that famous saying? The pot calling the kettle black? Yeah, that's it. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 22:07, 17 March 2008 (EDT)


Please restore my picture Rapta. Thanks. --Readem 22:41, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Eh, might have to re-upload it. Sorry about that, restoring broke. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 00:16, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

IP blocks

Try not to block IP addresses indefinitely. There's always the possibility that they'll be reassigned. Usually, the longest an IP address should be blocked is a month. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

True. Will fix in a sec. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 00:16, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
Resolved. Thanks for the heads up. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 00:21, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
So if i troll hard i just get a mounth ban? Fishels[슴Mc슴]Mootles 08:35, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
You're welcome to try in a month, I suppose. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 17:28, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

GoLE Healer's Boon Healer

Why change it from Glyph Boon Healer, which had a better ring to it. This name's way too long anyways O.o--Relyk 00:57, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Not an issue in terms of length. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 16:31, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
^^ God dammit Guild, stop lurking this site and lemme Save Pages, i wasnt going to troll him, and your doinitrong fgt. Shield of Deflection Hide-And-Seek 15:42, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
Maybe she likes it small... OUCH!! --GoD Sig3GuildofDeals 15:42, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Build:W/any Magehunter Spike

As for your vote, Magehunter's->Flail->Protector's->Pulverizing->Heavy->Protector's, then adrenaline works fine. You just need fast fingers. I realise that's not what the usage says, I'll change it. Every single hammer chain works in this way except Crushing Blow instead of Protector's. - Miserysig1isery -TALK 17:20, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

oic. Updated my rating accordingly. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 17:22, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
ROFL, it's a half second difference in a 4 man format where they will likely only have 1 dedicated healer with condition removal, who should be kd'd, but ok, whatever. - Miserysig1isery -TALK 17:29, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Or you can run Crushing Blow and achieve the same thing, except better deep wound. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 17:30, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
This way you get more damage, that's kind of the point, hence, spike. - Miserysig1isery -TALK 17:37, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
You can take Protectors and Crushing. Hence, spike. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 17:37, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Had that before, rapes energy, unfavoured. Well actually it was somewhat different, but you can't afford 2 Protector's Strikes and Crushing Blow, but I suppose you are saying you only want one Protector's Strike, otherwise it delays the deep wound, so what you are really saying is inferior to Build:W/E Aggressive Hammer. Well actually no, I just looked at that build and it only has 1 KD, although it's Backbreaker but crams an extra two energy skills in there, so I don't know what energy management is like. Anyway, you're votes valid, I just disagree. - Miserysig1isery -TALK 17:43, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
You're reading too much into this. This in a nutshell: Run Crushing Blow and achieve the same thing. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 17:44, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
You mean on exactly the same bar with exactly the same usage? (Except either Magehunter's for Devastating for weakness, or Heavy Blow for Hammer Bash?) I thought you weren't supposed to vote a build down on the swapping of one skill. You've confused me. - Miserysig1isery -TALK 17:46, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
You thought wrong. Crushing = Good. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 17:47, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Also, before you post on the AN, see Build:W/any Magehunter's Smash Warrior. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 17:52, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
I've slipped it in variants, but losing the bonus damage from Heavy Blow what changes is:No Weakness, More damage in middle of spike rather than at the end, the interval between Heavy Blow and Pulverizing Smash to remove weakness and screw the second KD disappears and it costs you 5 more energy. Oh and Crushing Blow hits if they aren't KD'd, Pulverizing misses. I'll wait and see how people vote, but if getting vetted depends on that one skill, then I guess I'll switch them. Oh and yeah, I know that exists, but the point of this was to 1)Fit 2 Protector's Strikes into the combo 2)Still be able to manage energy while doing so. And I don't intend to post on the AN, I said your vote was valid, we are just discussing things. It's how people learn about other people's opinions. Gah, I sound like an ass saying that, I take it back, rephrase it inside your own head in a way that doesn't sound condescending. - Miserysig1isery -TALK 17:57, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Oh I see. You deleted it. That strikes me as a bit childish for a build you were discussing with someone. - Miserysig1isery -TALK 18:00, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
It's too bad that it "strikes you" that way. It's a dupe. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 18:12, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
That sort of gimps your quarterknocking. I also don't see how you can do that without having hugely messed enemy monks. Prot strike recharges in 3. You seem to not understand the game's mechanics all too well. You do know that Protector's Strike and Pulverizing Smash still require the same amount of time it takes to hit Crushing + Prots, except then you have something to trigger the Deep Wound spike, right? — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 18:04, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
And you seem to not understand the build. You are comparing a 3 attack skill chain to a 5 attack skill chain as if it is a 3 attack skill chain. There are 2 attacks AFTER the deep wound in the build to trigger the deep wound. It's a variant to Maghunter's Smash now. The way it works is Pulverizing hits after Protector's Strike, triggers the deep wound as they still count as knocked down, then they get knocked down again the second they stand up, there may be an extra 1/4->1/2 second compared to a standard double knockdown, so they may get off a quarter second prot such as RoF if they are incredibly good monks or whatever. Protector's Strike has a 3 second Recharge, it recharges in the time it takes to aftercast the first one + Pulverizing + Heavy Blow. Despite your long guide about posting on your user page you don't seem to be understanding the build and what putting a 1/2 second activation skill in the middle of the chain does, next to nothing except add damage. It's a variant in Magehunter's Smash Warrior now, please refrain from removing it from there. - Miserysig1isery -TALK 18:15, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
What are you talking about? Protector's Strike after Crushing Blow = almost immediate trigger. Anything else (other than Distracting Strike): not a near-immediate trigger. Prot Strike is used in builds for either a) Immediate follow up to Deep Wound to trigger spike or b) huge damage to moving targets. Since your build takes advantage of neither, it is bad. Gimping your Energy is bad, much less gimping your ability to quarterknock. And you don't need to be an "incredibly good monk" to get RoF off. You just need to have had it in queue (pretty duh for any monk). — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 18:18, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
The page has been deleted. Debate over. Just a little thought. --GoD Sig3GuildofDeals 18:21, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
If this was a deletion debate, it would probably be on the AN. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 18:21, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

