User talk:Krschkr/Archive 1

N/Mo Support Necro
Your section about Archiving is very similar to my comments with the build I posted under "Reaper's Mark." Take a look at what I said if you haven't already.--- IGN: Saxazax I (capital i) or Saxazax I I - (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[And thanks for the comments!]

Just so you're aware, your vote dropped this build below the threshold for good, which means you should change the vetting tag appropriately. Although your reasoning doesn't seem to be for trashing the build, so you may want to revise your vote if a Trash rating was not your intention. Toraen (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue I see is that from my tests with 100b warrior heroes I can't really give them an effectivity rating above 3 (mainly due to AI issues), but I also don't think that a build below 3.75 effective rating is actually trash. Imo there's a fair amount of builds which fall into a niche of not too effective, but nonetheless popular (while not being meta popular) and fun builds. Like the crippling anguish split mesmer which is seen in non-tryhard american split teams once a year in GvG. Pretty bad bar, but fun and well-known. Those builds should probably have a place in GWPvX, perhaps with their own category (effective rating 3.0 to 3.75?) or the good category should perhaps allow builds slightly below an effective rating of 3.75, rather 3.5? It'd be sad if the 100b hero dropped out of GWPvX, but I don't think I can give it a better rating. The AI issues hurt that build even more than a dagger spam hero.
 * On a side note – is there a page which allows a good overview on vetting in this wiki? I vetted a large bunch of builds I tested and it's likely that other borderline builds shifted because of my vote. Would ease adjusting the tags. --Krschkr (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a policy page on vetting. We moved the bar to 3.75 back in the day because it was really needed to clear out builds that were giving us a pretty bad reputation for keeping. We wanted to also at one point move to a 1-10 scale so we could make votes more distinct, but changing the code and existing votes over to a new system is kind of difficult when you don't have access to the backend of the wiki anymore. Generally though, people voted around 4 for a build that is good, 5 for great, and somewhere 0-3 for trash depending on how bad the build was. I actually wanted to revamp vetting some more, but even my plan would've still required tweaking the rate extension. Toraen (talk) 09:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if you want to see all the builds you've voted on, Special:UserRatings. Toraen (talk) 09:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, a 1-10 scale would help to distinguish a bit more between excellent, great, good, ok and meh/trash builds. But as it's difficult to change it the 0-5 is what we should keep and work with. Thanks for the link to the special page; I'll check it within the next days and adjust tags for builds I shifted into a different category. --Krschkr (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * One of the other problems is that its quite frankly one of the only ways to make a warrior hero actually useable and effective, however limited its effectiveness is. At present, there's missions and quests that require you to run Koss, and with no hero build alternatives, we should at least have one build listed purely for this purpose. NapalmFlame (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

3 hero builds
They're specifically retained for 4 man areas only (because people are still going to look up builds to do those areas in HM). Don't include reasoning based on using them in 6 or 8 man areas in your votes on those builds. Toraen (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok. Adjusted the spiritway rating and clarified the discordway rating. --Krschkr (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ty. Toraen (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

- vs –
You may have already seen the page moves, but make sure you use the former (hyphen) in build names please. The long dash isn't actually allowed per PvX:NAME, even though they look similar. Also the long dash crashes the build pack script currently (though I plan to at least fix that now that I've seen it). Toraen (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for the fixes. --Krschkr (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Can we try to work together?
Would you like my opinion on anything you're working on?--&#32;Saxazaxx (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We are working together, aren't we? When you comment on a talk page or in an edit summary that you need assistance with something and I can help (like here or ) I'm always there. And I react to your talk entries when they have to do with the build, like here. Just don't expect me to agree with things I disagree with. But sometimes you come up with suggestions which just derive entirely from the point and strengths of the build on the build page, so I don't really know what to say. If you want to discuss a completely different build, make a page for it. I may or may not have something to say about it. Like here, where your build breaks with the build page build a lot, deriving in multiple aspects from the build page's idea on what the build is supposed to do, which role it's meant to fit. So, to answer your question: Yes, I like to have your opinion. And you improved several pages I made, which I appreciate. But accept that we have different opinions on certain things and try to keep closer to the point and idea of the build you're commenting. --Krschkr (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * all this is really cute and makes me glad I started following the site recently :) Juniper real (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok. I won't post alternative builds that are very different from the original. I will just make my own builds elsewhere. At the moment, my opinion tends to come from a perspective of... I don't know what. I like to think that I am "creative" and that has been my trumpeting cry on this Wiki. I also tend to be a contrarian, no matter what someone says, I have to question whether the opposite is true. I'm working on that. Sorry.--&#32;Saxazaxx (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Questioning and being creative is fine, that's part of how good builds have been created in the past. But sometimes it's time to make a new user subpage/trial build page when the connection of an alternative build fitting into similar roles to the currently visited talk pages becomes too loose. --Krschkr (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Testing Areas
I want to look into party size 6 teams next. Any testing areas you'd think fitting? Suggestions are welcome here and on reddit. --Krschkr (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Policy proofreading
An unglamorous task to be sure, but could I have you look over these two to make sure they're good to go? Pointing out any grammatical/spelling mistakes or legal loopholes would be appreciated! They are mostly the same as their original policies outside of the sections I added. -Toraen (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look, but as I learned english by playing guild wars and watching british comedy shows I might not be the ideal person to ask for checking spelling and grammar. --Krschkr (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Dang
You've been hard at work I see!--Saxazaxx (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I just wish there were more than five people in the whole community contributing to this project. So many pages haven't been updated in the last 6 years, so there's still much to do. --Krschkr (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's lonely at the top.--17:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That banner X;D--Saxazaxx (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Pre-Curse builds
Some builds have their rating tag from when we were at Wikia, but they didn't make the rating database available for migration (because they were being jerks about us leaving). We probably should have tagged them specially to avoid confusion now that I think about it, but a lot of them are probably in need of review anyway.

I guess I don't have to write that script now though. -Toraen (talk) 06:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I already wondered how so many builds could slip through, having ratings without votes. Shall I revert those 0/1 vote tag removals? I plan to vote on farming builds aswell, eventually, but until I get to do that there's still a lot of different stuff planned (especially looking into beginner builds). Saxazaxx seems to have started testing and rating farming builds, so if I do that aswell we'd have enough votes for provisional ratings for most of them. --Krschkr (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Honestly, if we want our builds database to get up to date, we'll need to call attention to builds that have sat for a while without getting new votes. If a really popular build ends up getting sent back to testing, we can hopefully resolve that quickly now, either through voting on it (we can at least get them to provisional) or granting it a Meta tag exception. I haven't done a full audit yet, but I imagine most of the remaining builds that are in the pre-Curse limbo are just not that popular. -Toraen (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

RFA
Mostly a formality, but I did want to give the option to decline, if you so choose. -Toraen (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Primarily I'm a content contributor, but if you think that some more user rights (timeout in case of vandalism, "deleting" pages) would benefit PvX I'm inclined to accept the nomination. I don't know anything about adjusting filters, more complex templates and things like that, though. In general I'm not so sure which the obligations as an admin would be. It would be great to have some more information on that; if you like you can text me on Discord and tell me what your expectations would be. --Krschkr (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Code knowledge and tool use can come later, as there's not really a way to practice them without ever having had them. You don't even really need to get involved with that stuff if it's not your forte. Primarily, I want someone who has the wiki's best interests at heart (you clearly do) and participates in growing/developing the wiki (which you are currently doing). Having adminship means you will be a leader: expected to help new users, resolve disputes, and develop/interpret/enforce policy (this is the trickiest bit). I'll drop you some more info on what I'm expecting through discord. -Toraen (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Peter Kadar
It is worth it to take a look at some of his videos, from a glance it looks like he has a lot of creative solo farms, and he is uploading a lot of videos at the moment.--Saxazaxx (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as I know the Youtube Widget we use for embedding videos does not allow to start at a specified time. Péters videos sadly are build collections, so embedding them would be a bit problematic. We could forego the embedding and provide a link to the point in the video at which the respective farm build is presented, but I'm not so certain that this would be the ideal solution.--Krschkr (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean more as a source of inspiration for build ideas. We could also try and recruit him to write builds and guides.--Saxazaxx (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I couldn't catch him online or he was busy. Perhaps you have more luck. --Krschkr (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Useful Pages
This list isn't exhaustive, and I may find more things to add at a later time, but here's some things to keep an eye on (I think you're already watching at least a couple of these anyway). Template links included for a quick way to get to their code if you need.
 * Category:Candidates for deletion - Delete & Delete talk
 * Category:WELL: Well Honestly it's probably best we avoid using this one very much. Unless it's really bad just let the build get trashed normally.
 * Category:Archive-Pending - Archive-Pending
 * Category:Rewrite - Rewrite
 * PvXwiki:Grace Expired - Check for recent edits on expired builds first, since this page can only track by when the build was placed in its current category. It doesn't check the date of last edit. You can reset the grace period by removing and re-adding the tag (or just switching to a different one) if you feel it's warranted.
 * PvXwiki:Unvetted pages - comb this for anything eligible for provisional status (or vetted, if they're so lucky). Don't move anything to a provisional category unless it's in dark grey.
 * Special:SpecialPages - has pretty much everything else. If you've been using this page before, you should notice your new admin tools in bold. If you have any questions about any of them feel free to ask.

-Toraen (talk) 05:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Congrats!!
--Saxazaxx (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Krschkr (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

GvG
I'm pretty tired of the merry-go-round that is arenas pvp, gw1 or gw2... people having the worst attitudes ever. Glad rank is pretty much a testament to how much of a politician you are. Do you know anyone that could teach me GvG basics? My play time is pretty limited since I live with my family, but I can probably find some days here and there to play in the big leagues.--Saxazaxx (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Getting into the GvG scene sounds hardly possible to me. The game mode is about dead, there are no ladder matches and barely any AT (automated tournament) matches. The only time when people really play GvG is the mAT (monthly automated tournament), which is highly competitive. The teaching scrims project has been abandoned, so getting into the small, elitist circle of GvG players has become even harder. Your best chance is to join the teamquitter discord  https://discord.gg/P9xn5tP  and try to get into the irregularly happening competitive scrims (channel GvG). As for teaching: Take a look into the guides over here. Before you ask someone during the scrims to give you personal hints/lessons you should already have covered the basics by reading some guides and practicing basic mechanics like quarterstepping and bull's strike dodging. --Krschkr (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Divide and Conquer
If you want, give me some sections of the beginner's guide to write.--Saxazaxx (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to do that, go for it. I won't add more to the page until in ~20 hours and then I'll probably focus on the builds sections, so we shouldn't run into edit conflicts if you tackle the basics or walkthrough sections. But keep in mind that I might mercilessly edit your contributions! I don't yet know how I want that guide to look like in the end, so there might be larger changes over the next days. --Krschkr (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll do a basics section for now. Is there a beginner guide already?--Saxazaxx (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably somewhere, but I don't know any. If there's a good one we could reduce this to the build part and some notes to the nightfall walkthrough. --Krschkr (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry I haven't uploaded any guide sections, I have been very busy with school and have been thinking about quitting the game. I mean, I don't see much of a point if real pvp (gvg) is filled with jerks, just like gw2 pvp. I think the game has great gameplay, but it's a waste of my time if people are constantly being horrible. Anyway, I'll have to put any contributions to a beginner guide on the back burner for now. My apologies.--Saxazaxx (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll get to do it eventually. Thanks for the notification. --Krschkr (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

What are you working on right now?
Can you give me a general idea of a large project you're working on right now, or what, in general, your goals are for designing builds for the game? I think I want to stick around for the time being, and I'm not really sure where to apply my efforts, other than the beginner content, of course. I know you have a lot of builds, I'm just interested in what it is exactly that you are trying to discover as you contribute to this site.--Saxazaxx (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Initially I was just looking for a new place with working GWBB-code to store builds as the new wartower doesn't support it anymore and the guildwarslegacy staff somehow managed to break theirs without ever fixing it (and except for one nice one their mods were horrid). But then I noticed that all the toxic people had left PvX by now so I could aswell improve and expand its public content. Despite large parts of the community being so utterly ungrateful or plain toxic I've spent most of my time in GW in the last years helping other players ingame. Now that there barely are any people left in my range the only way to keep this up is to reach out and help people by improving PvX content with the limited knowledge and experience I have. This experience comes from testing various builds and having fun with silly build ideas; the main thing that pushes me to look into a new build is to have fun through variety. That may be by exploring a theme or a certain mechanic (like the recent Rüdiway which combines the positive feedback loop communing prots provide with synergizing shutdown mesmers) or sometimes even following a build challenge.
 * You see: I usually don't have a definitive goal, no actual project. The testing routes might be seen as a larger scale project? They are meant to serve multiple purposes:


