Archive talk:Team - 7 Hero BiP Melee Support

I'd still drop the MM for a PoD or something if we keep the ST. --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you really wanna do that, here's a build: OAhiYgh68ULDWiPxkbYKNtD and change the Me/N to OQBDAYoCTnAIg5AmO5ZTPDBXA for more damage, I guess. Houroftheowl (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ty! Is there any reason why you're running 2 esurge instead of 1 panic 1 esurge? I like both, I'm just wondering. --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Panic doesn't do any damage! If you're playing intelligently and not aggroing the world, you don't need Panic, so it's quicker to have more damage. If you're playing like an idiot and aggroing the world, a hero is probably not going to use Panic effectively enough to save you. For this reason, I strongly dislike Panic on heroes. On a human it's fine, but only when you're planning to do huge pulls and for some reason can't kill everything quickly enough.
 * Still not sure about that PoD btw... it's good to have an alternative to the minions SOMETIMES, I guess, but I don't think Recovery is the best skill for the bar. If the MM doesn't need it, neither should its replacement. How about Barbs or Reckless Haste or something? Houroftheowl (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Recovery's just a filler, I'm experimenting with various skills for that slot. Shadow of Fear is probably the strongest candidate. Reckless Haste is good, I'm not a fan of Barbs unless it's specifically for bosses because sometimes the mob dies before the caster even applies it and unlike MoP it's only single target. PoD itself is really useful btw, especially in WoC HM where some groups can have several prot monks. PoD allows you to burn through them regardless while dealing armor ignoring AoE damage. --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah PoD is cool - just not sure it's optimal; nothing actually wrong with it though. Why Shadow of Fear over Reckless Haste? In HM Reckless has no drawback, and in NM you don't care. 50% miss chance is much better than 50% slower attack. The only thing is, you already have plenty of anti-melee, so neither is especially great. Houroftheowl (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * How about a weapon spell then? The comp doesn't have any (except for Splinter, which will only be used on the player). Vengeful Weapon with Shelter could negate any hit while doing some damage with next to no cast time, not a bad filler skill imo. Weapon of Warding is fairly spammable too with a BiP for block + health regen. The build itself doesn't really need an 8th skill and it's hard to squeeze more value out of curses/restoraton so it's really just a filler anyways. EDIT: another reason why I see potential in PoD is because it allows us to change the 2nd e-surge to /Rt too, transfering the rez from the BiP to it because I don't like giving rez to healers not to mention mesmers with fast casting are pretty good at it. Downside is I still don't know which 8th skill I should give the BiP either if I do that. --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you think of Dark Fury? It can be a decent cover enchant for strength of honor and the adrenaline boost can be nice for some builds. Sonofthort (talk)
 * The recommended dagger spam build has almost very little use for adrenaline, and adding another spammable sacrifice skill to the BiP sounds very dangerous. Vengeful and Warding are both good fillers though, I think. Houroftheowl (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm curious about the ST + MM combo as well. Conventional wisdom says, take one or the other, but maybe there is a different point of view? I'd be interested to hear about it. Sonofthort (talk)
 * It can work, especially if you're using tankier minions like this build does (since ST will make your wall last longer). Using a minion bomber with ST is what wouldn't make much sense (you'd want them to explode in that case, and the lower level minions would exhaust ST spirits too quickly). Toraen (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ahh, thanks, that makes sense. I completely did not notice the lack of death nova as well. Sonofthort (talk)

Why Inep? I see it as a not that great skill. It is not mainly a damage skill, so its use is for aoe blind. And imo for AoE blind its not worth the Elite spot. Also blind is just martial class shutdown, and martial classes are hardly an issue, much bigger problem are the casters. So 1. figure out another source of blind, if that important. 2. use another Elite, another ES for damage, or Panic or Pi for shutdown.Kughkhan (talk)
 * It does about 50% more damage than ESurge, and has the same recharge time. The energy cost is a trade-off for the faster cast time, and the increased damage makes up for the smaller AoE. Blind really is a huge bonus. If I had to pick just one mesmer elite for hero builds, it would be Ineptitude. Houroftheowl (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Equipment?
What kind of equipment should I run on my heroes?--Darigaaz87 (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Generally, the armor insignia that will yield the best armor bonus for each build (or Survivors, but they're generally less effective at keeping heroes alive than increased armor), the necessary runes as indicated in the attributes (fill blank rune spots with the best vigor rune you can afford for them, and then vitae or attunement in the rest), and a 40/40 set for each hero's highest attribute except for the ST rit. Note that the N/Rts will be holding ashes most of the time, so their weapons aren't as important, and the ST rit doesn't get much use out of a 40/40 set and should either have a staff or spear + shield to bump up it's armor and health further to discourage it from being targeted (though it should usually be flagged back as well since the spirits have a very large radius of effect). Staff gives it a larger energy pool to work with while the spear+shield combo can attain higher armor/health. Depends on what you think you'll need more. Also, you can run minors or majors instead of superior runes if the health penalty seems like it's causing problems. Superiors are technically optimal but give you less margin for error. Toraen (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Scaling (4Man / 6Man)
How would you scale this build for 4- or 6-man areas?

The way I do it at the moment is to take out one ESurge and the AotL for 6-man areas. For 4-men-groups I'm changing the AotL to a MinionBomber and still leave in the SoS and BiP. Are there better ways to do that? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haquillo (talk) at 11:47, 14 February 2018‎ (UTC).
 * That seems sensible for 6-man, but BiP is kinda questionable in 4-man. Instead of saving energy management skills on multiple heroes it's really only helping one of them very much (the SoS maintaining SoH) and still takes up the elite slot on your healer and 33% of its health per use (with less mitigation in the team to take the heat off it). I would probably just run a SoS+Smite, MM+Prot and a Curses/Resto in 4-man areas as a melee player. Toraen (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thank you! --Haquillo (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Move to great?
I don't think this is going to get more votes tbh. It's a solid comp, can I move it to Great? --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Official threshold for vetting is actually 3 votes now, so I've gone and done it. Toraen (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh didn't know, ty. --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Monk SoS
Could this be changed to 2x Flesh Golem Necros, one /Rt with Resto and one /Mo with the Smite skills? A Monk can only get 12 in Channeling, and SoS' spirits are nothing more than damage and CC. Another Necro with Golem and Bone Minions would fill this need.