(Reset Indent) Any chance you could restore the build to my User namespace please? - Miserysig1isery -TALK 18:29, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Done. It can be found at User:Misery/Build:W/any Magehunter Spike. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 18:31, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, any chance for discussion and archive too, or are they nuked? - Miserysig1isery -TALK 18:34, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Side note, I had never seen anyone cast before, so I tested to make sure with a guildmate. Q-lock is preserved even with 5 chain. RoF queued but never went off until after the second Protector's, which is recharged before second knockdown finishes (naturally he was protted, when he wasn't he died). Concept worked. - Miserysig1isery -TALK 19:04, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
I restored the talk + archive. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 21:25, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
It doesn't. You're hitting Magehunter's under IAS. It won't be the case in actual PvP. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 23:12, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Thanks Wizardboy and no I'm not, Magehunter's->Flail as posted. - Miserysig1isery -TALK 02:10, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Sure, whatever you say. Anyways, this stuff's done with. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 17:18, 1 April 2008 (EDT)


its the same build Antiarchangel Antiarchangel No U Sig NO U 08:28, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

why are you even on my userpage lawl, and im not mad at all, as you can see i flamed you during the full duration of the 2 weeks i was blocked. /argument Shield of Deflection Hide-And-Seek 22:20, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

To... yourself? — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 22:21, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Doesn't really confirm anything. You have poor judgement. I troll people for the lulz, I don't troll people because im mad at them. Look at Nova, prime example. Also, File:Gw232.jpg

-Shield of Deflection Hide-And-Seek 22:24, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Can you make that image align to the left? Thanks. Also, troll less. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 22:29, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Trollings too much fun, especially on Nova. And indent for me, since I aligned the pic. Shield of Deflection Hide-And-Seek 22:31, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Good trolling doesn't get you blocked, I heard. Also, blocking is a chore, so I prefer not to have to do it. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 22:33, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Why haven't you been banned yet? Shield of Deflection Hide-And-Seek 22:35, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Because I don't fail at indents or troll (poorly). — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 22:36, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Also, can you PM me ingame? Archiving is a chore too. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 22:36, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
lol, you do fail at trolling. "OOPS TOO LATE" when you ignored me on Guild Wars. That was pretty fail, I lol'd. Also, fail at indents is fun. Since you're actually spending the time to fix them for me. lawl Shield of Deflection Hide-And-Seek 22:37, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
That wasn't trolling, that was me going into a GvG with some random guy suddenly QQ'ing to me (failure #1) for being blocked on PvX (failure #2). Which was then followed up with trying to troll on the Wiki again (failure #3) and getting mad (failure #4) leading to this indent failure (#5). I like clean talk pages, and have to have one since I'm an admin. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 22:40, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
lrn2DnD. and it isnt failure unless you lose. you just unignored me, so I win. AND FIX THIS INDENT. YOUR NOT VERY GOOD AT THIS Shield of Deflection Hide-And-Seek 22:45, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
I unignored you a while ago (explained already ingame, so no idea why I have to explain here again). So #6 on the stuff I said ingame, #7 on thinking I just unignored you right now. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 22:49, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Also, DnD reqs you to reset it if you need to reroll/switch, and of course, I can't be bothered to do that either. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 22:53, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.