FANDOM


E/Rt(/D) MB runner

Hiya. Please be more helpful when you see newer users fiddling about; instead of stuff like this, at least put the information on the E/D page after removing the redirect. -Auron 14:03, 28 September 2007 (CEST)

I said please. — Skakid9090 21:38, 28 September 2007 (CEST)

R/N Aspenwood Bomber (talk · rate)

Clarify please. And I refuse to get off this site! For some reason I'm addicted. Hours go by and it seems like minutes. --Teh Uber Pwnzer 01:08, 29 September 2007 (CEST)

No. — Skakid9090 01:08, 29 September 2007 (CEST)
Yes. --Teh Uber Pwnzer 01:12, 29 September 2007 (CEST)
You're using Death Nova, Consume Corpse, and Rotting Flesh on a ranger. — Skakid9090 01:13, 29 September 2007 (CEST)
And besides that, I'm using 19 energy about once every 40 seconds. Not only that, things that die / things below 90% health help this build quite a bit. --Teh Uber Pwnzer 01:19, 29 September 2007 (CEST)
Mind Blast Rodgort's Invocation Fire Attunement Edge of Extinction Optional Optional Optional Optional
12+1+3 fire 9+1 energy 9 beast.
Skakid9090 01:21, 29 September 2007 (CEST)
The point of his build is to kill everything, not just whoever you're fighting. Rotting Flesh transfers to everyone. Death Nova is a delayed EoE trigger. Consume Corpse is non-elite energy gain + teleport, and there's going to be plenty of bodies for it. With Oath Shot, you can have maybe three EoEs scattered across the entire field, and that's a lot of territory to cover with normal spells. --InternetLOL 01:26, 29 September 2007 (CEST)

halo 3

the second i get it

i'm coming for you FrenzyPunjab 04:37, 30 September 2007 (CEST)

yey. I still suck, just got back into halo after a 3 month break — Skakid9090 04:41, 30 September 2007 (CEST)

Whats ur tag? frvwfr2 btw, and thats my gt also... 66.57.17.110 05:26, 30 September 2007 (CEST)

skakid9090 — Skakid9090 05:26, 30 September 2007 (CEST)

If I ever bother buying another router and getting xbox live, I will kill you in your sleep on halo 3, skakid. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 05:52, 30 September 2007 (CEST)

looking forward to it =) — Skakid9090 06:55, 30 September 2007 (CEST)
Edru tries too hard. I'll get you in my sleep. I have all the nice green and orange gear too, to facilitate the wtfpwn. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 08:49, 30 September 2007 (CEST)
orange+green makes me think of baby food. FrenzyPunjab 19:26, 30 September 2007 (CEST)

Build:A/W Fear Me Energy Denial

May I ask why you removed the Deletion tag? The Build:A/W Fear-Inspiring Sin includes Res Sig as a variant for TA/RA, and a single-target KD every 12 seconds isn't enough to keep foes in the necessary range. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:18, 30 September 2007 (CEST)

Let the voting page do the work, I think both are pretty bad tbh, since they're kinda useless everywhere. — Skakid9090 05:19, 30 September 2007 (CEST)

Lord of the Rings

Now, this is a story all about how
My life got flipped-turned upside down
And I'd like to take a minute, just sit right in the dirt,
I'll tell you how I became the savior of a place called Middle-Earth

In Hobbiton, with uncle Bilbo, born and raised
Between the trees was where I spent most of my days
Smokin' some pipeweed, relaxin' all sweet,
And occasionally a party, with the town elite,
When the birthday party of Bilbo came around,
And Bilbo decided to move out of town
I inherited one little ring and Gandalf got scared
And said 'You're going' to Mordor and you're destroyin' it there"

I whistled for companions and when they came near
There was an Elf, a Dwarf, 3 hobbits and two humans there
If anything I can say this Fellowship could've been more
But I thought 'Now forget it' - 'Yo homes to Mordor'

We fought into some wars, about 7 or 8
And I yelled to others 'Yo homes smell ya later'
With Sam at Mount Doom, it was finally time
To save Middle-Earth and end this terrible rhyme
—ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 01:51, 3 October 2007 (CEST)

I just came. Ibreaktoilets SignatureIbreaktoilets 15:06, 3 October 2007 (CEST)
Ichigo724-icameIchigo724Ichigo-signature 16:27, 3 October 2007 (CEST)
Thanks, I forgot to screen as it happened. Glad someone's on the ball today. Ibreaktoilets SignatureIbreaktoilets 16:35, 3 October 2007 (CEST)