--&#32;Saxazaxx (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Until I read your discussion headline I didn't realize that this build doesn't even have a ritualist hero with splinter weapon in the main build. This team is even more disappointing than I expected. --Krschkr (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't care about ad hominem arguments. Post an alternative or make a fair refutation.--&#32;Saxazaxx (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This was neither an ad hominem, nor an ad personam. It wasn't even directed towards what you said, but a statement on the build found on this build page. The alternative is obvious: A ritualist/monk instead of a monk/ritualist. It's better to drop the third mesmer than the splinter weapon ritualist. --Krschkr (talk) 08:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I think a Mind Burn or Searing Flames Elementalist could replace one of the Mesmers for Normal Mode. An Elementalist hero's DPS would be much higher than a Mesmer any day.--&#32;Saxazaxx (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * PvX doesn't/shouldn't store builds targeted for NM pve (excluding farming builds). Anything works in NM. LifeGuardian (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The justification is:
 * It's faster than something a new player could come up with
 * Experienced players might just want to get missions done to unlock skills or areas for new characters and not have to perfectionize their team for every mission.
 * Plenty of builds on this wiki are designed for NM
 * It might be worthwhile to make a "7 Hero Mission Comp."--&#32;Saxazaxx (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Point 1 might be weak... This game is about deck building, and players who don't want to do that shouldn't play?...--&#32;Saxazaxx (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The point of the Rit/Mo or Mo/Rit is to provide support to the melee player through Splinter and SoH. Splinter counts for a lot of damage and can obliterate groups very fast. Swapping it out for a Flesh Golem (lul) necro either makes you lose Splinter or SoH, which is a terrible idea. SoS is simply the best available elite for the hero, even tho he only has 12 channeling if the is monk primary. You could argue for RoJ but imo that's not a good idea because it scatters the group which makes the aoe of all the other party members way less effective and now the player has to spend more time running between targets. Having SoS also makes Mend Body and Soul remove even more conditions, which is always nice. If you want some variety because you think Flesh Golem is somehow more fun than some spirits, then sure go ahead. Minion bombers also don't really get along with an ST Rit. For bombers you want your minions to die asap, which the ST prevents. The tanky minions in the real teambuild are there to absorb damage from the party and they can do it very nicely with their tanky stats. This page is for people that don't have the knowledge and/or experience to make their own builds, so don't contaminate it with inferior options. Also, Mesmers still outclass Eles, even in NM (unless there is a big level difference between the hero and the foes your fighting. That's in my experience at least, Ive tested it multiple times. I also wouldn't recommend anything but an Air ele build, because those are superior to the others. ZStepmother (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

3 Mesmers
Why does it say to use 3 Mesmer heroes when there's only two in the game? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kurisutofa (talk &bull; contribs) 19:50, 3 September 2018.
 * Please make a new headline when adding a new topic to a talk page using  ==Headline Name==  and sign your talk page contributions with  --~ . Else it's very easy to get mixed up. Razah's primary profession can be changed, they're meant to be used as the third mesmer. You can read more about that in the corresponding wiki article. --Krschkr (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Illusion mesmer
This team build (and the caster version) are excellent, don't get me wrong. The illusion mes can provide some big damage and melee shutdown, but sometimes I find this mesmer to be "too slow", and wishing I had another direct damage dealer. Sometimes you wait too long for the attacking condition to be met. There are also skills which theoretically interfere-with/prevent attacking (Arcane Conundrum and Cry of Frustration). Does anybody else experience this? What are some good substitutes for faster damage?

I tested something like this, and it feels faster on smaller groups of enemies, but suffers vs larger clumps: [build prof=E/P air=12 ene=8 comma=10][Thunderclap][Chain Lightning][Arc Lightning][Lightning Strike][Air Attunement]["Never Surrender!" (PvP)]["Stand Your Ground!" (PvP)]["Fall Back!" (PvP)][/build] Also tested another domination mesmer, worry about too many E-surges so tried another elite. This bar doesn't seem much different from the illusion bar but does have some more direct damage. Panic doesn't do any damage, but can theoretically let you pull larger groups. Can also try Enchanter's Conundrum: [build prof=Me/P fas=8 dom=12 ins=2 comma=10][Panic][Cry of Frustration][Unnatural Signet (PvP)][Spiritual Pain (PvP)][Waste Not, Want Not]["Never Surrender!" (PvP)]["Stand Your Ground!" (PvP)]["Fall Back!" (PvP)][/build]

These are not the best options, but curious if anybody else tried a substitute. Sonofthort (talk)


 * Just take another ESurge, heroes use ESurge very well, don't worry about having too many Esurges cause that is not an issue ZStepmother (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't it possible for enemies to run out of energy? In this case, there is nothing the hero's AI can do to sustain damage output. Sonofthort (talk)
 * Foes should run out of health before they run out of energy. Else: Spiritual pain, unnatural signet, shatter hex, mistrust, cry of frustration, melee player + support ritualist crappy monk? If you're really afraid of foes getting too low on energy, run aneurysm. Playing with five energy surges I didn't see many issues even without aneurysm as domination mesmers are effective enough to kill before energy can become an issue. --Krschkr (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll give another E-surge a shot, could be my own ignorance in thinking that energy is a somewhat common problem. I will add that shatter hex and mistrust are very situational, there are melee patrols which won't be bothered by these. Even melee patrols won't always trigger illusion hexes quickly. Sonofthort (talk)
 * Check out this wiki page https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Creature#Energy. If you then do some quick maths you can conclude that it's quite difficult to drain entire enemy group ZStepmother (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * casters~65 energy eles ~140 physicals normal --Krschkr (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * See, I was looking at this page a few days ago, and couldn't seem to find something which suggests a group of warrior enemies wouldn't get drained in two shots. In a mixed group it would be less of a problem, but do monsters have extra energy besides what is on that chart (and the 1 pip of extra regen)? Sonofthort (talk)
 * At any rate, another E-Surge did seem to work pretty well. I should point out that I was testing minionless setups. The MM really does speed up damage significantly. I found this bar to work pretty well if you don't mind losing some command:

[build prof=Me/P fas=8 dom=12 ins=5 comma=9][Energy Surge][Cry of Frustration][Mistrust (PvP)][Spiritual Pain (PvP)][Unnatural Signet (PvP)][Power Drain]["Stand Your Ground!" (PvP)]["Fall Back!" (PvP)][/build] Sonofthort (talk) I personally wouldn't mind losing command entirely as I still consider 13 fast casting mandatory and the energy management of mesmers too fragile to add shouts. :p --Krschkr (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In that case, you could just run 4 command, even 9 seconds of SYG! is nice for an opener, and you still get a 6 second fallback. I don't find the e-management to be too bad on this bar assuming we're running BiP. Sonofthort (talk)
 * The time you save with having Fall Backs definitely makes it worth taking some command over FC, except in areas where you don't have to move as much (so for general pve Fall Back is by far the best choice, unless you pop BUs for movement speed). As for this build, just take guilt instead of power drain? Then you can do 12+4 dom, 9+2 FC and 9 Command, hits the right breakpoints this way. ZStepmother (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Guilt is not a bad idea, I have to try that. Tbh the energy can be a little tight though, as Krschkr was saying, I think I noticed more problems when I bumped FC up to 13. Sonofthort (talk)
 * We just have to create a meaningful testing route and test all these competing builds, then compare results. :p If a meaningful majority of serious testers finds Me/P with fall back to be the preferable build and my results aren't the complete opposite I'll give in. --Krschkr (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Merge
The recent changes have turned this team and Build:Team - 7 Hero BiP Caster Support into very similar builds and, moreover, basically into the same as Archive:Team - 7 Hero Triple Energy Surge. I think we should merge these build pages, as they share almost all content and each page features just a few unique parts which can all be preserved. Ideally we combine this merge with a combined effort for PvXwiki:Project 7 Hero Meta as its outcome will most likely result in a team merge anyway. --Krschkr (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm really not sure why you created that page in the first place. Unfortunately it still has some questionable skill choices. If you want to integrate those onto this page, let's discuss them rather than simply merging. Houroftheowl (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Until the recent changes the "BiP support" teams had a different midline concept until they were aligned with triple energy surge, so I don't see how you come to that statement. About skill choices – I see more questionable things in this one, such as the non-mesmer skills on mesmers. It was worse before the build update, but it's still an issue. At least the PoD healers have finally been taken out. --Krschkr (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay whatever but I'm going to remove the ugly merge tag, because this page is the older one. Feel free to add it to your triple ESurge page, and we can have the discussion on there! Houroftheowl (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As the content of these two pages has been aligned to triple energy surge it has to be seen as the "older team", which is why I'm going to revert the tag swap now. The discussion has already begun on this page, so we don't need to restart it somewhere else. --Krschkr (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't do that... Houroftheowl (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Good catch, I fixed my error. Sorry. --Krschkr (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. Anyway, we can discuss the differences in the team builds on here if you really want, but I think they're likely to be irreconcilable. Some examples of skills I find odd are Incoming!, Lamentation, Aura of Faith, and Reverse Hex. On GWGlobal Discord we've been talking about making a sub-page with an in-depth explanation of every single skill choice. Perhaps if you make one too, that could help us reach an understanding. Houroftheowl (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussing the differences in the team builds on here is exactly what users like me expect from this platform. Juniper real (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Explanatory subpages aren't necessary as comparative testing is going to be much more meaningful. Nor do discussions on some discord server have any significance in a discussion in PvX, for which the talk page discussions are relevant. Since you asked about a couple of skills:
 * "Incoming!": Increased movement speed is nice to have. A bonus is that it is on the minion master, who is going to be able to catch up with the team more easily, which slightly helps with the well-known issue of the sedate minion master/bomber AI. With both IMS shouts the team has a convenient IMS uptime of 80%. There are no better alternatives for this hero, as the additional healing during movement allows to maintain a full bone fiend army permanently. That's significantly more effective than using aura of the lich for this purpose: It decreases the share of bone fiends, which attack at range (= sooner and without having to move when a target dies) and 66.6% faster than the bone horrors with the same damage range per hit. For damage they're obviously the better choice. Using order of undeath would cause issues to positioning, energy management, minion number and one'd miss the good IMS uptime.
 * Lamentation: Armour ignoring damage on foes nearby the target with additional degeneration. Helps to enable the AoE damage of unnatural signet. Contributes to the energy surge spike. I don't really see why you bring this skill up.
 * N/Mo: The necromancer prot performs about as well as the E/Mo prot just with slightly different strengths and weaknesses. Refer to the indidivual hero build page Build:N/Mo Soul Reaping Prot Hero for variants. Since the mentioned skills are powerful and convenient choices you'll first have to explain why you bring them up. Besides, the arbitrary third backline hero can be changed easily. It's the first choice for replacements when the player wants to bring another player or damage hero, since for most content the third backline hero isn't necessary. In the role as a backline hero there are plenty of other options, such as a second BiP, E/Mo prot, healing burst hybrid, soul reaping restoration magic healer, primary ritualist healer, mesmer restoration magic healer. They all perform differently and have their own strengths and weaknesses. The question is which hero is most recommendable as a standard choice – the people I tested the builds with ended up with the N/Mo prot, but you know how things work here: By community consensus, so if there'll be a consensus to replace this hero that's what's going to happen.
 * As we're now discussing questionable choices, let me point out a couple of them aswell: a) Enfeebling blood on the energy surge mesmer. Waste of a skill slot and especially casting time. The hero could have and use much more powerful skills instead. Spiritual pain helps with killing foes including non-casters with low energy, such as warriors and paragons. Empathy is the shining choice for killing physicals which are expected to survive longer. b) Domination/illusion magic mix. Wandering eye and arcane conundrum are nice, but inspiration magic and more fast casting has consistently produced better results in my tests. Sacrificing either a proper ineptitude mesmer or a proper high fast casting energy surge mesmer is not worth the illusion magic@10. c) 40/40 sets on multi attribute mesmers d) Death pact signet on the healer. I don't mind the skill itself, it's powerful. But resurrection is not to be placed on a healer as it only causes more deaths during the time the healer is resurrecting targets. Skills such as spirit transfer are to be preferred. e) High health point BiP. You have shelter for a reason. Use more superior and major runes for less health sacrifice and therefore a more efficient hero performance. f) Combine d and e and you don't usually need a third backline character anymore, allowing to drop it for nightfall mission heroes, other players or more damage. g) Spirit's gift on the communing prot. h) 60hp staff on the communing prot. i) Castigation signet is an awful damage skill and similarly bad at managing energy. j) Using a splinter weapon monk may be the largest weakness of this team. A splinter weapon ritualist is worth more than a third mesmer. The extreme power of splinter weapon with at least 14, preferably 16+1 channeling magic is one of the main factors which make a melee player powerful. A prepared splinter weapon discharged with an AoE attack or attack compression followed by another splinter weapon provides more spike damage than the mesmers. Even without a prepared splinter weapon the spike-ish additional pressure is huge. Smiting prayers are just a nice bonus in the splinter weapon build. Killing leftover foes with 12 instead of 15 smitings prayers doesn't make a big difference. 152 damage per foe (total 608) from splinter weapon instead of 265/336 damage (total 1060/1344) does make a difference, and it's a huge one. If you want a team that caters particularly for melee players without Zei Ri, it'll have to be one with a proper ritualist and only two mesmers. (Unless going for a minion bomber solution, which frees up the communing prot in the backline, but that'd be a different team.) The Mo/Rt is a big effectivity leak. k) 20/20/20 staff. l) Radiant insignias. m) Survivor insignias. n) Herald insignias. o) Other party sizes on this page. This is the 7 hero page. Other party sizes have their own pages. p) Mercenary variant on this page, which is quite different from the team, not visible in the build page overview and should definitely be put on a different build page. By the way, since you put a Zei Ri tag on the top of the other build page in addition to the tag at the appropriate place on the page, you'll consequently have to put the mercenary requirement tag on the top of this page. Since it's a matter of a different build page I won't discuss it further at this place. q) Nightfall mission heroes. These do not belong here. The recommended heroes are not filling a team specific role. They are general and poorly optimized hero builds. They should be removed from the page and replaced with a short note which links to hero build pages, because that's what they're for, in contrast to a team build page. --Krschkr (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's just me, but wiki discussion pages are pretty painful for me to use. Fortunately, the team isn't beholden to PvX (or any other platform) - this is just a convenient website to share it on. I want to get as much useful input as I can, but this conversation with you... I just can't. I'll make a GWLegacy thread about it; feel free to comment on there on join us on Discord. Houroftheowl (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussions which determine PvX content are not supposed to happen on different platforms. They belong here, on talk pages like this. Whatever's written in other places, especially secluded channels in discord, can't be considered. --Krschkr (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * k I put it on reddit for you instead... you're welcome Houroftheowl (talk) 10:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Reddit is not PvX and is, just as the other platforms you mentioned, not relevant for discussions about the content in here. --Krschkr (talk) 10:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Merge tag & Offsite discussion
I need to make things clear about these two issues:
 * 1) Merge tags should not be removed while discussion is ongoing. Their purpose is to alert readers to the potential merge and direct to the relevant discussion. Krschkr was wrong to break 1RV, but Houroftheowl was also wrong to remove it in the first place. Both are pretty minor infractions and banning both is clearly not going to advance discussion, so I'll just say to both, "don't do that again." It being ugly isn't what matters and which build page is actually the merge target doesn't matter (though it the reasoning section can usually be skipped, and the tag's default discussion link points to this talk). Ideally a merge preserves all valuable content.
 * 2) Offsite discussion is problematic when deciding what to do with a page on pvx. It is even less helpful when not even a link is provided to said discussion. Discussions outside of PvX can also be deleted/hidden with no way for us to recover for reference. If you want to develop the build outside of PvX, that is fine. If you want to defend the current page on this wiki, at least copy your reasoning here. I'm sorry that wiki talks aren't as easy to post to as a forum, but it's what we have. If it's any consolation, your formatting does not need to be perfect as long as it's readable.