 * Test the viability of teams in the first place, determining whether they are good.
 * Compare the performance of multiple teams to identify which works best (and why).
 * Based on this give relative ratings which take into account other builds.
 * Testing routes could be used by different players to see how large the impact of the individual playing style is.
 * The final result should be to have less arbitrary team build ratings and archiving outdated/similar team builds based on the test results. Sadly it's way too late to develop generalized testing routes as there are no people left to test builds on them, so all this effort will be in vain. :p --Krschkr (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Good to know. Yes, the toxicity in PvP has driven me away. I will not waste my time playing with people who do nothing but push me away. So, if PvP's off the table because they're all elitist jerks, then PvE is the only thing left. I self-sabotaged myself a bit when I opened 100+ Nick gifts because no one would buy them for 5e each after I tried selling them for a month. As I think you know, in my opinion, botters are totally ruining the game, and PvE is under their command as long as Anet is AWOL (although, I have reason to believe they are not as distant as we might think). The only thing left for honest players to do is to do things that botters simply cannot--this is why I got interested in The Deep - it' very difficult to bot that. Build theorizing is another one, but I feel like there has to be some goal in mind, or else I'd rather leave all the toxicity and cheating by the wayside, and just pick up another game.
 * I have a bit of training in literary analysis, so another route I considered taking by playing this game, was to analyze the story behind the game. However, when it comes down to it, the story behind the game is rather cliche--it's basically a medieval romance. I think I have been dying to scrape something tangible out of all the thousands of hours I've invested into playing it, and I think it really is possible--since I want to go into game design, I do want to apply what I've learned to new games that I make.
 * So, as far as my goals go, I think I have mentioned that I have this faint glimmer of a goal to find the "super build" that breaks the game. I do understand that It might be a fool's errand--it certainly is a fool's errand to apply my training in Classical literary analysis to the story behind a triple-A game that is much more market-driven than art-driven. That much I am certain about. But as far as gameplay goes, Guild Wars is high on the list, compared to other games.
 * I'm writing essays again. As far as your testing routes project goes, I can't say I'm very interested in contributing. I appreciate that you're trying to find a more objective standard upon which to rate builds. But I have found, recently, that the arguments go back and forth, and ultimately nowhere, when it comes to the effectiveness of a "general build," since there are so many different areas, and twice as many as that if you consider Normal Mode and Hard Mode. I have mentioned before that I think it would be a much more interesting project to reverse-engineer each different area in the game, analyze the skills and builds of every type of foe in each general area, and design comps that are more specialized. After all, it only takes a few clicks to load up builds, if you're running through campaigns, or vanquishing a new area, for example. This is part of the thinking behind the 6 Hero Burning Campaign team, that is to say, the fact that I tested it without runes or weapons, so that it could be shuttled throughout the game, without needing to be tweaked for every scenario. Obviously, minor runes and health runes are beneficial in all scenarios, and so are armor insignias.
 * Side note about insignias and whether or not to put runes and perfect weapons on heroes for general builds: If you consider the different kinds of insignias from a standpoint of being offensive or defensive, in reality, radiant insignias (+energy) really are preferable, if you're going for a more offensive play style and composition; most people would never use them unless they would be farming. I noticed that Barath had full Radiant insignias on his heroes for his Hard Mode/End Game comps on YouTube, that's where I got that idea. So, maybe, for general builds, it would be best to do tests with full radiant insignias, instead of additional armor or health...
 * So... in reference to your response, I do agree that for the community, as it stands, creating general builds and comps is going to be our best bet, since there are a whole host of toxic players and botters; but we're not making builds for them, anyway. After all, no matter where you go, you'll find people cheating and printing money--if you can't live with that, then you're on the wrong planet. But you're right that there probably aren't enough people to test these builds, or that would even use them if they were perfected - a fool's errand.
 * This is why I think it's important to have an achievable goal. I have found in my life in general, that when I am trying achieve one thing, I end up achieving many others as by-products, and I don't even realize these other things I'm learning, until that one day when you pull that obscure skill out of the bag and "wow" everyone at the cocktail party. So, playing the game and trying to find silly builds does even have some benefit that we might not be aware of - you might just have a moment of realization when designing the silliest build, that lets you solo DOA in 1 minute. Well, maybe not. I just got tired of SCing the same areas with the same tactics, day after day, accumulating ecto after ecto, for no apparent reason, other than to spend time with friends who, by virtue of being faceless internet people, I would have to keep at arm's length at all times, for fear that my identity would be stolen, or that my safety would be compromised.
 * So, so.... I want to find that super build. If I have to tear this Universe another black hole, I'm going to find it, I've, GOT TO, MISTER!!! *beep beep beep beep*--Saxazaxx (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * PvP) It's a shame that the state of the community is as it is. I'm mostly a PvE player, but imo GvG is the peak of Guild Wars's game modes. If we just had about 500 more dedicated GvG players... heh.
 * Bots) People can use bots to do most things. So what? They ruin the economy entirely, but they don't ruin the gameplay. They don't have PvE under their command. I won't stop playing fun content like DoA or WoC just because parts of them can be botted. That'd be a very odd reaction in my opinion, so I can't really understand that this is your reasoning behind the deep endeavours.
 * Super build) Unless you find a new Doomspike (how about: 1hp dark aura + BiP N/As with mark of protection support for 5x 160 AoE dps? :p) all you can do is try to optimize what all of us worked with in the last few years. And there's still a lot of optimizing to be done. Just look at the current meta team builds' mesmers, ow. And maybe you're interested in Rüdiway? It's a very unoptimized team build so far, but the "your entire team is immune to damage" concept sounds like something you'd like. I'm certain that it can be played without mercenaries if combining snares + skills which cause scattering.
 * Insignias) Unless you have a player that maintains shelter or SY permanently armour insignias are the better choice as they'll protect your team when it's most vulnerable: During shelter/SY downtimes. More energy hardly helps. +8 energy allows your hero to cast one second longer, but then he's run out of energy and lurks at 0 like a hero without radiant insignias. You need energy management.
 * General teams) It's largely pointless to create 1200 teams if one with a few variable skill slots suffices entirely. If a build doesn't work in most content it can't be recommended imo, unless it's designed for certain especially hard content where the general builds fall short. And normal mode is a joke compared to hard mode. Anything goes. I'm strongly against normal mode builds for non-transitional use.
 * Literary analysis) You probably shouldn't waste your time with Guild Wars. Morrowind should be a much better game to take a look at. Different perspectives, no definite truth, a lot of interesting lore taking inspiration from many different sources that are somewhat uncommon in (american) game creation. --Krschkr (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Legendary Guardian Run
Hey, I had an idea that since the Mesmer meta seems pretty fast now, I would want to gear up my heroes and do a 100% run of all the campaigns and see how fast I could do it. I envision that recording standing as a sort of testament to the current state of heroway theroycrafting and the game in general. My question to you would be, which team comps should I use, if I was to run this on a Sin, for the 4- and 6-man areas? Thanks,--Saxazaxx (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Party size 4 is not relevant. You'll do the Shing Jea missions before you get your first heroes, you'll be level 20 when you get in range of the remaining party size 4 missions and can just roll through them with some of these OQljAoCsJOnAT30LHAAAA7YAA so there's not much of a build required. Party size 6 is slightly different, as that includes some longer missions with actual foes in prophecies. OwAS4Y4OmkqPelf0Fp+uk5B with and OAhkQoG4hEyzdYqWVnDSzJnwbcC filled with something like OQljAoCsJOnAT30LHMEwp7YBA 3x should do. 2x shatter enchantment in the crystal desert over resurrection signet. --Krschkr (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would be running it with a level 20 char through every mission with level 20 heroes, not starting from a new Proph character.--Saxazaxx (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In which case you can run the triple Me/P in Cho's aswell. Or you bring mind burn. Star burst. Invoke lightning. Anything, really, those are just level 8 warriors you're fighting. --Krschkr (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ...In HM. I was talking about what 4- or 6-man teams you think would be best for the low party missions in HM, level 20 with fully geared lvl 20 heroes.--Saxazaxx (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Might want to correct the section header to "Legendary Guardian Run". LifeGuardian (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Like that?--Saxazaxx (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Ohhhhh, sorry, I did get that totally wrong. Thought you just needed normal mode. This changes matters quite a bit. In general, the fastest team for party size 4 which I have played is this one, but it is designed to be played as a midline role. Using some additional defense on your assassin (flashing blades + critical defense) wouldn't work so well either because of Shove (factions) and Wild Blow (prophecies). It might work well enough with an AP caller build – OwVjMOesATyA2kLQ7imOxk4UXA – surprise, with mesmer skills :D. You'll have to do some tests to check whether it works well. In Nolani Academy you might be faster in total by playing a tank build, so you can take the quick route out of the academy. For factions one ineptitude mesmer over one of the energy surge mesmers might be a good idea because you fight an unusually high amount of warriors. For Jokanur Diggings you'll have to change that a bit because of Melonni. That team is what I'd go for. No spirits and minions which slow you down or risk the bonus. In general that's what you should go for if the triple energy surge plan doesn't work. Melonni could probably replace the E/Mo quite well for that mission, roughly like that: OgOlwyqxq4gP68envIY1L6mcrFnH – let's avoid losing out on strength of honour. The build page features a relatively defensive build variant. For some more offense, take an energy surge mesmer with spiritual pain and shatter hex over the keystone mesmer. You shouldn't need the AoE interrupts, just more damage. In Chahbek you could bring a selfheal and play without a healer. I haven't yet done much testing for party size 6 so I can't provide you with actual test results indicating which build would be best-suited for your endeavour. You could start your tests with this and then move forward with it until you find something that fits perfectly: OAOjEyiM5MXTMm3scyMlmTuWC – OQhkAoDoAHKzJY6lDMdDhMARI5C – OQhkAoB8AGK0LACYeGJgIQGARwFD – OAljUwGpZSKgUB4BbhVV8Y7Y1Y – OgNEwbHu+6QLqFkEtY94uC1mH – you just play a standard dagger build. Good luck with your project. --Krschkr (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, but if there isn't a consensus on the best general-use comp for low man areas, then there wouldn't be much of a point in doing a run like the one I mentioned, I would have to only do the 8-man missions and cut out most of Proph. But thanks for the info anyway.--Saxazaxx (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for any party size. --Krschkr (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

PM
Hey, is there an IGN I can PM you on in game?--Saxazaxx (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Erik Schlotzhauer. Don't try K R S C H K R, that name has been stolen in 2016. --Krschkr (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Rt/any Destructive Was Glaive Bomber
Hey Krschkr, I cleaned up the DwG page, with the most significant change being the removal of the Arcane Echo variant. The reasoning for this is on the DwG talk page. Let me know what you think, and feel free to add it back if you think its needed on the page. Soldier198 (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

AOTL Change
There's a note on the BIP Melee history mentioning an unofficial change to AOTL. I looked around but couldn't see what changed, so I figured I'd ask. Also saw you hadn't been around the GW reddit recently, and wanted to say I appreciate your contributions, and hope the negativity hasn't driven you away. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grokwell (talk &bull; contribs) 14:47, 13 May 2019.
 * The game update on february 5th 2019 changed the AI usage of a couple of skills. A guild mate of mine noticed that at least two skills had been affected by this update which aren't mentioned in the patch notes: Aura of the Lich and Masochism. Prior to the AI update heroes would let these enchantments run out before applying them again. Now they try to reapply these enchantments right before they end, so the skills benefit from their own attribute boost. I changed a couple of attribute values on hero builds to reflect that change.
 * About reddit: Alas, you're right. I've never enjoyed that place much because of the unpleasant or outright hostile demeanour of many active people over there. (At some point I came to know that a certain circle of "high end PvE players" over there frequently made disparaging memes about things I had written, taken out of context. This included passages taken without permission from private messages I had sent.) Therefore I have, coincident with my break from playing GW, left reddit. I only go there every now and then to check and react to my private messages and other notifications until I don't anymore receive them. The few people which are active in PvX are nice and positive, so I'm going to stay here. Of course it would be better with some more activity, but I prefer having few mostly good experiences over few good embedded in many, many regrettable encounters. --Krschkr (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

My builds
Hey man I've noticed I'm not very good at theorycrafting builds myself. Maybe I'm trying too hard to make the perfect shutdown team like PvE. But I don't have a clue when it comes to PvP. I'm wondering if you were interested in designing theoreotical builds.

