hello, nice to see you here :) gcardinal Gcardinal-signature {{sysop}}

John 11:35. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:03, 30 April 2007 (CEST)
Thanks to both of ya. =) Rapta 20:57, 30 April 2007 (CEST)

We <3 Rapta! Jaofos 21:53, 30 April 2007 (CEST)

May I ask what would be impossible to enforce in PvXwiki:Percentage Favored Vetting? DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:13, 4 May 2007 (CEST)

Not only does it involve constant re-calculations of build voting percentages, every single build in the wiki would need to be re-evaluated. Rapta 23:27, 4 May 2007 (CEST)
Ah, I understand what you meant. I was thrown off my the use of the word "enforce." You should know that we are writing a script to auto-update the percentages, and, as to re-evaluation... well, we could have that problem almost regardless of which policy we pick. But, I do understand what you are getting at. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:28, 4 May 2007 (CEST)
Can I get you to look at one of my RA monks? * Build:Mo/Me RA Vital Bonder Shireen 06:08, 21 May 2007 (CEST)

Administraition VS Buildmaster

I think there is a difference between being a site janitor and being a build master. The Admin concept, as my job description was eplained to me, was to keep doing what I am doing, and merely uphold consensus, take a more proactive role in preventing vandalism, and use my authority to uphold standards in page quality. Other than that I have all the same abilities and authority over build vetting as the normal user base. The position of Build Masters on the other hand is a still a topic that needs to be discussed. Because I don't feel I am a build master, but I do feel I am an adept site admin. That, I think, is why Hipp is being considered for adminship, because he understands the line I follow and would make an excellent addition to the codding base (which requires certain admin privelages). Just my thoughts on it bro. Shireensysop 16:01, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

Not a build master, but sufficient experience with builds, imo. That's how I see an admin, not an admin with minimal experience but knows how to use Wiki-code. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 23:14, 2 July 2007 (CEST)
Hhhippo has experience that none of have, and that takes more then just playing a game. We don't pick random admins, Rapta. Refrain from further comment, EVERYONE. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 23:18, 2 July 2007 (CEST)
That's how you see an admin being, which is different of how I see an admin. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 17:21, 3 July 2007 (CEST)
In all reality, people who know more about builds then wiki-code, are worthless in comparison to those that do. Myself included. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 13:45, 4 July 2007 (CEST)
...What? — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 13:51, 4 July 2007 (CEST)


Needs 4 more Votes to be labeled. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 23:12, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

For B-surge, note varients. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 23:14, 2 July 2007 (CEST)
Split build into RA and GvG versions imo. One's not like the other (only things in common are GoLE, BSurge, Orb, and Attune?) — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 23:16, 2 July 2007 (CEST)
Too similar. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 23:18, 2 July 2007 (CEST)
Different uses, not too similar. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 17:21, 3 July 2007 (CEST)

auspicious renewal

it has the same amount of nukes as the original renewal, you can replace GoLE with auspicious and you having nothing except a better build. can you explain your vote further? - Skakid9090 18:40, 4 July 2007 (CEST)

Build Rating Question

I had a question reguarding your rating on Build:A/any Critical Fox... I posted my response on the build's talk page (as per the policy, I believe). Simply rating the build won't add it to your watchlist, so this comment is merely a heads-up in case you didn't already see my response. --GEO-logo Jioruji Derako.> 04:07, 5 July 2007 (CEST)

Nothing was changed other than the paragraphs being condensed. The original build still has huge problems. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 10:13, 5 July 2007 (CEST)
You didn't quite answer my question, which I posted on the build's talk page. If you've got any suggestions on the build's setup itself, by all means fire away; I'm always happy to improve on the original setup. --GEO-logo Jioruji Derako.> 10:13, 6 July 2007 (CEST)

IX Degen

Since i got this 0 from you i just wanted to know if there is some good reason. You said i "found every degen skill possible and put them into a bar + res sig". This is not what i did so pls i would have some serious comment on the build (also because some ppl gave it a 5 or a 4.7 ). Thank you Sjeps 10:54, 7 July 2007 (CEST)