Now, I don't think a merge discussion is what is currently happening anymore. It seems to have changed to criticisms that you both have with each other's builds (PvX:OWN of course applies, but both of you are primary authors of the respective builds and I must recognize that potential for bias). There seem to be multiple minor differences that add up into builds being different enough to not easily merge unless the "suboptimal" skills/equipment/heroes are dropped. This is where the "valuable content" ideal of a merge comes in. There isn't an agreement on which content on the pages is valuable. In this case, I'd like to see the content discussion resolved before attempting a merge again (if indeed it would be appropriate). It may be best to simply pit the builds against each other. Either they can both exist as comparable options or one will prove to be far superior. Perhaps the competition and discussion will see improvements to both builds that don't result in a merge.

As for the issue of including lower hero parties for the earlier areas on the same page, that may be fine if the reduction can be displayed concisely and no major changes need to be made to remaining heroes. Otherwise a separate page should be made and they should link to each other. Ditto on that for Merc variants. Heroes required for Nightfall missions/quests, if nothing specially tailored or useful to the team build, can be replaced with links to a recommended hero build or builds on PvX for that profession. I've not personally reviewed this page to give a fully formed opinion on how we should proceed with any of that, having just had 3 incredibly fun weeks at work. That will come after a bit of rest.

If I am wrong in any part of my assessment of what is going on with this page (and the related pages) please let me know. I am rather tired and may have missed something. -Toraen (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC) For this purpose I'd like to point towards PvXwiki:Project Standardized Testing again, which is meant for exactly such purposes. If we can get this project started it won't only help in this discussion, but also provide the data to improve the content quality of other pages. --Krschkr (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The initial merge proposal states that all unique features are meant to be preserved in a merge, so build changes are inevitable. Therefore discussing weaknesses and odd choices found on both build pages is a required part of the discussion: It will help to agree on the content a merge target page will have to contain in order to provide a lossless, consensus driven page. The first few skills have been looked at in one team and I presented a large range of points I'd like to discuss about this page prior to a possible merge. But as you said: "It may be best to simply pit the builds against each other."
 * Apologies if any of my actions contradict PvX:OWN - the rules can be a little confusing at times.
 * This team is currently being updated, and I'm afraid that off-site discussion is absolutely necessary. I'll make an effort to summarise the discussion points on this talk page, though.
 * As for merging, I don't think it's absolutely impossible, but I have my doubts about any agreement being reached through this medium. I suppose technically my assent isn't required to have this page merged into another one, but if that happens I'll just post the build on a different website. I'm not trying to claim ownership of the team, but my intention is to promote a build that at least has my stamp of approval. If the PvX community as a whole agrees to not host that team page, so be it.
 * Regarding the Nightfall heroes, smaller parties, and merc varients, I agree with the above. We can remove the clutter from this page by linking to others. Houroftheowl (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I still think that an agreement can be reached without much trouble, but for that purpose we'll have to continue the discussion about the page content we started under the previous headline. If you have trouble with the talk page formatting we can chose an approach like in Build talk:Team - 7 Hero Paneptitude to discuss things point by point, which will be closer to the Reddit sorting style you seem to favour. And I'd like to point out PvXwiki:Project Standardized Testing and PvXwiki:Project 7 Hero Meta once more, since they're relevant for this discussion and combining effort there may casually bring results for this discussion. --Krschkr (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What are the criteria for merging or having a separate page? I'm hearing conflicting ideas. Should we fill the page up with loads of variant builds, or should we separate stuff like 6-man, the merc variant, and Nightfall heroes? Houroftheowl (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Merging is done on a case-by-case basis, as there is no automated wiki mechanism that would preserve all content easily. If a merge is going to happen, then someone has to present a merged page that includes all the relevant content and doesn't confuse potential readers. Omitting any of the content would need a compelling reason. The (unofficial, unfortunately) guideline is basically, "are the two pages redundant to each other?" For splitting, the current page usually needs to be either too broad to vet accurately (like, most of the slots are optionals) or too confusing to navigate/edit. There's never been widespread agreement on a single "merge standard" that would apply equally well to all builds, and as can be seen in PvP build discussions the consensus even on a case-by-case basis shifts with the needs (or tbh, whims) of the community. At one point we had an absolute silly amount of pages just dealing with Shock Axe variants (and not even variants to the elite skill, I'm talking separate pages for things like Rending Touch - thankfully these were re-merged).
 * Krschkr and I even don't always agree on page splits/merges, and I haven't been as consistent and transparent as I would like due to lack of a real guideline to use. Maybe we can fix that though? -Toraen (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