You've told me in the past that you prefer practical working builds. And reading most of the metagame of pvp's team builds I see they all have evidence of being used in GvG matches. You've got matches recorded to prove which have been used. Is this the way the meta pvp builds will be formed on this website?

I'm asking this because I can't design builds to counter the meta if the only builds put into meta are the builds that are actually used at the moment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming What I mean by telling you all this is that I have some ideas of builds such as this one: Anti-everything Spirits:

[build prof=R/Rt bea=10+1+1 exp=8+1 wil=8+1 res=10][Edge of Extinction][Predatory Season][Nature's Renewal][Pestilence][Tranquility][Quickening Zephyr][Tranquil Was Tanasen][Serpent's Quickness][/build]

And I've seen builds like that applied in: https://gwpvx.gamepedia.com/Build:Team_-_HA_BBway and https://gwpvx.gamepedia.com/Build:Team_-_GvG_Tranquility

But I'm wondering if pvx wiki is here only to document the builds used in the metagame or to try to counter it. I know there are players much more experienced than myself in the pvp scene who know what works and what doesn't. I know you love this game and have passion for it and I've seen your dedication to running the site.

Don't consider me an enemy of you mate. If you remember I was one of the first people to give you a positive comment on your profile. And look at you now you're the leader of PvX wiki. And look at me I can't even get a single pvp build vetted lol.

I'm asking for your help. I need a friend in this world and if you'd like to be it on this website and introduce me to the pvp scene I'd appreciate it. I have so many good nostalgic memories of guild wars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFWvdyCk1Uo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlQijt46TzE

I was never part of the group of people who were pros in this game. In fact in the past as a kid I was permanently banned from Guild Wars for trolling. I'm ready to grow up and to listen to people and their concepts.

Maybe I'm a rebel without a cause. I've always had a personality that challenges the norm. So I guess my final question is are you willing to try to change the meta or just document it here on PvX wiki? Rickyf16aus (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I fear that you overestimate my influence, both in PvX and the PvP scene. As an administrator I'm expected to solve disputes between PvX users if they were to occur and my user rights are extended so I can counteract vandalism. But regarding the content on this site my word doesn't weigh more than that of any other user (PvX:ADMIN). If it appears otherwise that can be explained by the low community activity in the last year. Basically, you can add any good build to PvX (PvX:AR) and it has always been a common practice to add sparingly or untested builds to PvX. Unless a build violates PvX:WELL it's given the benefit of doubt and stays until it has gone through the PvX:VETTING process. Whether a build is of sufficient quality to be featured in PvX is thus a matter of community consensus. However, as far as I can tell, it has also always been an issue that PvP players weren't very interested in PvX. That's one of the reasons why there's a meta category for PvP builds in the first place: It bypasses vetting for selected builds because there are too few votes, especially for GvG. That's never been more true than nowadays. What should and what shouldn't end up in the meta category is the topic of this discussion – feel free to be the first to voice his opinion. My personal approach to PvP builds in PvX was to document the working builds, not to theorycraft. The reason for it is twofold: Firstly, there are many good and different GvG teams that already exist and are in use, so they should have priority. Secondly, as a personal note, there's no chance that I ever get a team to test my theory crafted builds so their functionality can be verified, the builds optimized and the build page rated – I don't rate builds I don't have experience with. Yep, despite I've been playing GvG for about three years and even managed to form my own team in very few occasions I was never able to convince people to test my selfmade builds. They wouldn't even listen to my build calls if it was something pre-existent. For me as a builds person this always was a huge disappointment and I still lament it in retrospect. Due to this experience and the state of the community I personally won't add PvP build theory crafts. But don't let my approach stop you if you'd like to do it, because as I said, doing so is covered by policy and common practice. Just don't expect that anyone will ever rate them.
 * Due to the unsuccessfulness of mine I layed out and my recent withdrawal from the GvG scene as a result of another failure to form my own team I'm definitely not the right person to shake up the meta, or to get you into GvG. If you want to get into the GvG scene, the most promising thing to do is to join the PvP focused Guild Wars discord servers: https://discord.gg/79VZr6V (Teamquitter) and https://discord.gg/56VXBYB (North America)
 * My nowadays very reduced activity is PvE-only. I'm sorry that I can't be more accomodating. --Krschkr (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey
I'm reading through your edits and you're doing a great job for your adminship.--Shadowrelic (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I hope I'll be able to keep it up for a while, there's still a lot to do! --Krschkr (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

June Flux D/E Team Build
Any comments and suggestions on this? https://gwpvx.gamepedia.com/User:Cutelethalpuppy/Builds/Team/JuneFluxDerv I think there's potential with something like this. Would it be better if 3 derv, 1 mes, 1 ranger, 3 backline? Or change ranger to mesmer? I'm thinking the 4xD, 1xR 3xMo version is more resilient, esp with multiple imbue health dervishes. Energy can be a problem esp for the "Conjure" versions but switching to a radiant scythe can help a bit. But maybe it's just more worth it to have more imbue healths - that allows a derv to push in deeper to harass stuff (like flag runners) more safely without needing the monks to come up so fast - because the other dervs can help heal that derv. Cute Lethal Puppy (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * By the looks of the build the game plan is an 8v8 flag push with spread pressure when fighting 8v8. Until testing it there's no way to say what happens when actually using it. However, I'll let the team run through a thought experiment against the team which the majority of teams ran in the last years during this flux: Build:Team - GvG June Elementalist Spike


 * Training single targets. [[Shielding Hands@14] greatly reduces the damage dealt by the dervishes. As their scythe damage is already reduced from [[Grenth's Aura@11] it will likely drop to 0 upon further reduction: The scythe damage is reduced by 34/hit, after all. The health drain itself is reduced to 0 aswell, since shielding hands has the same reduction as grenth's aura drains health points. In the worst case, the entire attack damage is reduced to 0 during shielding hands' uptime due to the damage split and reduction and the dervishes won't do much more than the vampiric scythe's bonus damage. (Vampiric weapons bypass shielding hands, for whichever reason.) Likewise, a single [[Guardian@14] can already drastically reduce the single target damage output of this team. Add [[Dark Escape@10] from the flag holding elementalist and you can't even force a kill with the point blank area spells.
 * Evaluation: The team can't force kills on single targets.
 * Relevance: By the looks of the builds your team needs the flag push to gain on the opponent. But if the opponent doesn't need to actually run flags you can't make any use of this tactic. Capturing the flag alone won't make the opponent start running flags. If they see that you run a flag push style team, they will hold the flag as long as possible as they have a great 8v8 power. For the beginning of the 8v8 you'll even be down a player since you need to run a second flag right away. If you cap the flag while having 8 people at stand, the opponent will simply overcap when possible and push very hard when you send someone running a flag. So, if you want to enter the flag push game any soon (and you need it!) you need to kill the flag holder or have threatiningly powerful single target damage options.
 * Suggestion: Either this) or that) would allow you to deal with the protection prayers. Since the dervishes don't spam shortliving conditions like the common [[Avatar of Balthazar@12] and uncommon [[Avatar of Grenth@12] dervishes you won't be able to make much use of [[Fragility (PvP)@14] and due to having [[Aura Slicer@14] the cracked armor from [[Shrinking Armor@14] seems redundant aswell. Toying with the assassin build might be the best choice. Mark of insecurity seems to calculate the remaining enchantment duration in three steps:
 * (New enchantment duration) = (Original enchantment duration) * (1 − MoI%)
 * Round up.
 * Reduce the enchantment duration by at least 1 second.
 * Assuming that the prot monk had equipped the staff before applying mark of insecurity, the resulting enchantment duration of shielding hands/[[Spirit Bond (PvP)@14] should be one second at 16 deadly arts, two at 14 and three at 11. If the prot monk switches to the staff after the hex is applied, the resulting enchantment duration should change to two, two and three seconds respectively. For [[Air of Disenchantment@14] it'd be at 14/11 illusion magic staff first four/four and hex first three/five seconds. I'd say that an unfluxed 16 deadly arts mark of insecurity assassin is the more promising than a fluxed 11 deadly arts one (unless you get interrupted) and preferably to fluxed aswell as unfluxed air of disenchantment mesmers. So, if you want to go the hex-based way of making protection prayers unviable, the unfluxed assassin is your best bet. It'll also help against dark escape, by the way.
 * Side note: The utter power of shielding hands against health drain dervishes is also the reason why that skill on a monk runner is a direct counter against Bezman. Not only will the protected target not take any damage worth mentioning, this protection also completely negates the health drain from aura and [[Avatar of Grenth@12]. If some pit NPCs are still alive or the dervish received additional pressure it's possibly a death warrant.


 * Lineback/shutdown potential: Looks low. The dervishes have neither interruption nor enchantment removal nor any form of punishment to intercept the [[Stoning@13] spam. Attack the elementalists won't even force them into their shield sets as the scythe attack damage is already very low from [[Grenth's Aura@11]. So the only shutdown you have is from the unfluxed ranger. However, the faster casting during this flux will make interrupting very hard, even more so on a ranger compared to a mesmer. I don't see that this team has any means of effectively stopping the opponent from doing their work.
 * Evaluation: The opponent will force his game plan onto your team in 8v8 situations.
 * Relevance: If you can't stop the elementalist spam you're unable to take action and you might just die.
 * Suggestion: Unless you find a way to perform deep enchantment removals on your D/E characters (coordinated attack skill usage on knocked down targets with [[Rending Aura@11] on everyone, spamming [[Rending Sweep@10], working with [[Rending Touch@9] or [[Winds of Disenchantment@11] or [[Test of Faith@11]) there isn't even a way to deal with the opponents' energy management. Large-scale build changes might be required: A spike with wind of disenchantment + dual damage [[Gust@11]/[[Mirror of Ice@11], drop scythe mastery entirely and keep Grenth's Aura for a bit of self-healing and pressure? That wouldn't really help with shutdown but you'd keep the flag push abilities and might be able to spike targets at least.

pwnd0001?download pawned2 @ memorial.redeemer.biz | Copyright 2008-2018 Redeemer >ZOgajwqq6yOi7uf41+Wd7vKxpLAAAACBBAAKUG9zLiAxCgZOgajssqKrOi7uf41+WdVi93pLAAAACBB AAKUG9zLiAyCgZOgajwqqKyOi7uv3WAUu7vLtpLAAAACBBAAKUG9zLiAzCgZOgajwqqKyOi7uv3OAXdX a93pLAAAACBBAAKUG9zLiA0CgYOgNDgKr/O0iwRzwb8NAFgVtIAAAADIAIAAKUG9zLiA1CgaOwETAxHX ViiQLKgQgYlom4BcuAAAAACARAAKUG9zLiA2CgbOwcUAzG/y/QeRNgkECE1NTf3ENQAAAACQJAAKUG9z LiA3CgaOwcTA12+UyLqBULSgouZ67mYCCAAAACQJAAKUG9zLiA4Cg<
 * General pressure: I don't think that the dervishes will do much of that. The elementalist spells are definitely annoying, but the expected damage output is nowhere near killing. The ranger can't really change that either, especially if his poison is taken out. If your dervishes spread their attacks a single [[Shield Guardian@11] will block about 5 attacks, producing 160 party healing on top of the proection power. That really throws you back, and will you use the ranger solely for taking out shield guardians?
 * Relevance: Well, you want to kill, don't you? The team doesn't have very good spikes so you have to deal more damage than the opponent can outheal. Especially if you happen to succeed with the flag push plan: When you're in the opponents base and boosting, you need to finish them off somehow. I don't expect that to happen with this team.
 * Suggestion: Idk.


