Archive talk:Mo/W RA Bonder

in construction, this build is to summarize the usage of the different RA bonders (SoR, ZB, RC, (insert next elite here)) - Skakid9090 01:17, 11 July 2007 (CEST)

Not needed...at all... Readem (talk *pvxcontribs ) 01:18, 11 July 2007 (CEST)

neither are 40 different bonder builds ;) - Skakid9090 01:20, 11 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Yet this is another one to add to the list. Lol Napalm Flame  ^_^ [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] (talk)·(contributions) 01:27, 11 July 2007 (CEST)
 * delete button is ftw - Skakid9090 01:29, 11 July 2007 (CEST)
 * tis. Readem (talk *pvxcontribs ) 01:30, 11 July 2007 (CEST)

Can someone dig up said list of the 40 (PvP) bonder builds and merge them into one? - Auron 02:10, 11 July 2007 (CEST)


 * 40 = /sarcasm =) - Skakid9090 02:12, 11 July 2007 (CEST)

Lol, might be difficult... But let's try it! Most bonder PvP builds are either RA, AB (sometimes) or CM. It's mainly PvE builds though. Napalm Flame  ^_^ (talk)·(contributions) 02:11, 11 July 2007 (CEST)

Archive:Mo/Me PvP Bonder ok so 3 isn't 40. but I still think an article like this is better than having very similar build ideas. - Skakid9090 02:14, 11 July 2007 (CEST)
 * I'll be thinking about an Aspenwood variant to place in here too to make this the ultimate PvP Bonder page. Oh yeah, article should be renamed to PvP Bonder once the Aspenwood variant is in. Napalm Flame  ^_^ [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] <font color=#0000ff>(talk)·(contributions) 02:17, 11 July 2007 (CEST)


 * Fail less plx Skakid -.-... <font color="Black">Readem (<font color="Red">talk *<font color="Black">pvxcontribs ) 02:18, 11 July 2007 (CEST)


 * u smell &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skakid9090 (contribs).
 * I don't fail, and if I somehow did it's not as bad as Skuld... <font color=#ff0000>Napalm Flame  ^_^ [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] <font color=#0000ff>(talk)·(contributions) 02:25, 11 July 2007 (CEST)
 * What? <font color="Black">Readem (<font color="Red">talk *<font color="Black">pvxcontribs ) 03:10, 11 July 2007 (CEST

wats this? this is just like every bonder build there is but u get to choose ur elite. needs a DELETE! Mgelo21 19:02, 11 July 2007 (CEST)
 * The whole point of this is to warrant the delete of every other RA bonder out there. Using this, we can also make a generalised one for aspenwood bonder and PvE bonder, link them all to a main article called 'Bonder' and delete all the others, while keeping the work intact. <font color=#ff0000>Napalm Flame  ^_^ [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] <font color=#0000ff>(talk)·(contributions) 19:55, 11 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Mgelo is a duuumb-aaasss xD Dark Morphon 13:52, 12 July 2007 (CEST)


 * We are keeping the others. They are well written, and this does not cover all of them. Good guide nonetheless. <font color="Black">Readem (<font color="Red">talk *<font color="Black">pvxcontribs ) 00:22, 15 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Tell me how this should cover the *other* RA bonders, so we can turn this into a FULL RA bonding guide, and maybe then make an AB/Aspenfuck bonder guide so you can wipe those too, and then a PvE bonder guide so then we can dominate every single bonder build out there! MUAHAHAHAHAAAAAA! <font color=#ff0000>Napalm Flame  ^_^ [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] <font color=#0000ff>(talk)·(contributions) 00:37, 15 July 2007 (CEST)