PvXwiki:Requests for adminship/Skakid9090

Don't strike out votes, particularly on your own RfA. It doesn't matter if the user is an anon, and it doesn't matter if the vote was their only contribution. The issue was already brought up here, and I think the reason I provided there is sufficient. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:27, 3 October 2007 (CEST)

Gah, I thought it said the opposite. Sorry. — Skakid9090 01:01, 4 October 2007 (CEST)
Ok, no problem. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:03, 4 October 2007 (CEST)

Degen spammer

Wow, oopsies. I seriously did not catch that one while looking for duplicates o.0 -- Nova Jirouji-Nova -- (contribs) 03:44, 4 October 2007 (CEST)

heh, exact duplicate too. — Skakid9090 03:44, 4 October 2007 (CEST)

Votes

Pretty much every vote you've made is 0-0-0 or 5-5-5. Find a middle ground, because 99% of the time the extreme ends are wrong. Keep it up and I'll consider it vandalism. Sorry, man, but you've been doing this for a while and it's time for it to stop. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 06:19, 5 October 2007 (CEST)

dammit..... o well ill just stick with this one. Im not sockpuppetting and if anyone can help me please do.Spell Breaker Beast194 00:30, 6 October 2007 (CEST)

Thoughts?

Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 19:18, 6 October 2007 (CEST)

srry bout that thx buddy.Spell Breaker Beast194 19:51, 6 October 2007 (CEST)

Fixed.Beast194Sig Beast194 19:54, 6 October 2007 (CEST)

N/R Mutually Assured Destruction (talk · rate)

You do understand what the word "effective" means, right? This build does exactly what it was designed to do. It kill off nearly everything in range of the spirits as soon as you're done casting them. I've had at least 2 other people test it and it works almost every time. So, what makes you label it as ineffective? — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ Reithan Sig 19:04, 7 October 2007 (CEST)

Read thisSkakid9090 21:31, 7 October 2007 (CEST)
Yes, it's another fabulous example of you not saying anything but generally insulting a build. And contrary to your opinion on that build's rate page, putting EOE on a nuker doesn't make it magically only effect the opposing team. The aspenwood bomber, is a joke build, in any case, unlike mine. In any case these build fly completely over your head and it shows. — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ Reithan Sig 21:39, 7 October 2007 (CEST)
5/8 skills kill your allies also, and your defending this build?Darksig 21:41, 7 October 2007 (CEST)
(edit conflict)Rodgort's deals 100~ damage and -7 degen with 1 cast. Your bleeding + disease + poison causes -10 degen, illing incredibly slowly and being easily outhealed by a single spell - orison of healing, one of the worst healing spells. Lacerate hurts your team as well as your enemies. So does all but 3 skills on your bar. So you can deal good damage and kill the opposing team, or degen your enemies slowly to death (and most likely yourself too.) — Skakid9090 21:43, 7 October 2007 (CEST)
gl and hf, tbh.Darksig 21:44, 7 October 2007 (CEST)
Read the usage on this build's build page. It explain how to use it. If you don't have the skill to use it effectively that doesn't mean the build's ineffective. If you place the spirits correctly, damage to your team will be minimal. And will kill a LOT more enemies than your silly rodgorts+EoE farce. — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ Reithan Sig 21:46, 7 October 2007 (CEST)
"put EoE on a nuker, then you can kill only the opposing team and not your own/your valuable NPCs" Go read the description of EoE again. Putting EoE on a nuker doesnt just magically make it effect the opposing team. Ive used the EoE bomb here...its bloody nasty and when used right extremely effective at wrecking the opposing teams mob in AB. Anatole
I'm saying that it doesnt kill your own team because you're not killing your own team with bleeding/disease. It's easy to get them below 90% by diseasing them, and that's what you're doing with your build. Use common sense before you insult my intelligence. — Skakid9090 22:01, 7 October 2007 (CEST)
What? You said it's bad because it kills your team, then said it's bad because it doesn't kill anyone, now you're saying it doesn't kill your team, but that it works how I said? Do you have any other ways you could contradict yourself? — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ Reithan Sig 22:04, 7 October 2007 (CEST)
I'm saying that it doesnt kill your own team was referring to the Rodgort's build. — Skakid9090 22:07, 7 October 2007 (CEST)
This conversation is lol. that build is awful, and if i may quote it:
"If you place them too close to your allies' main forces you'll hurt your team badly."
yeh. what skakid meant by saying EoE doesnt hurt allies with rodgort's is that your retarded degen will bring your team down to 90% which sets them up for the bomb.Darksig 22:11, 7 October 2007 (CEST)

Oh, ok, thanks. In any case, unless all 3 teams in AB currently have incredibly 1337 monk support, many of your team will be below 90% anyway, plus rodgorts will only affect foes NEARBY your target. The spread of conditions and mass degen through lacerate, pestilence, toxicity and the conditions on my build will quickly spready to everyone within range of the spirit, dropping almost everyone below 90% and killing off people low on life. If anyone's used deepwound, that'll spread all well, raping a good many people. The key is to place the spirits so more enemies than friends are in range. That's it. It's a huge destructive AoE. You just have to place it INTELLIGENTLY. If you just go throw it anywhere, yes you'll hurt your team badly. I already said that in the build's usage notes.