 * Flag game: You have the snares to keep a target permanently at 10% movement speed: [[Mirror of Ice@11] alongside cripple will do that. Thanks to mirror of ice recharging in 6 seconds and having two copies of it you may well keep it up through normal amounts of hex removal. But the single target damage issues mentioned above may prevent that the flag push really drains the opponent. [[Gust@11] will do some nice knock downs aswell, but only during the short downtime of [[Aura of Stability@14] which you can't remove. Your own flag running should be done by one of the gust dervishes due to the relatively good speed boost, the additional armor, the cripple removal (don't expect many rangers this month, but still) and your need to keep the monks in main team to somehow survive.
 * Evaluation: If you take the anti enchantment assassin or mesmer over the ranger the flag push abilities of this build look very promising!
 * Suggestion: Drop the ranger for an anti enchantment character and the second gust dervish for a more flexible midline character which runs flags and may defend splits or split itself.

pwnd0001?download pawned2 @ memorial.redeemer.biz | Copyright 2008-2018 Redeemer >ZOgajwqq6yOi7uf41+KA82KxAMAAAACBBAAKUG9zLiAxCgaOgajoqsaySibdfhXxCCAebpOWgAAAACB BAAKUG9zLiAyCgaOgajwqqKySibdfhX2XCAebLNWgAAAACBBAAKUG9zLiAzCgbOgpkkoM6quUj0IVQK2 Ge1Vh6l9CAAAADBAIAAKUG9zLiA0CgZOQRDAasjS4ZTAGg9UkONCEBCAAAAACIBAAKUG9zLiA1CgaOwE TAxHXViiQLKgQgYlom4BcuAAAAACARAAKUG9zLiA2CgbOwcUAzG/y/QeRNgkECE1NTf3ENQAAAACQJAA KUG9zLiA3CgaOwcTA12+UyLqBULSgouZ67mYCCAAAACQJAAKUG9zLiA4Cg<
 * Resilience: With just one [[Balanced Stance@10] and [[Aura of Stability@14] without meaningful shutdown or energy denial you're going to get [[Stoning@13] spammed, first destroying your killing potential and then your backline.
 * Splitting: None of the build's characters have a chance to kill through a monk or survive either of the splitable elementalists of the opponent. None of your characters except for the monk can defend against a split elementalist.
 * Relevance: If the opponent loses in an 8v8 situation (which is your team's strength) he'll start outsplitting you.
 * Suggestion: The flag game team suggestion features a split defense elementalist.


 * Over all comment: I think that fluxed dervishes are best-suited as support characters in teams like Spirit's Strength or Star Burst replacing a point blank gust elementalist. Attacks don't benefit from the flux, so results with fluxed martial characters tend to be... not so shining. If you want resilient Any/E characters making use of the flux, use a bunch of star burst rangers. They have good pressure and due to Teinai's Wind they can even do ranged pressure spikes. Mixed with enchantment removal mesmers they could be quite dangerous. If you want to make use of melee and casting abilities of the dervishes, use them as support for spirit's strength. Or you may even try them as full casters as a replacement for the elementalists in a Dual Elementalist Spike, using a dual gust midline for less prominent spikes with more utility, melee harassment and the option to bring dervish healing in form of [[Imbue Health@11] or [[Watchful Intervention@11]. However, I fear that simply taking stoning spam elementalists is going to be more useful even in that context.
 * I don't want to shatter hopes (and again, I really can't tell how the team will actually play out) but from the looks of it, its killing potential won't deliver, it's susceptible to splits and can't handle the dual earth magic meta in an 8v8. I'd love to see you bring this in the monthly tomorrow and show me that I was all wrong about it. that would mean to finally see a refreshing build. --Krschkr (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually I think a solo dervish with Vow of Piety can handle a solo split Ele. Vow of Piety reduces ele damage a lot, Harrier's grasp can remove 1 blind/cracked armor, and most split Eles don't have cripple removal (or hex removal vs a MoI VoP variant). I suspect it's more of whether they have enough KD and/or enough blind (I don't see much blind on many split ele bars nowadays).
 * Regarding shielding hands, it does depend on how many copies of SH there are vs how many dervishes, secondly the dervish does not have to keep Grenth's Aura up when training a SH target (can also remove it early with wearying strike). Grenth's Aura is good for self healing and for high AL targets. So you have options depending on what the enemy build is and what they do.
 * Shield Guardians on the other hand are indeed an issue esp if the dervishes spread targets.
 * Spike damage is about 160-200 + deep wound assuming 1 adjacent derv + 2 dervishes in range (50x2+50+50). 40-50 more if the 4th derv comes within range, likely max is about 300 + deep wound if the target is caster, has cracked armor and is not on shield set (and ranger/mes doesn't help). That's assuming the dervishes don't all ball on the same target and make it obvious - would that actually work e.g. they cap then surround the flag carrier and keep whacking it? The max spike goes up in that scenario... But the rest of your team might start needing too many of those Imbue Healths... ;)
 * The team builds with AoD or lsurge might indeed be more viable. Overall I think the concept has potential and it's a matter of testing to see which variants work better vs what.
 * Lineback Potential: Tactics like enemy midliners not switching to shield sets will mean they take more damage from MoI+Gust. IIRC the last june flux MAT was won by RNE not stone spam, so the build has to handle normal Meta stuff like that as well. And for that I think the lineback potential is high vs enemy melee.
 * For the Flag Game there are other options than just those you mentioned. The players will need practice too e.g. to use MoI on themselves if their targets have Holy Veil, or on others if the holy veil is on them :). So far there does not seem to be much interest in such builds. Everyone especially the less experienced or weaker players seem to prefer meta builds. I suggest that weaker players playing meta team builds have a lower chance of winning against strong players good at the meta team builds, than if they used something different and unexpected that's not crap (maybe even if slightly inferior to meta). -- Cute Lethal Puppy (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Test result for the record: Fluxed split earth ele and unfluxed lightning surge and unfluxed mind burn (both smoldering embers and lava font) win the 1v1. Additional test: Lightning surge and lava font mind burn can kill NPCs through the dervish. --Krschkr (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Back to the drawing board, or need lsurge for split... :) Cute Lethal Puppy (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

My inactivity
I apologize for my long absence, but I fear I will no longer be able to continue as an admin here. Other obligations have taken up enough time that something has to give. I'll be giving you the bureaucrat role (and removing it+admin from myself) so you can promote anyone you see fit to have the tools and you aren't trapped to having no new admins ever. I'm aware that bcrat by default isn't a great situation to be in, but I think you can handle it. I know I have also left unfinished work (particularly the templates) and I can't honestly say that I will be able to finish them. You may want to either revisit them with other users or just abandon them if there doesn't seem to be any need. It seems you used the merge process though, so you may want to pass that one to official policy if there's no changes to be made to it. -Toraen (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, Toraen, for the countless hours you have spent for the community throughout almost ten years adminship. From what I've seen on old talk page entries your contributions have always been mediating and leading to consensus – even though the PvX community back in the days wasn't exactly tame or pleasant. That you could maintain your composure in that environment is respectable, maybe even scary. You may rest assured that I'm going to try to keep working for the best of this community project. --Krschkr (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad there's no hard feelings about my retirement! A lot of my apparent calm on PvX came from reminding myself that this is a wiki for an old video game, not something that is high-stakes or even has any impact at all on the rest of my life. Also, noticed you added a quest category to PvE, and I've updated the build packs accordingly. Copy my latest edit here over to the main template to get it to show up on the main page. Running the script as-is actually captures the new category perfectly fine, so I'm glad my future-proofing wasn't all for naught. -Toraen (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm grateful for what you have done, so even though I don't enjoy the prospect of being the only administrator left there indeed aren't any hard feelings. I guess you received my mail aswell. I carried over the change to the editcopy to the main page, thanks for that. Did your future-proofing go so far to be compatible with the WIP Real-Vetting template, a possible removal of the meta category and a possible reimplementation of a third build quality? We'll have to see where the discussions are going to lead to eventually, but these are some outcomes that wouldn't be surprising. --Krschkr (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is compatible with the Vetted-Build template in its current form (as long as you protect it and change the build editing/real vetting policies, that template could actually go into use right now if you're fine with the current meta indicator), though if you add another rating quality the script will not pick it up without a little more re-coding (it should be trivial though). Removing meta is technically handled because it would simply mean nothing gets "Meta" added to its filename. I've actually almost finished its integration with the variantbar template as well; it wasn't as hard as I thought it would be. I did notice in testing it that several builds still aren't employing it for variant templates though, which means the variants don't get saved or in the case of team builds are not distinguished properly (so it saves a 7 hero team folder with >7 builds and no indication of what's what). That will 'just' be a matter of fixing the offending build pages. -Toraen (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess it would already be an improvement over the current situation. But as long as we give people the option to search for builds on the main page by sorting for popularity the core issue isn't actually taken care of. That's my main qualm. About the variantbars, did you mean that the current implementation of the variantbar template is incorrect on some pages, or is the issue that some pages have variants that are not yet in the variantbar template? --Krschkr (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's the latter. I did check my script output for incorrectly used templates (such as missing name or position in team builds) and didn't see any such errors, which is good. The Vetted-Build template and script are pretty flexible, if discussion leads to any/all meta categories being removed from the main page, then adjusting the build tags (and thus the script output) is as simple as just removing '|meta=yes|' from any builds that have that specified in a Vetted-Build tag. Disabling the parameter in the template would also have the same effect for much less work (though it may take time to propagate through all affected pages). Adjusting the main page itself will be trickier but not too difficult. -Toraen (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit Title/Move Page of Rt/A Spirit's Strength Axe RA
Hey Krschkr, when I put Rt/A Spirit's Strength Axe RA on the website I accidently put Assassin as the secondary profession in the webpage title. Anyway you can correct this? If not, I guess we can just move the contents onto a correctly formatted page and delete the old one. Soldier198 (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually wanted to move that one already but forgot it. Thanks for mentioning it. --Krschkr (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem Soldier198 (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Legioway
Hello Krschkr, I'm trying to edit the Legioway and combine the IV and BiP variants. But I came to the point where I'm removing so much that the automated edit prevention activates ("Large removal"). This is what I'm trying to edit it to: Legioway. DarkManic1337 (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. I'd like to use this opportunity to let you know that in the long run the lower party size variants of the team will have to be separated from the 7 hero page to allow for meaningful vetting: With basically 3 teams on one page it's hardly possible to accurately rate the build. Another team where this has been done is this mercenary team. By the way, you're allowed to rate builds you've submitted, so feel free to participate in the vetting for i.e. Legioway yourself. --Krschkr (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

PvE Paragon Healer
A discussion in my Alliance chat channel spurred me to ask, are there any Paragon healing builds for PvE? I see nothing on this wiki, and in the archive I only found one build with some healing aspects. I might try and make one myself, if possible. Soldier198 (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been tried a couple of times and I remember that such a build was deleted/moved to the userspace a couple of months ago. No matter what you do, paragons aren't suited for healing.
 * Controlled spot healing: Only [[Signet of Synergy@16] which is killed by its recharge time.
 * Uncontrolled spot healing: [[Finale of Restoration@16] heals for immense amounts of health, provided the team supplies you with plenty of shouts. Without some kind of shout spamming the skill won't be worth it. Combine a full paragon healer (see below) with two characters spamming the two copies of [["Save Yourselves!"] would probably make it worthwhile, especially as you can maintain it on multiple targets. But: This requires that you have enough shouts in the first place, which means that you either have a surplus of protection through SY and the paragon healer won't be needed in the first place or you intentionally sabotate your team's performance by playing some kind of Paraway. Also, if you're unlucky you'll receive the healing when you're currently at full health and then not when you're needing it – like when you're knocked down and can't trigger shouts like [["Go for the Eyes!"]. Apart from the finale there's also [[Angelic Protection] but the way this skill works is absolutely terrible and killed completely by the recharge time.
 * Party healing: There are some skills. In normal teams there are only three of them which can be triggered somewhat reliably: [[Song of Restoration@16], [[Aria of Restoration@16], [[Ballad of Restoration@16]. Paraway style teams also have [[Chorus of Restoration@16] They share two problems. 1) Long recharge time of 20 seconds. 2) The healing is often triggered when the character does not need the healing and it won't anymore be available when the character actually does. Compare that to the hero usage of or the player's ability to deliberately use [[Heal Party], [[Divine Healing] and [[Protective Was Kaolai] when needed or the steady stream of party healing from [[Recuperation], [[Avatar of Dwayna] or [[Healing Burst]. Don't underestimate [[Mending Refrain@16] though, which is basically a permanent unkillable recuperation and stacks with the actual spirit – provided you have plenty of shouts ending every few seconds so the refrain remains active, which evokes the same problem as finale of restoration.
 * Cleansing: [[It's just a flesh wound.] would be good condition removal but heroes don't spam it. [[Song of Purification@16] is a very good condition removal but takes song of restoration's elite skill slot, so you lose your best healing skill. [[Hexbreaker Aria] is the paragon's only hex removal, but not that great due to being untargeted, requiring 8 adrenaline, taking so long to use and only working for spellcasters, making it bad for paraway style teams and barely useful for rangers, warriors, assassins and some ritualists. So we can't really be happy about that part.
 * Paragon healing is very half-baked. You're either barely effective or unneeded or cripple your entire team so your own build works. That's why no paragon healing build has ever succeeded in convincing the PvX community to give it something other than a trash rating. If you just want some kind of fun build for personal use, you can try serpent's quickness to reduce the recharge time of TNTF and some paragon heals, but it won't be that great, really.