BSurge update
Discussions on GWGlobal Discord and elsewhere have led to some major changes in the team: Further changes are being considered and tested: Many of these changes are also applicable to Build:Team - 7 Hero BiP Caster Support, so I'll write this on that discussion page too. Houroftheowl (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To make the most of the available mesmer heroes, the Me/P Ineptitude is replaced with a Blinding Surge E/P, which provides similar utility (Blind) for slightly less damage and frees a mesmer to run a third copy of Energy Surge.
 * Tests show that hybrid Domination/Illusion mesmers do slightly less damage than those with higher Fast Casting, but without the Ineptitude in the team, it makes sense to keep one hybrid mesmer to provide Arcane Conundrum and some attack interrupts.
 * The N/Rt PoD healer was widely hated, so that is deleted.
 * The MM did not do enough damage to justify its place in the team, so that is deleted.
 * With only the BiP providing heals, the team was light on defence, so the Mo/Rt SoS now has Spirit Bond, Shield of Absorption, and Smite Condition.
 * The SoS now requires more BiP casts, so to reduce the pressure on the BiP, the non-hybrid mesmers each have Drain Enchantment and Power Drain.
 * The BSurge has Shell Shock, so Weaken Armor is removed.
 * The Mo/Rt has always been underwhelming. Right now it's doing 3 different jobs (Splinter, SoH, and heals), but all kinda badly. Those 3 jobs can be moved to other heroes and the monk kicked - the only real downsides here are losing SoS (weak damage but nice to have more spirits for Mend Body and Soul) and not having a monk for the 5 Nightfall missions that require one.
 * The Me/N replaces the Inspiration skills and Enfeebling Blood with Spiritual Pain, Strength of Honor, and a res skill (possibly Resurrection Chant or Resurrection Signet). This results in greater pressure on the BiP, but with the Mo/Rt gone that shouldn't be a problem.
 * The E/P drops a point from Energy Storage and replaces the paragon skills with Spirit Light, Protective was Kaolai, and Mend Body and Soul, at 10 Restoration. The deep energy pool (+27 from Energy Storage) should make it an effective healer in protracted fights.
 * The Rt/P ST drops "Fall Back!" for Splinter Weapon at 8+2 Channeling, changing Spawning Power to 10+2. Unfortunately there's no way to hit the 14 Channeling break point (even with triple sup runes) without seriously compromising the defence from ST - the best option here would be Ritual Lord, but that's probably not worth it just for Splinter.
 * The empty hero slot is taken by a N/P MM running "Incoming!" and "Fall Back!". Tests have shown that Aura of the Lich is bad for damage (although it does provide meat shields), and Order of Undeath barely improves DPS, whilst costing enormous amounts of health and energy. The para shouts don't interfere with minion creation or cost a lot of energy, and it makes sense for them to be with the MM, so the minions can more easily keep up with the team.
 * This has the added bonus of bringing the team slightly closer to Archive:Team - 7 Hero Triple Energy Surge, making a merge more feasible.
 * No effective replacement has yet been proposed for areas where MM is especially weak e.g. Ooze Pit, Vloxen Excavations...
 * When I get home tomorrow I'll start on merging this team with the caster support team in a new page with all the above changes. This page and the caster support will be archived, linking to the new one. Although the new team is closer to Archive:Team - 7 Hero Triple Energy Surge than before, I think the remaining differences still make them incompatible for a merge. Houroftheowl (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So you're refusing to continue above discussion? --Krschkr (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @Krschkr: I think we'll have to see the results of this update&merge. It seems like these updates may make the above discussion on the content of this page obsolete.
 * @Houroftheowl: I've not got any objections to merging this and 7 Hero BiP Caster Support at the moment (though this will ultimately depend on how the final page looks). Oh, but as a quick note the new page won't be able to inherit ratings from either of these pages if both are archived (we aren't capable of transferring ratings between builds either) so the new page will need to be voted on again. Also, you may want to look at and contribute to the discussion on PvXwiki:Build Merges and Splits, since that will affect how we handle merging & splitting going forward. I really would like an outside perspective. -Toraen (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @Krschkr: No, I'm not refusing to continue the discussion. I am reluctant to do so (mostly because of my previously stated misgivings about this wiki format for talking), but if, after reviewing, you still wish to raise some objections to the team, please feel free do so on the discussion page, point by point like you did on Paneptitude. The one thing I'd like you to consider before doing so is that this team is strictly intended to not require mercs or Zei Ri; including them is absolutely off the table. If you can stretch to 2 considerations, you probably shouldn't bother suggesting that a Rt/Mo is more valuable than a 3rd ESurge - that's a debate I really don't think I'm willing to have on here. Other than that, I think you'll find that the new team addresses the bulk of your complaints. Any suggestions you have for improving other details will be welcome. I apologise in advance if my discomfort on this platform leads me to suggest otherwise.
 * @Toraen: As you requested, I've added my meagre thoughts to the merge discussion. Sorry if they're too outré... but that's what you asked for, right?
 * @everyone: Beyond the changes alluded above, the only real change is the addition of an Invoke ele for areas where MMs perform poorly. More significantly, caster and melee support are now merged, hence the new page. Most of the delay in getting this done has been to test the team and make sure it's definitely superior to the previous versions. Further delays may be incurred getting these old pages archived; hopefully that won't take long. Houroftheowl (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you don't want to pick up the discussion without me investing even more effort you're likely to once more ignore let me suggest this: As you want to abandon this team and BiP Caster Support in favour of the team you submitted recently and the changes to this team which made it a dupe of Triple Energy Surge are a halfway update to the new page, let's revert these two to the pre blinding surge update? Then I don't have to perform a vote wipe for these two and we don't have four times the same build in this wiki. --Krschkr (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Archival
I'm against the archival. The build should be reverted to the pre-blinding surge update version. There haven't been brought up any reasons to archive (or overwrite in the first place) that one. If the build pages were to be archived in their current state, they'd have to be deleted, because first of all due to the large-scale build changes all ratings would have to be wiped and a ratingless build doesn't get archived. Now, deleting a working build just because someone thinks that there's a better one is not the way to handle content in a community project like this. --Krschkr (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * idk man - I just went with what Toraen told me. You guys know the rules better than I do.
 * "someone thinks that there's a better one" doesn't seem very accurate - is there any dispute that the new version is better? Surely even you agree that it's a clear improvement - after all, the changes generally bring it closer to your own suggested builds. If someone can make a compelling case that PoD, Mo/Rt, and only 2 ESurge are somehow worth running instead of the upgrade, then I'm happy to back down and let this page (reverted, as you said) stand. I'd still want a prominent tag directing people to the new one, though. For me, the point of archiving is to make sure that people who get sent the old link will immediately see that there's a better version. Houroftheowl (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A prominent tag pointing to the new build would be very useful, it's somewhat hard to find at the moment. Or would that one have to be moved out of Testing first?Aerosigma (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Due to the current absence of any other administrator who could mediate to make these discussions fruitful I'll take a first measure here, which I ask you to understand as administrative: BiP Melee Support and BiP Caster Support are reverted to their pre-blinding surge version because that one is 1st) the version with meta status, 2nd) the version with a couple of votes. The archiving proposal remains active but is reworded to reflect the actual reason for it: That a user considers it inferior to certain other team builds. Then all PvX users can discuss whether archiving these two build pages is the right thing to do or not.
 * For the moment, my position as a user remains this: As build content with current meta status it would currently be the wrong decision to archive these builds. --Krschkr (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again, this (and the caster version) have been edited beyond recognition from what they were originally. Those original bars are the ones people voted on - you can read the comments and see a lot of stuff that has nothing to do with the current bars. Personally I haven't tried these builds at all, so my own vote can no longer be considered honest. Is there a site policy governing what to do with votes in this situation? Houroftheowl (talk) 10:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You can retract or update your own vote. I agree that these are large scale changes and especially for the caster version a vote wipe would be the sensible thing to do, so I can remove the other old votes. If you can convince Xanshiz of your position that a vote wipe should happen we'd even have consensus about it. So far he's argued against the removal of the old votes. --Krschkr (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My view is that this page (and the caster version) should be reverted to their old version (you already did that and it was fine) and then archived, linking the new, upgraded version. Link to the PvX page if you prefer, but please truthfully note that the new BiP support is the reason these teams are no longer meta. As you correctly stated, the old teams (with Mo/Rt, PoD etc) are the ones that received the ratings, and those were fairly earned. They should be archived, to accurately record the history of what was previously meta.
 * These new teams are something else, and should have their own pages. They're closer to the new BiP support than anything, but Xanshiz can take the opportunity to give them a much better name - preferably one without the misleading word "support". Houroftheowl (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The page content won't be replaced with a link to a different website; neither is it allowed (or remotely eligible) to do that with a page in the user namespace. Whether you want to treat these two builds as "new" ones or the next step of the previous build version's evolution is something you'll have to discuss with Xanshiz and other users which would like to voice their opinion about this. The same applies to the naming, where I don't really see why you find the word "support" more misleading than in the previous build versions and "BiP Support". Let me point out, though, that the "BiP Support" team is nowhere near a meta status (it had very few clicks throughout the last 30 days before its deletion), other than this and the caster build page, which are still used by a much larger share of players. Neither of our personal preferences constitute a build's meta status, it's the popularity throughout the respective (i.e. SC, GvG, general PvE) community. Neither is your statement correct that these two pages have lost their meta status, nor that they did this due to the build you've been promoting throughout the last couple months. --Krschkr (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