IF YOU USE THE BUILD AS STATED IN IT'S USE NOTES IT WORKS. — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ Reithan Sig 22:14, 7 October 2007 (CEST)

But it far from works well. — Skakid9090 22:15, 7 October 2007 (CEST)
Yes, actually it works great. It's meant to quickly kill everything within range of the spirit drop. It does so. The usage notes describe how, and describe how and when it would be good to do so. The only possible problem with the build is it required intelligence to use. That, appears to be a big problem sometimes. — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ Reithan Sig 22:18, 7 October 2007 (CEST)
You're relying on intelligence of the average AB/CM player too, so that kinda sucks doesn't it. — Skakid9090 22:19, 7 October 2007 (CEST)
So, any build that requires that you have 2 connecting braincells is worthless then? I'll try to remember that. </sarcasm> — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ Reithan Sig 22:20, 7 October 2007 (CEST)
If your saying WHEN to use a combo that makes up the entire bar, it sucks. what do you in the mean time? die, i'd imagine. waiting for the opportune moment on a combo that takes what looks like(ballpark estimate) 30 seconds to complete is so bad its sad. and yeh, for the most part, intelligence requiring builds arent worth it. why work hard when the monk is countering your damage with succor?Darksig 22:27, 7 October 2007 (CEST)
This build is designed for getting rid of enemy blobs during AB or CM, until a blob forms support your team with Rising Bile, covering it with Putrid Bile a second or two later, as well as Necrotic Traversal.
Matter of fact, you can probably get good use of Rotting Flesh pre-bomb as long as you use it INTELLIGENTLY, too. And the idea that any build that requires a brain or skill to use is crap is just a really dumb idea. Also, if you think you can counter an EoE bomb like this with Succor, rofl @ U. — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ Reithan Sig 22:30, 7 October 2007 (CEST)
kill EoE. done. you're dragging this out WAAAAAAAAAAAYYYY too much. arguing with skakid won't get his vote changed to 5-5-5 any faster. you're probably just pissing him off. FrenzyPunjab 22:50, 7 October 2007 (CEST)
Honestly, I don't care if he votes it 0-0-0, as long as he's got some sort of logic behind it. So far, since joining wiki. It seems like everytime I look at wiki Skakid's bashing some build or strategy, or trolling some discussion with disparaging comments and no reaons, discussion or even coherent logic behind what he says. I'm sure he's usually got them...but you have to argue with him for 3 pages before he'll tell you what they are.
As for killing EoE, yah, that works, thankfully EoE's range is VERY long and you can drop it someplace it hopefully won't be immediately killed. If not - oh well, respawn and try again. :P — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ Reithan Sig 23:02, 7 October 2007 (CEST)
If you've been on the wiki as long as I have, you'd know how annoying it is explaining in detail why builds suck even though you explained why it sucked 2 weeks ago. — Skakid9090 23:06, 7 October 2007 (CEST)

I guess linking to your previous explainations isn't possible? In any case, for all your time on wiki you don't seem to be head and shoulders past much of the rest of the crowd here when it comes to strategy, so maybe you should put the ego away? — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ Reithan Sig 23:08, 7 October 2007 (CEST)

I know that sounded pretentious, but I didn't mean it that way. — Skakid9090 23:10, 7 October 2007 (CEST)
Question: Which is better, a build that guarantees EoE will trigger on everyone in the game, or a build that only guarantees that EoE will trigger on the enemy? I'm not saying it won't hit your guys, but if it does, it's not your fault and you couldn't have prevented it. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 23:37, 7 October 2007 (CEST)
Yes it sounded pretentious, and I still don't really know how else you could have meant it. EoE doesn't trigger on everything in the game, just everything within 2.7x aggro radius, which is manageable with just a LITTLE practice. — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ Reithan Sig 23:42, 7 October 2007 (CEST)
If your teammates and your enemies are anywhere near each other and your spirits are only in range of the enemies, then they can just move a few steps and be out of range of the spirits, ya know? --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 23:44, 7 October 2007 (CEST)
Yes they can. But how hard is it for them to notice that? Very. All they see is spirit effects start popping up on their effect bar. They're not going to have time to see the effect, look for the spirit, realize it's pretty far away, then get out of range before the bomb is triggered. Besides, most fights have extended backline, which won't have time to get out of range. So, even if all you do is wipe out the enemy backline, you've still accomplished a lot. — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ Reithan Sig 23:47, 7 October 2007 (CEST)
Wait- backline in ab? You can't be serious. Lord Belar 23:50, 7 October 2007 (CEST)
Considering the build he's peddling, he probably is.Darksig 23:52, 7 October 2007 (CEST)