 * OQKjgqnMGSrbeYcYqYxYAh3lIH


 * Sorry that I couldn't give you any more positive answer, but there's not much hope for paragons in either PvE or PvP. --Krschkr (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, shame. Would've been interesting if Anet had expanded upon the concept of a Paragon healer in future expansions. Oh well. Soldier198 (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Paragons would've required a total rework to make them functioning as (physical) support characters without making them either very disappointing (current situation) or vastly overpowered (previous situation, particularly in PvP, which is the very reason why people still insist on trying to make paraway style teams). Suggestion: Rework the skill type chant. Only one chant can affect a character at a time. Chants apply to party members in earshot of the user (paragon) in real time with the remaining duration, so if you move into earshot of a chanting paragon you receive the buff, if you move out of earshot you lose it. If chants collide, the one with the greater remaining duration overpowers or in case it's used by the chant center, the new one is applied and the old one ceases. Leadership would probably require to get a new functionality that interacts with the reworked chant skill type. Reason: Make the paragon actually useful instead of ending up with a chant on a non-paragon at full effect. Suggestion: Leadership extends the duration of chants by, say, 4% per rank. Balance it with the skill durations and recharge times so only paragons can maintain or nearly maintain chants. Echo skill type would then require a rework aswell: Echoes can still be stacked per character, but those with non-permanent effect don't anymore trigger on shouts/chants ending, but on chants being active. I.e. finale of restoration could heal affected characters by 5...29...35 every 4 seconds as long as they're currently affected by a chant. Target result: Every team would want to have exactly one paragon to receive the defensive, offensive or utility buffs from a maintained chant while the paragon is also available to do some supportive damage/support triggering. With echoes reworked and chants limited to one/team we also don't trip into the positive feedback loop issue of the initial paragon that caused paraways. Multiple paragons per team could still be used to make use of the skill type shout and of course the ranged damage dealing of paragons – just need to make the spear attacks a bit more interesting. ;) In PvP a paragon would be strong, as long as the team plays an 8v8 or 7v7 fight, but be of questionable value in split games or lower party sizes. A risk/reward gamble, if you will. Well, at least I like the idea and I'll probably write it down in detail some day, some people might be interested in that not very useful re-balancing talk. --Krschkr (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I too fantasize about rebalancing Guild Wars. However, I think it would've been more appropriate for Paragon Chants and Shouts to simply disable other copies of them on party members skill bars, for PvP only of course. It's true that this would've been a kneejerk reaction to the strength of Paragons in PvP, but look it at this way, it would've retained the strength of a single Paragon on a team while removing the synergy of multiple Paragons, likely better for PvP as a whole. So now you can have your pre-2007 Incoming reduce 50% of all damage on teammates for every 5 out of 20 seconds without being able to stack it. Soldier198 (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Mesmerways - I'm confused...
I know you're in the middle of a big cleanup for this, as per Project 7 Hero Meta/WIP Build Page, but my brain is tired. I don't know if this belongs there, or which team build page should have it, so I'm bringing it to you instead. Can you or someone explain to me the reasoning behind having Triple Energy Surge, Quintuple Energy Surge, and Mercenary Mesmerway at the same time as three separate articles? From what I can tell, Triple Energy Surge is just using the MM variant of the Quintuple Energy Surge build, but where one mesmer swaps to N/Mo Prot or Rt/Mo SoS. Perhaps the argument is that one requires no mercenaries and the other requires 2? Well in that case, Quintuple Energy Surge is just a variant of the Merceneray Mesmerway team, where one mesmer swaps to Ineptitude and another to SoS Resto. No matter which argument is made, one build can disappear into the variants of another page to reduce cluttering of the build space. On that note, BiP Melee Support and BiP_Caster_Support are literally the exact same team builds except for Strength of Spirit and can therefore be merged. Except of course that they are also pretty much the exact same build as the Triple Energy Surge team with one Ineptitude instead, and Resto instead of Smite on the optional SoS. Basically, all this can happen right now regardless of the project, but I'm sure I've missed something somewhere of why this isn't true. Could you enlighten me please? (I'm tired please excuse me if this is all silly talk) Sacropedia (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Due to the rework of the BiP melee/caster support pages to be much closer to triple energy surge and the addition of the mercenary mesmerway build page we have a couple of quite similar pages. After all, it's the same build family which has a common core for survival and killing. In theory, all of this could be presented in one page. One big, messy, hard to understand and impossible to vet page. That's why it makes sense to keep a few separate pages that depict the most important variants. The question is, which set of pages should we present? I think those are offensive/balanced/defensive variants, once with mercenaries for those who have them and once without mercenaries for those who don't. After all a team with 5 mesmers performs quite differently from a team with just 3 of them. We'll have to see how exactly this should look like in the end, and the testing project should be an immense help in that. The mercenary mesmerway currently contains a variant (quintuple energy surge) that'd probably have to be replaced with a note pointing towards an offensive mercenary mesmerway build page, to which the current quintuple energy surge would have to evolve (it already has a quadruple energy surge variant). That should give all 6 pages sufficiently unique content. But there's still a lot of work to do until we're there. And maybe the discussions will show that a different approach is to be preferred after all. Future will tell. --Krschkr (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks, that makes it clearer! Sacropedia (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Emilesin edits
Just for documentation, these pages need deletion or clearing that I wasn't able to do: Sacropedia (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * User:DeepSC
 * User:Untested_testing_SC_builds
 * Category:Untested_trial_SC_builds (filter prevented me from undoing edit, so I commented it out in the meantime)
 * Thanks. --Krschkr (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Special pages question
Hey, I was trying to look around for rules regarding editing things in the special pages. Looking at Special:LonelyPages and Special:WantedPages, a lot of them are on old user pages and such. That makes me think we shouldn't touch them. However, the sheer magnitude of these instances makes both of those Special:-pages practically useless to work with. Is there anywhere I can read about decisions on this, or is this something you could explain to me? Thanks in advance! Sacropedia (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, early PvX was sort of a free-for-all in terms of people creating red links, and a lot of wanted pages are builds that simply got deleted due to being rated as trash or being dupes. Wanted pages thus has very low utility for this wiki without knowledge of how to sift through the incredibly long list for actually needed links. If we wanted it to be semi-usable, inactive userspaces would have to be deleted or wiped (the bot script I wrote is capable of it, but my bot and I are no longer admin so Krschkr would have to use his bot account for deletions). Honestly, that should probably be done anyway since the GDPR purge would have missed some userspaces that should rightfully have been wiped (our multiple hosting moves have left many userspaces without an actual user account tied to them, which would cause misses like that). -Toraen (talk) 10:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want me to perform such a large bot operated wipe, Toraen, let's talk about the details via e-mail. --Krschkr (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Clearing PvE Meta
So I need to actually get to sleep, but I want to drop this idea here before I forget: do you think we should just remove all the meta tags from the PvE builds (changing to Good/Great as needed) and then re-assess? It's been a long time since some of the tags were applied and not all of them were even operating under the same definition of 'PvE Meta' (let's probably decide what that definition is before doing anything else). Toraen (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Meta is a category of popularity, not quality. I'm not certain whether it makes sense to have a meta tag in the first place, especially given there's so few activity left. If it's desired to make meta builds stand out like now, the tags seem to be fitting in most cases. From what I've seen in the last few months, most builds tagged as meta in GWPvX are meta in game. Some builds might be questionable:


 * Build:Me/A Assassin's Promise – mesmers usually play "regular" meta tagged builds based on panic/energy surge/ineptitude. (Is it worth to keep a separate page for caller builds of different professions? The elite skill and two to three PvE skills are shared, might consider to make a joined Any/A caller page with optional skill sets for each caster profession.)
 * Build:N/any Minion Bomber Hero – rarely played by necromancer players. It's mainly a hero build (and in heroes certainly meta!), players rather go for high level minions without death nova: Bone fiends with OoU or AotL, no death nova. But I don't think that's popular enough these days to be considered meta.
 * Build:W/any Warrior's Endurance Axe and Build:W/any PvE Earth Shaker – most warriors I've met recently were playing daggers or hundred blades. Haven't seen a hammer warrior in quite a long time. Axes are probably borderline, so rather keep them meta tagged than remove them for no good reason.
 * Those examples already raise another question: Is it desirable to tag hero builds as meta? There certainly are favoured builds. Iirc you somewhere wrote that hero builds are not meant to be tagged meta. If that's a policy to be kept, should hero team builds be exceptions to this? How about the borderline cases like synergizing two hero setups like the spirit spammers? Split every build page which is shared for player and hero build variants when the player build turns out to be meta?
 * My opinion from the gut's to either keep the popularity tag alongside the (actually more relevant) quality tags and expand their use on heroes and team setups. Or drop the popularity tag entirely, so only the quality tags are decisive. Main issue I see with that approach is that there's apparently barely any GWPvX activity right now. I doubt that we'd end up with reliable common sense evened out vets with just Saxazaxx, you and me. No matter which approach is taken, unless there's a decisive influx of activity (recruit people in reddit? :D) you'll have to find a working system that does not require the activity of days long gone. And that system will most likely largely depend on your experience, making calls to substitute the missing GWPvX community. Else all new build submissions as of mid 2017 may linger in the testing category forever. --Krschkr (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The Meta tag was originally used to help keep up in the high-end PvP areas (GvG and HA) where vetting was too slow due to the lack of experienced GvG and HA players (and as per policy, these were the only sections where a meta tag could be used to skip vetting). In PvE and low-end PvP, people had different ideas on what the meta tag should mean, so we left it as something that could only be applied after vetting completed. We also didn't want vetting skipped for areas where it is harder to verify a metagame, obviously.
 * On hero builds not being meta, my comment elsewhere was specifically about melee heroes. As far as I know, melee heroes are not used by the majority of players unless the game forces them for certain missions/quests. Some use them in team concepts for the fun and challenge of it. If there is a difference in how a hero and player would be vetted for a given build, I generally prefer the page split so the concepts are each rated accurately. If both are great and meta and share most of the skills, a single page makes sense (but could still be split if we wanted to future-proof against meta changes).
 * For borderline PvE builds, I'd say remove the meta tag and just leave the great/good category on, unless it doesn't have 3 votes yet. Meta should probably only be for the most popular builds. As you said, it's not really a statement of the build's quality.
 * We have the AP callers separate because they're not just a caller build for discord. Also like other such splits, having the separate skill bars for each profession results in less cluttered pages (we could technically have merged all the dagger spammers too, but it's not great for people looking to load a build and go) and more accurate ratings on the concept specific to each profession. Not everyone agrees with me on splitting so many pages, but I feel that its really the only way for ratings to be useful. If there's so many variants allowed in a single page, it's hard to accurately rate a build's universality (or even effectiveness in some cases) because someone can just say, "oh take X instead for that issue" but no one build can take all the variants at once obviously. I've also felt that Any/X pages in general should be sparingly used. Toraen (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Call me crazy if you will, but I'm still running Enduring Axe. Removing the meta tag for axes would be fair if I'm one of the only ones doing it though. Still, its pretty effective for what it does. NapalmFlame (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Removing meta tag would change the community a lot. But it might make people yell at you less often in RA if theres no bulletin for what is meta.--- IGN: Saxazax I (capital i) or Saxazax I I - (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing we do here would change that. They'd just get pissed if you aren't running something in the Great category. Or they get pissed because you're running a wiki build. RA assholes will always find a reason to be angry. I don't think we need to get rid of the meta designation, but we do need to be clear on what it means and make sure we're up to date on it. Also, if we could, let's use the policy talk page for further discussion on this, since whatever we decide will probably have effect on the policy. Toraen (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

PvE meta
I see the use of “statistics” (I’m assuming pvx page visit counts or something similar) being used to guide meta tags on pve builds. I believe this type of stat is helpful but not definitive for determining meta tags. (Not to mention, the definition of meta for pve builds might still be poorly described.) I’m not proposing any alternative right now but thought I should express my thoughts sooner than later. Juniper real (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, although the statistics are a helpful tool they can't determine this entirely. However, they're giving a better clue right now than anything else. There are so few players around that observing what's run ingame has become more and more difficult. As the main audience of PvX are "general PvE" players the usage statistics help determining popularity at least for this content section. I.e. the dagger warrior is unexpectedly rarely frequented in comparison with warrior's endurance axe and hundred blades and therefore has a hard time qualifying as meta aswell. None of the builds that are now in meta are surprising. (Well, except for the two monk heroes, but from what I see ingame monk heroes are, for some reason, indeed still popular.) I'd personally prefer to just drop meta for general PvE entirely. Advertising builds because they're already popular isn't a good thing to do. We have the vetting system for determining build quality, and that's one of PvX's greatest strengths. We should emphasize this more by dropping the PvE meta (except for specialty items like speed clears). --Krschkr (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ya I liked where the June 2019 general pve meta discussion was going, separating the “current” meta tags from the suggestion that those builds were superior. Given that lots of meta tags didn’t equate to “better than great”, and there was suspicion that users didn’t know to interpret meta as being synonymous with popular, downplaying meta status is reasonable. What would be even better, IMO, is combining vetting and pvx member expertise to determine superiority, and then tag those as meta considering that’s how casuals like to interpret the tag. That might be a bit much work to expect a quick transition, though, so in the meantime (or permanently) devaluing meta can improve pvx’s ability to accurately represent build quality hierarchy. Juniper real (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Moving User Content
Hey,

Could you walk me through the steps of moving the content on my User page to a new page? I'm not sure sure how to go about moving the content safely to a new page, with it's own name (ie user:Sinacious/Build_Space or some such).