My vote is solely on the build itself (check the unfavored pile for random bars filled with degen skills). I couldn't care less if other people gave it a 5 tbh. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 23:38, 7 July 2007 (CEST)
I like your concept of random. Probably for you war builds are random bars filled with attack skills and monk builds are random bars filled with healing skills. Oh i forget "+ res sig" Sjeps 13:11, 8 July 2007 (CEST)
Except they're not. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 21:00, 8 July 2007 (CEST)
The Build is not good. Please refrain from speaking to any of the voters, and leave it on the talk page if you absolutely must comment. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 21:09, 8 July 2007 (CEST)
That was a justifyable comment. It's like saying someone found every AoE spell possible and threw it onto a Elle bar (I've seen and done that). You need a backup plan to that build than what you have going. 1/3 of all users bring some kind of hex removal, so the chances of you getting a glad point with this significantly drop. Shireensysop 21:22, 8 July 2007 (CEST)
To Readem "If a vote appears unjustified (e.g. only 0-scores or no meaningful reason given), the voter should be asked for clarification". To Shireen, i don't know if it is or not a justifyable comment but i know that what he's saying it's not truth. I just asked "some serious comment on the build" after letting him know that i didn't "found every degen skill possible and put them into a bar + res sig". Sjeps 1:41, 9 July 2007 (CEST)
Rapta's reason was justifiable. The skills have very little synergy. My vote was justified by the build itself. Next time, if you find a questionable vote, discuss it on the talk page. Bringing it to the user is considered almost tactless. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 02:39, 9 July 2007 (CEST)
This build apparently is love-hate... either you love it, or ya hate it... I haven't tried it, but just commenting... and author, I wouldn't worry about it. At least you can use it effectively... ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 01:49, 9 July 2007 (CEST)
QFT. On the Wiki, build design has a lot to do with how your average player can use builds, in my opinion. Often, as a build creator, you have such a good understanding of how it all works that you can use it perfectly; while a player who didn't have anything to do with the creation either won't be able to use it well, or would simply prefer a build that is easier to use right out of the stable. I personally can shadowstep all over Hard Mode with my Seeping Wound Assassin, but I'm really not surprised that I've yet to get a Seeping Wound build favored... I'm just proud to know that I'm one of the few that can use a "bad" build effectively. Weather or not your build gets a high rating or a low one, will it really affect your own performance with the build? Of course not, becuase the rating comes down to how well it works for everybody else. --GEO-logo Jioruji Derako.> 04:21, 9 July 2007 (CEST)
0 ratings come probably from ppl that didn't test build and/or read usage section, and just rated the build for the skillset (i hope at least). I would never do this to any build but everyone is free to do what he wants. Talk is over for me ty Rapta for efforts. P.S. After a few days playing this build (and some gl points) i see less SoR builds and more Divert Hexes/Blessed Light builds. Sjeps 10:56, 9 July 2007 (CEST)

We fail, I know :/

I just realized, that the only WoH Build we the one that spam HP and channeling :(. If I write up a build, will you fix? Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 03:50, 9 July 2007 (CEST)

The one I wrote's in testing. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 04:49, 9 July 2007 (CEST)

Build: A/W Alone Assassin re-rate

could you re-rate that build? some anon edited it with stupid other skills, who the hell takes siphon when he has YAAA?... i changed it back to its original build. (also note the SYNERGY between jungle strike and YAAA, its bonus damage is insane to crippled targets and the build kills just as efficient as shadow prison mainstream build; also YAAA has EARSHOT=normal cast range and an excellent cover condition that disables physical damage dealers at the same time aswell, and it's unlinked. all in all >>>> siphon) thanks--Taki Fujiko 21:19, 9 July 2007 (CEST)

No. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 23:03, 9 July 2007 (CEST)

I think we know who the real nub is =)

[1] skadid eh? Skakid9090 18:47, 12 July 2007 (CEST)

Featured builds

Hey Rapta, since you were usually pretty concerned with updating the featured builds on the Main Page appropriately, I thought I'd tell you about the my changes to its layout. If you would like to change the featured builds from now on, you may do so yourself at this location, and it will update the Main Page accordingly. Hope that makes things easier for you. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 19:46, 12 July 2007 (CEST)

Ah, very nice. Thanks a lot. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 21:16, 12 July 2007 (CEST)


hi,since i'm and old guildwiki user and don't want to come up with a trash build, i'm asking for feedback from expert players, so i wondered, could i ask you to give this page a look and some comments/corrections/suggestions? Build:Rt/A_Grasping_Bomber . If you could, that'd be just great. Thanks! --Morten 17:25, 14 July 2007 (CEST)

p/w support

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

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?

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

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)


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?

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

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)

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