Ok, maybe backline is the wrong word, but you know what I mean, ranged classes, healers, hexers, etc. Anything that's not melee. — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ Reithan Sig 00:52, 8 October 2007 (CEST)

And that all doesn't mush into one big mob in AB? In FA it's almost as bad. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 05:03, 8 October 2007 (CEST)
Not really, if you look at it on the compass, you usually have one line of fighting, with scattered dots extending back from it. Those are the ranged classes and healers of that team, generally speaking. Then you'll have more dots approaching as they rez frmo that side too. If you can get to that side, or even just lateral of it, you can usually drop the spirits covering just that and the front line of fighting. So your side loses it's melee, and the other side loses everything. Then the non-melee from your team can sweep through and cap everything unimpeded. I've used this build at least a couple dozen times and that's usually how it works out. I don't say it's effective based on theory, or hype. I say it's effective, because I've used it and it's been effective. — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ Reithan Sig 07:16, 8 October 2007 (CEST)
The community has already voted the build as Not Favored so why continue this argument? Hammer And Sickle۷ïεדИǺмЄŠЄ. 07:18, 8 October 2007 (CEST)
If you haven't noticed, the 'community' that voted it unfavored consists mainly of this arguement's participants, most of which only voted after this started. I also get the distinct feeling from most of their vote comments that they didn't ACTUALLY test it. Things like "no killing power" really tip you off. If you've actually tested the build you'd know it insta-gibs the entire damn compass. I challenge you to find more 'killing power' than that.
I really just don't get this community. I really don't. This is a build that I've had multiple people test, I've run it myself. It does exactly what I say it does and is very effective at it. But for some reason that alone isn't good enough? What the hell do you want? Do I have to make it so the character does backflips at the same time? Based on the fact that the first few votes were very positive, then this arguement started and the rating PLUMMETTED, I really feel like this stupidity cost me and the community a good vetted build, and furthermore, one that's a lot of fun to play.
Do you guys just get off on trashing other people's builds and discussions? Because that's the majority of what I've seen from the community since I've become active on this wiki. Well, not the majority, just the vocal minority, really. But I see more people here itching to bash, troll, flame and put-down than willing to discuss, help and push the communtity forwards.
Isn't that what wikis like this are for? The betterment of the community is regards to knowledge? Instead, I just get subjected to drama festival after drama festival. I mean, with rules like "assume good intent" I tried to come in positive, I really did. But repeatedly I see people just ignoring all the rules about positive contribution and instead only scrambling to enforce the rules that keep them on the top of the arguement. Arguements which they start, as far as I can tell, on purpose, and solely for their own amusement.
And no, this isn't all directed at Skakid, though from what I've seen of him, he does fall into this generalization more often that not, and looking through comments that've been made about him by other people on this wiki, as well as talking to people in game and on vent, this seems to be his general modus operandi, as well as the 'style' of many of the more active users here.
Why does it need to be like this? Why the elitist 'members club only'? I can rant about this all night, but it's just going to get flamed with a bunch of innane comments by the very people I'm talking about, so why bother? The saddest part is I'm not even mad about this. Just disappointed. Disappointed, confused and maybe a little frustrated. I mean, you guys have all this information here, all these users with, obviously, a lot of interest in the game and very obviously more than just a little spare time on their hands, but they'd rather spend it dramabombing than helping.
Should I just give up? — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ Reithan Sig 07:30, 8 October 2007 (CEST)
At the rate you're going, yes, that would probably be a good idea. The build got unfavored with little reason not to. That tends to happen to bad builds around here. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 07:32, 8 October 2007 (CEST)
This really should be written somewhere else and not on Skakid's talk page because its not even directed towards him anymore. Please stop this 'argument' before it gets really out of hand. Hammer And Sickle۷ïεדИǺмЄŠЄ. 07:36, 8 October 2007 (CEST)
Actually, this originated on the Admin noticeboard, and then was dragged on over here when the author complained, but had dissatisfactory results against him/her. I still don't see how the concept of asploding your own team is good, for that matter. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 07:39, 8 October 2007 (CEST)
As an addendum, please archive this section. My IQ is being lowered by just reading this. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 07:43, 8 October 2007 (CEST)
Did you playtest it?
By the way the concept isn't "exploding your team" - that's actually a concept of a build that's actually vetted! It's listed further up this very page as "Aspenwood Bombed". If anything that one should be deleted as per PvX:WELL, as it's inferior to the build we're discussing, even though that one got vetted and this one didn't...difference? This one had an arguement and the 'regulars' decided to smash into it with 1-0-0 ratings and the like until it got trashed. Reasoning? Varied - but most of it's already countered in the build's very usage description, which was obviously not read by most of them...you included.
As for lowering your IQ with this conversation, I doubt that's even possible. Take that how you will. — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ Reithan Sig 07:44, 8 October 2007 (CEST)
Rapta pretty much said what needed to be said, your build got unfavored (deal with it, its where it belongs) and if you don't agree with it, fine, but thats just how it is. I've tried to stay quiet on arguments like this, especially in the napalm flame incident, but now i have to draw the line. Stop pointing fingers at this community, we don't "start arguments solely for our amusement," you're the one who brought this up, and you refuse to take any suggestions from us, simply thinking that your build is "effective" and "kills stuff" is enough to justify your actions. Its not, there are things that do your builds' job better than your build does, so deal with it, and if it's such a problem, make a new, better one. *deep breath* /endrant. 4 EC's FTL.—Cheese Slaya&#039;s Sig Cheese Slaya (Talk) 07:46, 8 October 2007 (CEST)
I'll be honest, I haven't, nor do I plan on, reading the entire discussion that has taken place here. What I do know is that 1) Builds get unfavored, it happens. 2) Build related discussions should not take place on User Talk Pages. This debate has run it's course, it's time for it to end. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 07:50, 8 October 2007 (CEST)