“My view is that this page (and the caster version) should be reverted to their old version and then archived” - ya as long as archival is preferred, this is reasonable. Another reasonable option is to not archive the old versions (which have been vetted great), not update the old versions, and submit new builds for vetting. Juniper real (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The last option would be the one that sounds ideal. Could we get another statement from Misty and Xanshiz to find out which of the discussed options is generally preferred? --Krschkr (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I fear that once again the supposedly interested parties have withdrawn from an unfinished discussion, leaving an unsatisfying situation without decision on the further approach. Therefore, if this discussion remains abandoned, I'll go with Juniper real's suggestion. --Krschkr (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As I don't actually expect any reaction anymore and don't intend to wait more than a month for it as last time I have now taken action: Both melee and caster version are back to their pre-bsurge version and the archiving proposal has been removed. This way the old votes aren't invalidated, the build that made it to meta status remains under its known name. The archiving proposal is gone as it wouldn't be a good action to archive two of the most frequented builds in this wiki; there hasn't been a consensus to do that anyway. If you want to add these blinding surge build versions to PvX, please do it through new pages. Prior to doing so, please look at the already existing team build pages to avoid creating duplicates. As always, if you aren't content with this action, raise points in this discussion so we can reconsider it. The modus operandi to present PvX with very controversial accomplished facts and then ignoring or abandoning discussions, however, is something I'd like to ask you to drop. It wastes time we could spend much better to create content to give to the rest of the community. --Krschkr (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * All fair points. My opinion would be to undo the revert and keep the blinding surge modifications under the current name. The reason for this is two fold: first, the introduction of the blinding surge ele had the sole purpose of replacing the function of the ineptitude in order to allow profession flexibility (adding another mesmer/rit). The underlying structure of the teams remains the same, and these changes were birthed as improvements to the BiP support teams, not as a separate build concept. Second, the current versions are grossly outdated. We know that the current version is suboptimal in many regards (PoD, illusion hybrids, AotL, etc.), and it would be a shame to keep them as is when we know we could do better. If the page is reverted to the blinding surge version, I think a vote wipe would be necessary. This is because the volume of the changes is significant even though the functional impact might not be as significant. If the page is kept as is, I think it should be archived. There is currently an active effort to discourage the sharing of these pages due to them being outdated, which is unproductive and unhealthy when improved versions exist. Xanshiz (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As this name has kind of established as a brand that describes the build on the current version of the build page I'm increasingly opposed to agreeing with large scale build changes to it, in particular if they are controversial such as the blinding surge elementalist. I didn't have good results with it (admittedly in the "BiP Support" version, but you too seem to consider that the best version of it if I'm not mistaken) and heard others report the same. I think it would be better to leave the builds as they are, whether in the build namespace or archived, and add the blinding surge version with its large differences as a separate build. Or if the similarities with other builds become too strong discuss changes to the existing similar build instead.
 * About the discouraging of sharing these pages – I agree that it is unproductive and unhealthy. So far I've only seen Misty do that, but others probably do the same. Alas, I fear there's nothing that can be done about that. So far he has rejected or ignored all attempts to talk and cooperate with him. His stance apparently is that if he can't get the builds on PvX exactly the way he wants them without any criticism he'll rather work against PvX. Needless to say that's not a stance that's benefitting the community in any way and that it's not how a community project like this works. I've recently heard others complain about the way he treats them when they try to discuss builds with him and yet others about his general toxicity towards people outside of his clique. Judging from that and my own experience I doubt that there currently is a way to resolve this issue. In fact, his behaviour and that of those close around him has piled up over the last months in a way that befouls any discussion about this and makes me doubt that any agreement can be reached with him at all. --Krschkr (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Referring to the "BiP Support" version -- I wouldn't agree with the conclusion that it is the "best version" (although many disagree with me). I had voiced an opinion against putting restoration on the BSurge because it's overloading the role of the ele. With 6 low cooldown spells, the ele is unable to effectively function as both a damage dealer and a healer at the same time, butchering its effectiveness. Your tests seem to support this idea: better spikes but less stable. I have found more success with the new PvX BSurge versions from the tests I have done, likely because the heroes with restoration are less overloaded. This conclusion is controversial, but I don't think anyone else has performed tests of the new PvX BSurge versions to refute this claim. In regards to the name establishing a brand, the question to consider is this: as the meta evolves, should we be adapting the existing pages or archiving and resubmitting pages. As evidenced by the structure of the gwlegacy BiP Support page, the face of the brand is evolving. I want to emphasize that when these changes were made, the thought process was "how can we update the flaws of the current pages." The bars did not start from scratch, nor did they originate from a new novel idea. It would be confusing to submit a competing page under a different name because one could argue that the new versions are strict improvements from the previous versions (a claim which has been supported from testing).