MEH, Bonding sucks. Way too may high-scoring votes. This should not be in the "Good" section. Zuranthium 08:21, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Please Restore
Krowman, please restore all of the bonder builds. place a link to each at the bottom of this guide; uness they a more throughly described. get rid of their tags as well. Would do it myself, however I am on a very slow comp thats shift key works like shit. Having to type with my left hand ;/. Thanks. <font color="Black">Readem (<font color="Red">talk *<font color="Black">pvxcontribs ) 01:25, 16 July 2007 (CEST) (very hard to even sign atm)
 * Nah, forget it, the RA bonder builds don't need re-instating unless they have VERY different content. And why do you need a thorough description when all a bonder really needs to do is maintain 2 enchantments, the 1st one going on the other team members and the 2nd one going on yourself? Minimalism is often the key, and I'm a minimalist. Why have a 15 foot essay on bonders when it can be summarised into 2 or 3 sentences? <font color=#ff0000>Napalm Flame  ^_^ [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] <font color=#0000ff>(talk)·(contributions) 18:26, 16 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Link this guide, and get rid of newb notes. Link the other builds. Mimimalism is shit when yu are replacing 2-3 other builds. <font color="Black">Readem (<font color="Red">talk *<font color="Black">pvxcontribs ) 16:10, 17 July 2007 (CEST)
 * There are no newb notes. And when replacing several long-winded builds that explain the exact SAME thing with low efficiency, something like this does the job better. Unless there is some 'magical' solution that will make this build somehow 'perfect' for you. <font color=#ff0000>Napalm Flame  ^_^ [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] <font color=#0000ff>(talk)·(contributions) 16:13, 17 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Done. Please link to other builds it is replacing, and better wep set; I g2g. <font color="Black">Readem (<font color="Red">talk *<font color="Black">pvxcontribs ) 16:22, 17 July 2007 (CEST)
 * I should have wikified every link necessary. I can't link to the other builds it's replacing, have no time. Hopefully my linking should be... satisfactory. <font color=#ff0000>Napalm Flame  ^_^ [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] <font color=#0000ff>(talk)·(contributions) 19:32, 17 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Tis gud :). Let's see if I can find the bonders I restored now...:/. <font color="Black">Readem (<font color="Red">talk *<font color="Black">pvxcontribs ) 00:12, 19 July 2007 (CEST)

Shield of Regeneration
Doesn't the addition of an elite skill drastically change the purpose of the build? Tycn 14:56, 7 August 2007 (CEST)
 * Not really, it's still there to bond. <font color=#ff0000>Napalm Flame  ^_^ [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] <font color=#0000ff>(talk)·(contributions) 16:03, 19 August 2007 (CEST)

why not..
use remove hex. deny hex only remoes 1 hex on this build plus is condition with longer recharge.
 * With Blessed Signet almost always recharging, you remove 2 hexes with deny. [[Image:Hammer And Sickle.png|19px]] [[User:Viet|

v iзти  ]]  αмзѕ з   03:23, 30 December 2007 (EST)
 * What Viet said. [[Image:rustybsurge.jpg|15px]] RustyTheMesmer  17:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)
 * orly.. timestamp ftw or farming contribs.. ~ <font color="#444">ĐONT <font color="#444">* <font color="#444">TALK  18:05, 24 January 2008 (EST)

balth's spirit
Since balth's spirit gives u adrenaline, too, i synergize it with "GfTE!" or even Bonetti's defense. Add adren-based stuff to variants?  I Am    *  Jebus  *  16:48, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
 * No. Lord of all tyria 16:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
 * It gives adrenaline points instead of strikes. So you need Balthazar's Spirit triggered 9 times (with 3 points in Smiting Prayers) to gain one strike of adrenaline. ~ <font color="#444">ĐONT <font color="#444">* <font color="#444">TALK  17:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