I don't even care about the build particularly. I just want to understand what's going on here. Aspenwood Bomber = favored, This = unfavored. All the stated problems so far about this build exist 10x worse in the other one? Why's one vetted and one not? Besides which, I think it IS a problem with the community. Based soley on the fact of how I've been treated since I've started contributing. I've been flamed, argued AT, trolled, harassed and generally made to feel unwelcome. All because my builds are perhaps less than the considered "good" here. How is that to be construed as a positive thing in any regard? If you think my builds suck - explain why is terms that can be understood and hopefully I'll contribute something worth vetting. But just saying, "It doesn't work" when it does 100% what I say it does isn't helpful at all. Just frustrating. If I say, "it does X" and it does, then explain why that's bad! Don't just say it doesn't do X when it clearly does do that. If the whole reason is "another build does it better, show me the build. I can playtest that and see if you're right, and if so, I can improve try to improve from that standing. But just "pwning nubs" and feel 1337 doesn't help anything. It just stifles your community and keeps it from growing.

That's all I'm saying. Feel free to continue this on MY talk page if anyone has anything else they need to say. — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ Reithan Sig 07:55, 8 October 2007 (CEST)

The build you're putting into question is under "other". That's like the garbage that's yet to be taken out. Are you sure you want to compare your build to one that's barely even considered to be "favored"? — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 07:58, 8 October 2007 (CEST)
Discussion's over Rapta. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 07:59, 8 October 2007 (CEST)

[1]

Tyvm. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 10:08, 8 October 2007 (CEST)

Due to the extensive and heated nature of the conversations above, as well as their continuance on other pages, I have sufficiently no idea what exactly you're referencing. lol — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ Reithan Sig 10:10, 8 October 2007 (CEST)
Unrelated. –Ichigo724Ichigo-signature 10:11, 8 October 2007 (CEST)
Whew. — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ Reithan Sig 10:11, 8 October 2007 (CEST)
Thanking him for coming up with a non-stupid name for one of the policies. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 10:22, 8 October 2007 (CEST)

hao

NOFX <3 - Rawrawr 18:04, 8 October 2007 (CEST)

RAWRAWR <3 — Skakid9090 18:07, 8 October 2007 (CEST)
buttsecks? - Rawrawr 18:07, 8 October 2007 (CEST)
x2 — Skakid9090 18:10, 8 October 2007 (CEST)
DON'T CALL ME WHITE - Rawrawr 18:16, 8 October 2007 (CEST)

Lol

Your userpage went from saying 'Readem = whore' to having Readem's quick links on it... --Wizardboy777 SigWizardboy777(T/C) 22:27, 8 October 2007 (CEST)

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