 * While the volume of the changes looks substantial, I want to emphasize the similarities between the before and after versions and how the net change is strictly positive. First, consider the melee version. The changes can be summarized in two steps, both building upon the original version. First, the Inept command was replaced with a BSurge command so the SoS could be played by a rit primary. Tests have shown that the damage from the ineptitude is underwhelming, and a BSurge fills the exact same purpose (blind + shouts). Allowing the SoS to be played by a rit primary allows a significantly stronger splinter weapon, which you would agree is a significant improvement. The second step was simply a swap in secondary roles (command, smiting, resto), in order to allow restoration to be put at 13 instead of 10, increasing the team's defense. Other changes were minor improvements in skill choices (illusion hybrids are underwhelming, curses shouldn't go on a mesmer, AotL is bad, etc.). None of these changes affected the theme or play style of the build, but did allow to fit in a more powerful splinter and stronger resto. Next, consider the caster version. PoD is garbage (you would agree), so the bar was scrapped and resto was put on the mm. This allows for the addition of a dom mesmer, which is only made possible by replacing the Inept with a BSurge (exact same role, different profession). Other than that, all modifications were minor skill adjustments and movement of secondary roles to make everything fit. Again, the volume of the changes looks substantial, but the net result (replacing a PoD with a dom mesmer) is a huge improvement.
 * I feel a little awkward playing the middleman here. Many of those working on the "BiP Support" version have expressed hostility towards my attempts to keep working with PvX. Ultimately, my goal is to update the BiP pages to keep up with the current meta, because as the pages stand now, they are outperformed by more recent versions. I think a vote wipe is the easiest, most sensible way to accomplish this goal because I view these changes as improvements/modifications rather than a new build concept. Xanshiz (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that I'm a bit slow with replying right now, but I'm currently busier than usual and discussions take a bit of time as you know. I'm looking forward to test your build versions when I find the time for it. I already put a note with a link to your proposed new version of BiP Caster Support in my guild announcement as three of the people who submitted votes for Triple Energy Surge will see it. They regularly use that team and your build version is quite similar to it (or in other words: I don't think that both builds could coexist in PvX as they are very similar, we'd have to check which version works better and keep just that), so I'm interested to hear their opinion about it. They've already tested a couple of other variants of teams built on triple energy surge + BiP healer + communing prot + 2x variable so I'm certain that at least one of them will give it a try within the next few days so we get some feedback on it. Without having done tests on it yet my concern is that the minion hero of the latest version will have similar issues as the E/Rt had with too few time to cast all the skills he's supposed to use. I'd rather try it like this OAhjYgFcoSUB4BKgVVbhWbTOjT without protective was Kaolai for easier energy management with the fiends and less healing spell casting time, then bring recuperation and spirit transfer on the BiP rather than life and enfeebling blood. As there's no splinter weapon we don't have conflicting weapon spells. Perhaps "never surrender!" over "we shall return!" on the E/P. Not certain about lightning strike, I personally love it, but maybe the spear would do better because of its formidable AoE mechanic. I'd love to hear about results with these tweaks.
 * The trouble with updating vs. archiving the BiP X Support pages is their popularity throughout the community. There have always been better alternatives, but the meta isn't determined by what's best, but what's most popular. Given that people kept linking to the two pages when they were proposed to be archived and when their content had been changed substantially and still do it now that Misty tries to discourage it wherever he can shows the power the name of these builds is wearing. I think it's not fair towards the community to do large changes to these builds and thus trick them into linking content they didn't actually mean to refer to. Even if many of these changes are just shuffling utility skills around and replacing characters with different ones that have the same purpose, these changes can have (and are supposed to have) a major impact on the team performance. That you are in favour of a vote wipe supports the idea that the difference is large enough to change what this team is. People will keep linking the page assuming the old content without themselves noticing that it has changed. You probably know that I was never a fan of these two builds in their current form, but we have to accept their meta status and the role they have in the community. Although I can clearly see how your proposed change to the team is a strict evolution from the previous version (which can't be said as clearly for the caster version) I still think it would be the better approach to tag it for an archival, linking to a new build page with your proposed build version as part of the reason. We can't force the community to accept better builds. However, if your build version then receives a couple of votes that support your result that it is an improvement and if no one opposes the archiving proposal the old build version would be archived and preserve the history of this build properly. You could be the first to vote on the build and I'm certain that Juniper real is also interested in testing the build when they find the time for it, so we'd already have enough for a provisional rating. With this page archived the link to this page would also be invalidated, with the result that even people who don't watch carefully what they're recommending to others will notice that something has happened, more precisely that the part of the build making community that cares enough about this to participate in shaping content has found consensus that the old version deserved to be archived in favour of other builds, i.e. the updated version you propose.
 * I'm sorry to hear that you're facing hostility because of your commitment here. Sadly I can't call out to them with an appeal to stop that, as I've been facing hostility by them throughout the last months myself. It would be pointless and rather involve the risk to make it worse. --Krschkr (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Last change: Incoming
Now this team has three fall backs and incoming. If you want to update the minion master like this, you'll also have to slightly adjust the other builds accordingly as the current amount of IMS doesn't make much sense. --Krschkr (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * How is this big of a change while keeping the same votes allowed? We are already moving into the right direction, but a big point of these teams was 2 healers, and now this team only has 1. Now its become really similar to your triple esurge team, only difference is that this one has some shitty mesmer builds, and a Mo/rt instead of the superior Rt/mo (which accomplish exactly the same thing). I thought the team would be kept the way it was for legacy purpose, and because its a popular team, even tho we both know it has a lot of room for improvement. ZStepmother (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