When I saw this in RC, I thought it said RA Boner
^truth --<font color="Black">Tab  <font color="Black">Moo  16:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Vote Removals
Build:Mo/any_RA_Bonder's ratings. There's tons of Tycn's vote removals which doesn't have good enough reason and there was no reason to in the first place. Repeated "Good =/= great." is just Vote Removal = Stupid. Wtf? These are not ppl who's new... they've been around. They are not idiots, if they feel the build deserves that much score, so be it! Why the hell is it removed? Vote reflects "great" but they said "good"? Removed for that? that's rediculous. Last time I checked, good and great have similar meanings. If you hover over the "innovation" thing, it says "how new the idea behind the build is." Tycn's reponse = "Misconception of the definition of innovation." Frankly, either you guys need to change that or Tycn has the misconception of the definition of innovation. (Yes, I know the Real Vetting page has different desc, but you cannot penelize people for reading what it says) Y0 ich halt's vote, it says core of most ra monk builds. Whether "good" ones run it or not is irrelevent, this comment isn't untrue! The so called "good" player Tycn describes are rare in RA! Timinator's vote, he says he gets a lot of glad points fast from it and Tycn says glad points rn't what reflect the build? If you don't go to RA for glad points, wtf are you there for? Anyways, undo the vote removal please. Previously posted here: PvXwiki_talk:Administrators and copy/pasted here. These clearly don't meet the conditions as explained on PvX:APPEAL -- Grumpy (T|C) 10:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Firstly, the noticeboard and the PvX:APPEAL process is not your avenue to ramble about a build's voting or vote removal. Appeals are submitted by the editors in question if they so wish. In response to your concerns:
 * Most of the vote removals are due to insufficient one-line comments that do not reflect the score. From my understanding of Tycn's actions, votes that said something along the lines of "yeah, it's good" while giving it a "Great" rating were removed because of inconsistent reasoning.
 * The "misconception of innovation" vote is correct; according to PvX:VETTING, Innovation describes how likely a build concept is to become the metagame, if it hasn't already. The vote in question gave a low Innovation score because it was "not original", which is not what VETTING nor the mouse-over description outlines the criteria as.
 * Y0 ich halt's vote was inconsistent with scoring. Being popular in usage doesn't necessarily mean the build is good, and without further elaboration on the comment, the vote was removed accordingly.
 * It is fact that gladiator points do not reflect the quality of a build. Practically any build can get gladiator points; all it takes is enough reasonable players on the team to make up for shortcomings, and for the other team to be worse than you. I could run a standard BA ranger or Magebane ranger and get zero gladiator points because of my team, but that doesn't equate to the build being terrible. Likewise, Defiant Elements has done the 10-win streak with Frenzy and Healing Signet, but that doesn't correlate to a great build. While good builds are more likely to consistently perform well, gladiator points are an unreliable method to measure a build's quality.
 * Similarly, builds are best tested when used against good opponents. You can easily say that there aren't any good players in RA, but if your build relies on the stupidity of your foes, it's probably not a good build. I could throw Empathy and Backfire around, and RA noobs will probably kill themselves through it, but again that does not necessarily mean that a build using those two skills is actually good. Competent RA players are more common than you make it out to be -- an the ideal stress-test for an RA build is to see how well it holds up against good opponents and bad team-mates.
 * And finally, it's a bonder. Any monk worth his weight in salt will be able to active prot far better than the rigid purpose of a bonder. It might be consistent overall because of its ease of use, but it doesn't take much for the build -- and therefore the whole team -- to collapse. All it takes is one target-switch and the bonder is unable to save him or herself. There are many builds in popular usage that have some sort of enchantment removal, and while it is true that every build has a counter, enchantment removal devastates bonders. You are constantly running on low energy; losing a Life Bond means wasting time and energy to recast numerous times; losing Balthazar's Spirit means losing your main source of energy; casting Blessed Signet on recharge means you can't maintain coverage for your team and making yourself D-shot fodder. The concept of a bonder is too fragile and too open for failure, and the likelihood of success is distinct: you either win, or you get steamrolled because you can't adapt.