Thanks Sinacious (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, maybe I can help explain. In your browser window, when you are looking at your User page, the web address for that page will be "https://gwpvx.gamepedia.com/User:Sinacious". The important part here is the "User:..." because this tells you which "page space" that page belongs to. In this case, the User Space. Build pages are instead located at "Build:..." because that is the Build Space. In order to move content from your "User:Sinacious" page to a new sub-page in that same space, you need to manually edit the web address in your browser window. Change it from "/User:Sinacious" to "/User:Sinacious/pagename" (where 'pagename' is the name you want to call your sub-page; pages are often placed under "User:Sinacious/Sandbox" or even "User:Sinacious/Sandbox/pagename"). When you hit Enter, you will be directed to this new page, but it will tell you that it does not exist yet. You can then edit and create the sub-page. The easiest way of moving your content from "User:Sinacious" to this new sub-page is to open two different tabs, one for each page, hit edit on both, copy the text you want to move from "User:Sinacious" and paste it into the new sub-page. For easy access, be sure to add a new link to this sub-page on the "User:Sinacious" page - for example: User:Sinacious/Sandbox/pagename . You can also bookmark the new sub-page. I hope this helped. Let me know if anything was unclear or if you would like me to move it for you. Sacropedia (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What you described, Sacropedia, isn't actually moving the page. You'd create a new page and copy the old content into it. There's a move functionality that allows to basically rename a page and preserve its edit history under the new page name. To do that, go to the page you wish to move. Then, click on the button More next to the search field in the top right corner of the page and select Move. As a user you should be able to move pages. You'll find yourself in the move menu where you can select the new namespace (you'll keep User) and page name. As you want to keep the page content in the user namespace you keep your user name as the beginning of the new page name and add the subpage's name after it, i.e. /Build Space or whichever other name you consider appropriate. Make sure to use a slash character, or else you'd create a page for a nonexistant user! Now, remove the tick from leave a redirect, add a short move comment and you're good to move the page to its new name. Visual example if that helps. You can then simply recreate your own user page. If you make more subpages it's usually a good idea to have links to them on your user page for finding your user content more easily in the future. --Krschkr (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the help! Managed to get a name that I think works for me, but, I uh, sort-of glossed over leaving a move comment, will that be a problem? Sinacious (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Late reply, but no. Lacking a move comment won't cause any issue. --Krschkr (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Rate tab
Copy what's here to Mediawiki:Hydra.js and we can have the Rate tab on build pages again. Also the third section of this can be copied to the end of MediaWiki:Hydra.css to fix long votes. -Toraen (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Both additions are in place and seem to work. Thanks to both of you! --Krschkr (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent Inactivity
I'll be back soon and work off the backlog. --Krschkr (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm reducing my activity on PvX. I'll decrease the extent to which I'm actively developing its content. However, I'm still available to provide feedback or advice when asked for it. I'll also keep an eye on the admin noticeboard and my talk page (that's where you are right now!) and you can contact me via e-mail as usual. --Krschkr (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

LogLink
If you want your bot to apply them, I do have an updated (although slightly unstable) branch of the code here that will automatically apply them to any page you enter in the manual mode of "Update links to moved pages" if the page was deleted instead of moved. The other modes don't cover it yet though. -Toraen (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. So far the deleted pages had barely any links/transclusions, but once there's a nasty case with 50 links I'll update the bot. --Krschkr (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Anniversary Patch
I think we all agree that the paragon elite is beyond broken. I am happy that a lot of other professions got interesting skills that allow for some non-conventional new builds to prop up (Necro comes to mind), but the paragon elite makes the class wicked strong...and unrewarding. It's not particularly fun or engaging to go half-afk while your heroes machine gun everything for you, and spending two minutes setting up buffs in every instance is mind-numbingly dull. I've enjoyed messing around with this for the past week, but I sincerely hope this isn't here to stay. I'm putting this here because I think you share a similar sentiment. --Xanshiz (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Until the anniversary skills arrived there's always been the promise of better builds hidden somewhere in our thousands of skills. We could always argue whether it was better to run two or three mesmers for melee players without Zei Ri, do test runs with smiters, necromancers, elementalists, fake mesmers, some people even tried physical professions, always on the lookout for new even better combinations to create the best general use team build. We could look into comparisons of how pure domination magic setups compared with domination/illusion hybrids, how the addition of ineptitude to a setup changed its effectivity, whether it makes any sense to have more than one healer. Heck, we could even make sophisticated team builds entirely without mesmers and still get really good results that were fairly close to what mesmers could do, just with a smaller margin of error or increased dependence on good player input to work. But this is no more. The previous arrangement of power, that at least all caster professions were on an acceptable level and could roughly compete with mesmers, has been disrupted. With the new paragon elite we know definitely what's the decisively strongest general use team build concept that's far ahead of everything else. For mercenary users it's BiP healer, 5-6 mesmers and 0-1 ST prots. For non-mercenary users replace two mesmers with random other damage dealers, it doesn't really matter after all and I trust that you'll figure out what's the ideal solution once you touch the skill again. This situation takes away a lot of the enticement that previously was inherent in Guild Wars's build system for me, because that promise of the hidden gem that'll be superior to our previous creations is no more.
 * And that's why, when the update was announced, I said I had a horrible feeling about it. For me, the fear of power creep that would take away from the game rather than add to it, has come true.
 * People might say that I could simply not use these skills, like I was refusing to use consumables all the time. My guild mates already said they won't anymore use at least heroic refrain because it absolutely removes the fun from the game. But the tremendous difference here is that I personally never considered consumables a valid part of the gameplay. For me, they always were more like an ingame cheat since they broke with all the baselines this game is usually balanced around. But I can't feel the same about these new skills, as they adhere to these baselines, such as requiring skill slots, requiring attribute investments, energy, casting times, and so on. Some of them, most obviously heroic refrain, are just too strong and capable of displacing most builds we ran before but I can't ignore them like I could ignore consumables.
 * If I keep making builds with the arbitrary restriction to not use these new skills, I will feel as though I were one of those fools who run warrior heroes and honestly believe their team build was good, just because it can run quests in normal mode. I don't want to end like that. If I keep making builds and use these new skills, I'll waste my time doing something that is no fun to me and damages the nostalgic value my memories of this game have. That's why I'm taking at least a break from PvE, and may break up with Guild Wars indefinitely. --Krschkr (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It just doesn't make sense, why do Paragons need another party support skill when historically that's all they could run PvE? Even worse it's utterly broken and makes pve monobuild. Why not add a strong selfish Spear Mastery elite instead so maybe the community could fun have theorycrafting a dps build? They went in the right direction with Vow of Revolution for Derv and almost hit their mark with the Monk skill but why make it an attack? Just make a strong smiting prayers skill so monks can have a fun time dealing damage in pve as well. It's clear these skills were inspired from GW2 but it's obvious we want nothing of its design decisions in this game. It just boggles the mind. Amorality (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I share your sentiment. Some things really make no sense with this update. The mesmer shield completely breaks PvP, with it being a must have item inaccessible to PvP characters (what?). Heroic Refrain is on its way to become the new Ursan, and this, for a game centered around theorycrafting and build variety, is an incredibly wrong choice. After all those years, the shortcomings of each profession were all known and documented. Why not release some kind of AoE spear attack, like the Amazon in Diablo 2? It baffles me. Reducing build diversity is exactly what we do NOT need right now and, in a way, I'm just relieved that those skills are not viable for any kind of solo farming because this is also an area where creativity must shine. Feydslynox (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Seven weapons stance is suited for solo farming. There's already a build on PvX. → Build:W/D Seven Weapons Stance Scythe Farmer. And I'm quite sure you could run this as W/any and bring other self-preservation skills, such as from shadow arts, using auspicious blow as the energy management. The Gates of Kryta Farmer can probably run seven weapons stance aswell, just like the Triple Chop Farmer. Shadow stealth will probably work as a new elite for the Flashing Blades Farmer, using critical defense to replace the blocking chance. The improved death blossom damage, energy gain and shadow shroud healing should compensate flashing blades' damage and defense easily. And I wouldn't be surprised if the Escape Farmer also worked with "Together as one!".
 * At least heroic refrain won't replace focused anger in the Dead Sword Farm build. Or... will it? It will for the Fahranur City variant. >.< --Krschkr (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Build Cleanup for 7H Triple Energy Surge
Hello,

Having recently returned to GW, and PvX after a significant amount of downtime, I have been enjoying reviewing both new and revised builds. One issue I had, which was quite confusing for me as a returning player was that there are three different pages for [|7H: Triple Energy Surge], [|7H: BiP Melee Support] and [|7H: BiP Caster Support].

From what I can tell, the Triple Energy Surge build is identical to the BiP Caster Support builds other than offering the N/Mo Aura of Faith Necromancer as an alternative to the N/Rt XinRae Healer, and identical to the BiP Melee Support build barring which hero carries Strength and Honor.

I think it makes sense for the Triple Energy Surge build to be deleted and its differences added as variants to the BiP Melee/Caster pages. This way, returning caster players or melee players need only go to one area for guidance and the resources are not spread among three wiki pages. At the very least, it might make sense to add the Aura of Faith necromancer as a suggested variant for the BiP Caster Support.

Thanks--Yuko Asakura [PhD] --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Devuu (talk) at 14:12, 30 April 2020‎ (UTC).


 * Right now both "BiP Support" builds are copies of triple energy surge. The correct procedure for them would be to 1) archive their original version, 2) restore their previous version by Xanshiz, possibly under a new name, as it was a team composition on its own and 3) delete their current version. You may also want to check this page as a reference. As duplicates of triple energy surge they're the ones to be removed. However, this is about the third or fourth time a certain part of the community has made a duplicate of that team (we had the issue on the same page before and Build talk:Team - 7 Hero BiP Support is a remnant of a duplicate that's got deleted by now). As I don't anymore want to deal with this recurring bullshit I left the page as it is because I seem to be the only person who cared about it anyway. Given this is the third or fourth time certain people have turned the page into a duplicate of the same existing team and I don't expect them to stop in the future the only way to put a stop to this would be to ban at least one specific user. But I'm already receiving enough hate-mails as-is, so unless someone in the community makes a move, I won't be the one to do the first step in case of those duplicates. --Krschkr (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply; this is helpful. I agree we should leave the page as is, but perhaps we can add the Aura of Faith as a suggestion for the BiP Caster Support page?--[|Devuu] ((Yuko Asakura [PhD])) 18:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My only concern is that whatever page(s) remain are the best ones possible, regardless of their name/origin. The main difference of opinion right now is the topic of 2x Resto versus resto + Prot. You have preference towards the latter; I personally have had better results with dual resto, although this may depend on playstyle/build/area/etc. If hypothetically dual resto was in fact better, I think the concern is that there would be some pushback to add that modification to the TES page, hence why a separate page is being pushed. Perhaps if more people would try both variants and report their experiences on the testing pages, an agreeable solution could be to appropriately modify the variable hero on TES followed by subsequent handling of the BiP support pages.
 * You showed the incompetence of the E/Rt in the past, and that version was undoubtedly pushed prematurely and improperly tested -- I was never a fan of it either. But I think a more vanilla N/Rt could show favorable results. This then creates the dilemma of whether you'd support incorporating these changes into TES, since it is fairly challenging to highlight clear performance improvements when the net changes is so minor, and there are very few people actually objectively testing builds right now.
 * Hate-mail is obviously uncalled for regardless of the circumstance, but I suppose being in a position of influence makes you more susceptible given the anonymity of the internet. --Xanshiz (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm all in for offering both protection prayers and restoration magic as variants. We just have to note that there are places/scenarios where one works better than the other and that, in general, both work well. Examples:
 * Protection prayers works excellently against foes hitting one target with many hard hits in a short interval. This is especially important against physicals, but also works against caster spikes.
 * Protection prayers offers weakness which allows the team to be more stable against physicals without having to bring ineptitude/weakness on other characters.
 * Protection prayers offers additional hex removal.
 * Protection prayers has issues with massive enchantment removal, although it's rarely massive enough to make it worthless.
 * Restoration magic works well against degeneration and spread-out damage.
 * Restoration magic works, other than protection prayers, against area damage. (Heroes prot targetted party members, not those actually needing protection.)
 * Restoration magic offers the dual BiP possibility for areas with very few deaths, especially boss fights.
 * Restoration magic offers a bit more minion survivability if bringing recuperation.
 * Restoration magic offers a better general response to conditions in form of recovery. Although that's nowhere needed. The worst condition foes are mandragors and those are countered with shatter hex/reverse because they heavily rely on fevered dreams.
 * Restoration magic has issues with foes hitting one target with many hard hits in a short interval. This is especially important against physicals.
 * A 6th damage dealer is preferable in many cases because this game is quite easy and mercenary heroes offer more shutdown/damage mesmers. (Build:Team - 7 Hero Mercenary Mesmerway)
 * I guess that's what we have the notes section for. --Krschkr (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey, can I get your comments on this comp?
https://gwpvx.gamepedia.com/index.php?title=User:Saxazaxx&profile=no#7_Hero_Run_Past_Mission_Spiritway --Saxazaxx (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Since it's normal mode it will suffice to bring 2x incoming + fall back and micro the heroes to maintain both shouts while flagging them past foes. A single P/Rt hero with vocal was Sogolon should also do the trick. This gives you maximum speed outside of combat and allows to skip unnessecary fights, unless foes body block you or have snares. Advantages: Much less micro management, allows to run standard builds on all but two heroes. Personally I simply played completely normal builds consisting of BiP healer, a random second backline character and as many mesmer (energy surge) heroes as available while filling the team with necromancer (putrid explosion/fall back) and elementalist (air magic/fall back) heroes. As it's normal mode you steamroll any opponent with such a setup, faster than you could possibly prepare the distracting spirits, while still having permanent 33% movement speed bonus between fights. Getting through campaigns doesn't take particularly long like that.
 * My opinion: Spirit skipway is not worth it compared to dual IMS skipping or standard builds with IMS. --Krschkr (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks buddy. Since the spirits are spread across 4 heroes, the heroes are able to put down the spirits quite quickly, and it definitely seems faster than sitting there for 10-20 sec to kill off the group in question as you might with the 7 hero BIP. I'll make some comps with each of the strategies and see which is best. I'll choose two missions that are closely packed and more spread out. The one other reason I like this composition is that I can literally press auto-run, wait until my character runs a bit past the group, then stop, wait for my heroes, and run forward again. Hand pain has been a real issue for me, and on some days, I would not even be able to do all the micro required for the IMS + flagging method. Honestly, some days, I'm content to just put on some YouTube thing and run a char thru campaigns, pressing auto run and taking quest rewards etc. Idk if that kind of thing would have a legitimate place on the wiki - 7 Hero Carpal Tunnel NM Mission Skip Spiritway? =)
 * I was also thinking of a skipway comp with Recall and a SF player runner, or 8x Shadow Form + Shroud of Distress, and just Death's Retreat/Return to me, and fill the rest of the hero bars with spiking and heal skills. Would be an issue for a lot of Factions escort missions though.--Saxazaxx (talk) 09:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize you wanted to have a zero micromanagement/input team build. I don't have any experience with that and can't provide any useful comments. --Krschkr (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments anyway.--Saxazaxx (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion Issue?
Can you explain why https://gwpvx.gamepedia.com/Build:Me/Mo_Bazzr_Icewing_Farm was deleted without being moved to my userpage when all of the other farms being used by people for greens were left except that one? If I recall correctly only a vote or two was posted which was a sour vote on someone who did not understand how to do said farm, even though I provided video proof of it being done consistently. And if possible, can this page be brought back and moved to my userpage at the very least instead of it getting completely wiped with no way to get all that work back? Or is it already too late and just completely deleted without being moved anywhere. Thanks. Shadeinthebox (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It can still be restored + moved to your sandbox. I've now done so, see User:Shadeinthebox/Me/Mo Bazzr Icewing Farm.
 * When a build receives an overall rating below 3.75 (in this case, the build received an overall rating of 2.6), the build is subject to deletion after a 2 week period unless someone pipes up on the talk page (nobody did). I've copied the vote reasoning onto the build's talk page. - Chieftain Alex (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * HUGE thanks for doing that, yeah I had surgery so was not using my PC for a few months. Still disagree with this decision when other things do not change on small votes especially when the votes are flawed, but regardless, since thats a different discussion, huge thanks for doing that, means a lot. Shadeinthebox (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As Chieftainalex explained the grace period of two weeks before the deletion of a trash rated build passed without anyone trying to save the build. The standard procedure in that case is to delete the builds instead of sending them into the userspace. After all in most cases we don't know whether the user even wants to keep the page in his userspace unless he says so on the page's talk page.
 * For the future: Most deleted pages can be restored and moved to the userspace if a user asks for it. Simply contact one of the admins (as you did) or write a message on the admin noticeboard. I'm not sure how far back the deleted pages are stored on the servers, but I think we can recover stuff reaching as far back as 2011/2012. --Krschkr (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Updating Pages
I'm pretty happy with the current version of 7 Hero Heroic Mesmerway if you want to flag quintuple energy surge for archival. I think a similar thing can be done for 7 Hero Non merc Heroic Refrain and.

Second, there are a lot of heavily outdated 7 hero comps under "Good" can should probably be archived. I left a note on some of the pages, but I think a cleanup of older 7 hero comps could be valuable to preserve high quality content. A lot of pages have recently been archived, which I am happy about.

Third, I think a quick update on what is tagged as "meta" might be useful. Some current "meta" builds really aren't meta anymore (monk heroes, for example), and other meta builds have arisen (new anniversary builds, and I also think mercenary mesmerway has become more popular).

Finally, I'd appreciate your thoughts over on Build:Team_-_7_Hero_Offensive_Mesmerway. Perhaps this could help solve the recurring BiP Support/TES problems in a way that everyone could agree with. --Xanshiz (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1: Done. 2: I replied to two of these discussions. Please put Archive-Pending on these build pages so we don't forget about the suggestion. 3: See community portal talk page. 4: Still have to get back to this one. --Krschkr (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Aftercast Delay & Weapon Swapping
Hey Krschkr, I just wanted to know if you could help me with a couple of questions I have about weapon swapping and aftercast delay.
 * I found that i could cast Death Nova (2s cast time) 11 times in 30 sec without swapping weapon sets (no 40/40). I could only cast it 8-9 times in 30 sec while swapping weapons: i would cast the skill, wait for the casting time bar to turn yellow (which means the spell successfully activated), and then about 1/2 a second later, i press to swap to the next weapon set, and about 1/2 a second after pressing the weapon set key, i would swap to the set and begin casting Death Nova again, in the same frame. But it seems like there is extra delay between casting skills when swapping between weapons sets. I ask this because when I'm doing PvP, I notice that I, myself, and some others are in the habit of clicking-to-walk after casting a spell when they want to swap. People do this, I guess, because once your character is able to move, you know the aftercast delay is over, and you are free to swap. However, the problem is that it makes what you're doing quite obvious to Rangers and Mesmers - good ones, I imagine, get used to the way you play in a match quickly, and they will be able to anticipate what you're doing easier, if they see you "quarterstepping" at intervals - they might instincively know that after you quarterstep, you're going to cast a skill, and they should get ready to rupt.
 * The other thing I noticed was that when my HCT triggers, it seems like there is no aftercast delay, although the wiki page says there are no known mechanics to reduce aftercast delay. Maybe I'm just misreading it.
 * Suffice it to say that if I weapon swap less (which would be important with a bar like RA SoS Necro, since I'm constantly casting skills), I should be able to cast more skills in less time, and I will make myself less predictable (especially if I purchase basic PvP skins, so all my 3 weapon sets are identical) - that means I will not be quarterstepping between weapon swaps, alerting Rangers and Mesmers to my intentions. Thanks for your help!--Saxazaxx (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hex Saxazaxx!
 * Re: Weapon set swapping delay.  We know that there's a once second (roughly?) punishment if you try to switch weapons while casting or in the aftercast delay. If you want to avoid that there'll always be a bit of inefficiency (unused time between casts) introduced by the weapon set switching on top of the player's own inefficiency of not using skills seamlessly anyway. (There once was a large debate about the interaction of IAS and barrage on the wartower forum... in the end it turned out that one of the testers was simply slow at spamming barrage and inferred from comparing his flawed results with the calculated expected results that some bug prevents IAS from working properly on barrage. Players aren't robots/scripts that chain skills perfectly.) Iirc there are different approaches to avoid the failed weapon set swapping punishment. Like you I'm using movement as my indicator. I heard that others use their cancel button, but I haven't got experience with what exactly they're doing.
 * Re: HCT and aftercast delay.  I started a computer stop watch and casted a couple of flares in my 40/40 set. In the video replay I reduced the play speed to 0.1 so I could read the aftercast delay properly. Following a fast cast flare (projectile emission at 0.13) the next spell cast happened 0.78 seconds later (next spell cast began at 0.91). It looks like the aftercast delay is 0.75 even with HCT triggers.
 * Re: Predictability.  I don't think that the movement for weapon set swapping is giving you away, rather the visible change in the weapon set. You can sometimes bait rupts by switching your weapon set and then cancelcasting a skill if you think you're currently being watched by the ranger/mesmer. I think that when you're playing against a good ranger/mesmer the most important factors to avoid interruption are
 * (1) Positioning. People observe your movement and animations. Positioning yourself in a place where they can't see you allows you to be targetted less by mesmers and makes you immune against rangers (since they don't have line of sight for their projectiles!). In case of rangers positioning is important even when you can't avoid a line of sight. The further you stand away from the ranger, the better. If the ranger tries to interrupt you at maximum recurve bow range you have enough time to cancel your skill as you see the ranger's interruption animation before the projectile connects. When a ranger's going wild on you, create distance and outplay him.
 * Your movement on the field may also give your intentions away. If the opponent's monk runs out of your range and you follow it to cast on it again, rangers may predict that you have chained a skill and interrupt it based on your distance to the monk – just like people interrupt melees that switch targets and use an attack skill right away when they reach their new target. Heh, I loved that signet of clumsiness rupt on protector's strike!
 * (2) Tactical knowledge. Depending on the current situation in the match different skills have different importance. Accordingly the interruption priority changes. A team mate is getting low? Suddenly dark pact turns into your most dangerous skill (it has finishing power) and is much more likely to be targetted with distracting shot. Earlier in the match the opponent will rather play on your life siphon because of its large long-term pressure output or oppressive gaze since it's the most impactful single spell cast available to you. And a mesmer that has just hit a power leak on you will be wise to also get your follow-up angorodon's gaze.
 * (3) Recharge and aftercast delay abuse. You can't get rupted when all the opponent's interrupts are currently recharging. Get a feeling for the recharge times of distracting and savage shot and you'll have a much easier time against rangers. I find it a bit harder in case of mesmers. You can also use the casting time and aftercast delay of your opponent. A ranger interruption has just hit you (successfully or not doesn't matter)? Then your next spell can't be interrupted if you use it immediately. The ranger is using mending touch? Then you have 1.5 seconds (0.75 casting time + 0.75 aftercast delay) during which you can cast freely. I only know one ranger that baits you by using skills, cancels them and interrupts you where it really hurts, and she's currently not active. You can do the same with mesmers; they currently use drain enchantment/energy burn/shatter hex? That means you can get one spell off freely.
 * (4) Erratical behaviour. Sometimes your skill's recharge time is giving you away. People know that oppressive gaze will be back after 10 seconds, and a ranger may simply count/feel when it's going to be ready again. If you tend to use it on recharge, it's easier to take out. If you use skills in the same rotation or always use a skill immediately after hitting signet of suffering, you're getting predictable. If you tend to chain skills seamlessly into eachother, you get predictable. (That's where a lot of quarter cast rupts on monks stem from.) If you always use a skill immediately when getting in range of your opponents, you get predictable. Random cancel casting, random repositioning/idling can help to make you harder to outplay. And repositioning can help a lot in general, as seen above.
 * (5) Player knowledge. Mesmers and rangers have their own standard patterns of playing against you. When you know your opponent it's easier to avoid getting outplayed.
 * Combine (1) to (5) and you'll be fairly successful on caster professions despite playing against those nasty rangers and mesmers. At least in RA where it's easier to keep field awareness. It gets a bit... messy when you play against two mesmers and a ranger at once in an 8v8 format. --Krschkr (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you so much for you reply! and what's the deal with projectile emissions anyway?
 * yes, I remember people saying stuff about pressing Esc to swap faster or something...
 * thank you for doing the hct test.
 * ik that people are not robots and dont seamlessly use skills, however, there will be circumstances where it will be ok to queue skills without fear of being rupted: in ra, maybe there's just an enemy ranger, and you're behind a wall, or in gvg, and youre on split, and not against a mes or ranger. i did try not clicking-to-walk to much when swapping today, although its hard in the heat of keyboard battle.
 * i dont think i explained the issue with aftercast delay properly. let me make a quick vid so u can see.--Saxazaxx (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * i just tested it, there is a huge difference between casting skills without swapping vs. casting skills while swapping. its like theres an extra aftercast delay added if you swap your weapon sets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIVmEk-VZkI . what i was saying is that you can cast more skills per minute if you dont swap. thats a significant revelation in my opinion. maybe it means you cast 1 extra blood magic skill, instead of swapping to your soul reaping set when youre at 25% energy. basically, every time you swap weapon sets, youre wasting time. this means that it might be better to just use your 40/40 blood set and not use the spear/focus set (for 33% more bleeding) at all. every time you swap from the 40/40 blood set to the spear/focus set, youre wasting time.
 * thanks for the tips about tactics. some of that stuff i knew already.
 * " I only know one ranger that baits you by using skills, cancels them and interrupts you where it really hurts, and she's currently not active." haha, i used to do that when i played ranger - id start casting apply poison and then cancel it and rupt lol.
 * Random cancel casting, random repositioning/idling can help to make you harder to outplay." to me, this sounds like a zero-sum game. like, people will get wise to you random cancel casting or idling behavior at a certain point too, right? with the sos bar in particular, i have not been able to maintain bleeding, weakness (on the frontliner) and life siphon on all 3 front/midliners at any point during the last 30 matches ive played. in my mind, my time would be better spent making the mesmer or ranger waste a powerful rupt skill on a low-threat skill of mine as a mindgame, rather than altering the pace at which i cast skills. sometimes, i just run out of compass range if i really need to cast something (like res).
 * anyway dude ty for the info. glad to see youre still kicking and screaming. [edit: just one "x" on "Saxazax," please.]--Saxazaxx (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The delay seen in the video is what I called the punishment delay before. It's only triggered when you switch weapon sets during the skill activation/aftercast delay. That's why it's so convenient to move a bit as you see immediately when you can switch weapon sets unpunished. [ Example ]
 * Just be careful with it around melees. That tiny movement can trigger bull's strike/enraged smash and harrier's grasp. It's probably better to stay in your shield set when a warrior runs up to you anyway. --Krschkr (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, so what you're saying is that there is a PUNISHMENT EFFECT if you swap DURING THE AFTERCAST DELAY, but if you swap AFTER THE AFTERCAST DELAY ENDS, there is no punishment effect. In other words, you should be able to cast while swapping just as quickly as if you spam without swapping, however, it's very hard to time properly without the visual cue of when your character can move again, which means the aftercast delay is over. So my question is, is there another cue that you could use to let you know when the aftercast delay is over that is not as obvious as quarterstepping?
 * We have to try to find out what we can do with the cancel key... Maybe there's an exploit with swapping out of your inventory too? And I have been starting to wonder whether there a mechanic like in Old School RuneScape, where there is a global tick timer going, where at intervals, you can't do anything until the next tick occurs...--Saxazaxx (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The only use of weapon swapping through the inventory is that you can cancel attack skills that way. I don't know of a better indicator than movement – granted, you can get a feeling for the duration of an aftercast delay or read the character animation, the same way one can time quarter knocks based off feeling or do prediction rupts on quarter casts when assuming that a skill will be chained. But learning that will require plenty of gameplay time and focus. --Krschkr (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * problem is that your char stands still during aftercast delay. would be helpful if your character twiddled its thumbs or had 3 floating Z's coming out of its mouth during the delay so we would know when it ends.--Saxazaxx (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