 * To reiterate: if any of the affected users wish to appeal their vote, they may do so at their own discretion. If they wish to change they vote, they are welcome to do so as well. Voting is open to the public, but that doesn't mean that votes that have poor or nonexistent reasoning should be allowed to pull down -- or drag up -- a build when others have provided logical reasoning. It's not hard to provide a proper reason to support your rating. You don't have to write an essay, nor do you even have to break it down by criteria like some users do. A few sentences relating to its effectiveness, flexibility and metagame status/likely status is all that's needed for a vote to be within the bounds of reason. --[[Image:scottie_bow.jpg|19px]]  Scottie_theNerd  (argue / criticise / complain)  11:03, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
 * I think you are underestimating some aspects of a bonder. To a sense, it actually decreases the effectiveness of idiotic party members that you have. If some one charges out at the enemy far out of your range - this happens a lot and everyone knows it, there is no active support you can give. With a bond, it's already there. I'm saying you can accept the meta game as is and what ever build that can reap in the most glad points faster easily is likely the better build just like an easy farming build that brings in the most cash is the best build. None the less, like you said, it is not the place to ramble about the build but about the votes.
 * While most appeals are submitted by the editor in question, the appeal procedure does not limit it to. It simply says "user" whom is in disagreement which is a very broad term. I am infact a user who is disagreeing. I believe I am on the right grounds to submit an appeal.
 * In any case, none of the criterias you've said is one of the conditions to remove a vote. A build master simply disagreeing witha voter is simply disagreement. Since my first approach wasn't convincing for you, then here's another.
 * They did not make false claims. they did not insult anyone. they tried it, they loved it, therefore, they voted accordingly, thus not a misjudgement. And they don't have history of bad votes. The votes are not based on favors. Votes are not sock puppets. Votes ARE self-consistent (except i'll give you the point Warrior Zez one). It is based on facts, not myths or assumptions. There are no evidence of one trying to outweigh other people by voting rediculously in one way. Under what legal reason outlined for voting removal are the votes removed? Build master not agreeing is not one of the conditions. This wiki asks for public opinion, obviously there are going to be disagreements. You can't just go around removing 1 liner votes. Those are ALL the criteria points outlined in both Vetting and Apeals. More than half the votes in the entire wiki is a 1 liner with insufficient reasoning. Are you going to remove them all? By the way, I think you are supposed to be unbiased on either sides and be objective when taking appeals. Meaning, don't think what Tycn might have been thinking. Do you really agree with his vote removals? --[[Image:Flag of South Korea.png|22x22px]] Grumpy (T|C) 13:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
 * From PvX:VETTING: "A vote, including the comment, must be self-consistent. That is, the ratings and the comment may not contradict each other. The comment should explain all ratings instead. Likewise, a rating of e.g. Zero in Effectiveness and 5 in Universality is considered contradictory". Saying that a build is "good" while submitting a different rating (e.g. a "great" rating) is not self-consistent. Again, if the users in question want to dispute that, they can do it themselves. Since they have not, either that means they have not gotten around to it, or they don't want wish to dispute it. If you want to be specific about wording, I advise you re-read PvX:APPEAL to see that this sort of discussion should be taking place on the build talk page before initiating an appeal. --[[Image:scottie_bow.jpg|19px]]  Scottie_theNerd  (argue / criticise / complain)  17:51, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
 * I still can't believe you are arguing with the stupid good=/=great thing. They have similar meaning, they don't contradict. it says may not contradict, not may not be close but be off slightly. Words do NOT have numbers attatched to them. People can say something is good for any range of something that is over average. That's how english is, english is not the most logical or mathamatical thing. If someone says it's bad and votes 000, that's off. It's not "horrible" or "unusable". You cannot define a word into a number. Please stop arguing with good =/= great thing. --[[Image:Flag of South Korea.png|22x22px]] Grumpy (T|C) 18:24, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
 * That's how PvX:VETTING sets it out. A "Great" build is one that scores over 4.5; a "Good" build is between 3.5 and 4.5. It's not uncommon for users to describe a build as "Okay" or "Good" while giving a 5-5-5 vote. I'm not arguing over semantics; I'm pointing out the inconsistency between how users describe a build and how they actually rate it according to the PvX:VETTING scale. This frequently appears on the admin noticeboard as a complaint, and the votes get removed accordingly. If the users want to elaborate or re-word, they are free to do so. --[[Image:scottie_bow.jpg|19px]]  Scottie_theNerd  (argue / criticise / complain)  22:28, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Rating <2.5
We should probably archive rather than trash it, this was standard for a long time untill it was outclassed. Opinions? --<font color="Black">Tab  <font color="Black">Moo  16:39, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
 * True. /agree &not; Klump  eet  20:43 {GMT} 18/05/<font face="Times New Roman">MMVIII
 * agreed--<font color="black" face="hyborian">X [[Image:Crossfire Godlysig.png|19px]] 14 17:44, 18 May 2008 (EDT)


 * it soooo makes me wanna cry to see this build being archived... ahhhh the good old days when enchantment removal was as meta as hamstorm warriors are today...when nobody got pale with shock when you freely admitted to use a sup prot and a major df rune... <font face="Verdana" color="Darkblue">I Predict A Riot eeek!  [[Image:panicz3.jpeg|33px]] 18:58, 17 January 2009 (EST)