how i feel when zurrie kills me with lsurge [from queen's gambit on netflix]

 * https://www.reddit.com/r/GuildWars/comments/jrpl5f/how_i_feel_when_zurrie_kills_me_with_lsurge_from/
 * =)--Saxazaxx (talk) 01:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

auto promoting builds
Hey there. I noticed you promoted a stub build to trial, and previously promoted a trial build to testing. Is there some new policy of which I am unaware which inspires these actions? As far as I can tell, builds may stay in stub as long as they like: PvXwiki:Style_and_formatting Us3r1OO425457 (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC) – because material traders can get bought out, and they have been in the past.
 * There's no automatism. It looked to me like the build had roughly settled (no edits in three weeks) and is ready to enter the trial phase. If you think it's not yet ready for that, feel free to revert the build to a stub page. If a stub or trial page stays untouched for two weeks I'll start getting nervous and check the page's status. People often made stubs, abandoned them and never returned to take care of them, so I keep an eye on these things. --Krschkr (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I might not get to the build right away, but doesn't mean I am not going to come back to it. Is there some fear that I will disappear for good? :P Move it to my user space if there is some concern. I also want to make sure the list of farming areas is exhaustive before it begins trial/testing, and that will take some time. Us3r1OO425457 (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Your assurance that you'll come back to working on it is good enough for me. Just don't let it sit in stub until june, ok? :) --Krschkr (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. The real problem, is that, as alluded to in my farming evaluation work, I think PvX lacks strict guidelines for what are considered reasonable farming builds. It seems kind of subjective and inconsistent to me at this point. I put the E/any Elemental Attunement work on pause, because I don't want to perpetuate this - the farm evaluation work should come first. Related to this, I think there is some logic in thinking about farms from the "farming area" perspective, because many builds can farm the same area effectively, and I think things can get out of hand if we have a separate build page for each bar which can farm an area. I'm almost thinking that we need to start giving farming areas there own build page, as Any/Any builds, and list the best bars from any professions on those pages. There's already 5? pages for UW smite crawler farming. Imo, this is unreasonable and/or, most of the builds should be removed in favor of the best bar. So in conclusion, I think we need better guidelines for what constitute acceptable farming builds, and I also think we may be able to make improvements to how we organize farming builds. Us3r1OO425457 (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Farming area pages shouldn't be in the Build namespace, though, but in the Guide namespace. Regarding a system to evaluate how good a farming build is... since I'm not a farmer I can't help with that. I think it's worth keeping material farms so people can buy NPC weaponry. I don't really have more input than that. When I tested some farms I really wasn't sure how to rate the builds (well, if the farm can fail because of RNG that should hurt its rating) and in case of many unique item farms I don't think they have a justification. On the other hand, as long as they are well-made (many of them aren't) I don't see a large issue with keeping them around either. The worst thing that can happen is that a person spends money for the skills and equipment to farm a boss that drops crap.
 * A major issue I saw when applying FarmCat was that many pages don't even explain what their farm is good for: There's no mention of the items/materials that regularly drop, which is not particularly helpful for anyone looking for a farm fitting his needs. --Krschkr (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, many builds don't really include what they are used for, and even when they do, the reasoning is often inflated imo. I also think having single build pages which cover multiple areas becomes problematic, because we tend to squeeze in many areas, when in fact, only one or two of the areas are actually useful. I don't want to point fingers nessecarily, but one recent example is the 7 weapon stance farming build, which includes stone hulking elementals and dessert griffons. From the testing I've done on dessert griffons so far, they don't seem largely as effective of a farming target as the stone hulking elementals. The idea behind organization build pages by farming area, is that it prevents this, each area is already kind of agreed to be useful, and then new builds can be added, and we simply have to show that the new builds can compare in runtime and consistency to the current builds - no need to re-rate the page at that point, and no need to duplicate farming area info across several builds. And let me repeat, I really think things can get out of hand with the number of builds which can farm an area. I've already tested other variants to UW smite crawler farmer, including a mesmer bar which is on par with the Ele bar. I'm confident that a large number of bars can farm this area, I don't see why we need to rate them individually and duplicate the information across builds, we just need to show that a bar can contend with currently stored bars.
 * About mat farming builds. Sure, they are worthwhile, but you can also buy mats. If you need a particular mat for crafting needs, sure, you can save a little bit of money by farming the mat yourself, but pure gold/platinum is essentially a more powerful metric. Why would I want to farm dust when I can farm feathers, which are worth significantly more, and I can convert those feathers into dust? That's just an example of how item value can be more important than the need for a specific mat. Ectos are like 15k, why not just farm ectos and buy feathers and dust? etc etc. It essentially boils down to the amount of money you can make in a farm per hour, with some minor nuances here and there. Also, agreed that a build should be able to consistently farm an area for it to be worth storing, *if* other builds are able to farm it consistently. If its still able to generate money, and a good amount of money, even consistency is not that important.
 * But to come back to some major focus points, I think 1) too many build pages list ineffective area variations 2) its not prudent to duplicate area information across builds and to re-vet an area each time a new build comes up 3) its trivial to make new bars which are competitive to other bars for particular areas, for the most part, I can start to go crazy submitting UW smite crawling and stone hulking elemental farming builds 4) even with all of this, we lack a consistent way to evaluate builds, and having to vet each new build just perpetuates inconsistencies. We don't need to vet a new smite crawler build, we can tack it onto an existing page, and simply provide a video demonstrating that it can compete in runtime/consistency with other builds - we just need a rule that states that new bars need to be competitive 4) as said, I don't really want to keep adding to this 'chaos' is you will. Us3r1OO425457 (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Why would I want to farm dust when I can farm feathers, which are worth significantly more, and I can convert those feathers into dust?"
 * You should consider talking about the issue of farming build evaluation on the Community Portal Talk Page to increase the chance that other farming enthusiasts see it and can provide feedback. If you work out a system that can reach a consensus we could update the policies regarding the vetting of farming builds. --Krschkr (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, sounds good. I just don't think there is much to say about evaluating a farming build. Either it farms the mat/items/gold in a competitive time, or it doesn't, and it is trivial to prove. Evaluating general PvE builds is much more complicated. RE: mats - yes, that is a good reason to store mat farming builds, but in 90% of scenarios, its most effective to farm for maximum profitability. I see mats as one category of farming builds. Also mentioned, I think the general organization of PvX becomes problematic for this pursuit, even if vetting policies are changed. Things which "should be guides", should actually be the main focus of the site, and should live up to vetting standards. But anyways, will think about bringing the idea to the community portal. Us3r1OO425457 (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In theory it's still possible to do a major revision of certain policies even in 2021. It just requires that we (a) work out a plan that (b) reaches a consensus and (c) there are people which then perform the associated changes. Judging from history point c is the hardest one. Most of the community does not want to invest an effort into community projects and some people that pretend they'd do something are never shy of inventing new laughable excuses. --Krschkr (talk) 11:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yea, makes sense. All good. We'll figure something out. One of the other problems I see right now is that its very hard to actually get votes on farming builds. For instance, with the recent UW smite crawling farming builds, I'm the only person to provide a vote and feedback so far. Very few people are actually invested in testing/rating builds. Another reason why proposing a system for evaluating builds outside of vetting may be worthwhile. :D Us3r1OO425457 (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

There used to be PvXwiki:Build Masters. Reinstalling a variant of that policy would be the only way I can think of to give builds a rating with less than two votes. But I think it'd be a bad move. --Krschkr (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)