11/09 Changes
I made some changes to keep the spirit of the team like it was before the changes: 2 healers for extra safety. Also updated the mesmer bars, because they are a bit outdated. The team loses the Mo/Rt melee supporter, which only exists for SoH and Splinter, with the rest of the bar filled up with the best possible skills to amplify it's melee support. The update slapped SoH to the Soul Twister, who has nothing to do other than casting spirits, which made it so the monk was not needed anymore, freeing up the slot for a more useful bar: another healer (like it was before the updates), that has Splinter + SoS, while also having it's own energy management. All in all: now we have 7 heroes instead of 6.5! ZStepmother (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Merge with Caster Variant?
With the current version, it probably makes sense to condense the two pages into one, since the only real difference is the inclusion of SoH on the ST. --Xanshiz (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, makes sense. It's also different enough from both Legioway (arguably, but that's specialized for one specific setup) and triple energy surge to be not conflicting with either of them. With this discussion in mind I thought about the naming scheme for it and came up with this suggestion: Offensive Mesmerway (= Triple Energy Surge), Balanced Mesmerway (= merge of those two pages), Defensive Mesmerway (= Paneptitude) as the new page names. But I wonder how we should implement mercenary variants of paneptitude (as mentioned there) and what we do about quintuple energy surge. If we hand down that naming formula we'd get offensive mercenary mesmerway (= quadruple esurge), balanced... (current mercenary mesmerway) and defensive... (mercenary variant of paneptitude) and have a double triad that basically covers the mesmerway meta in its most relevant variants without getting three or just one build page(s) that get cluttered with amounts of variants and variables no one understands and no one can meaningfully rate. The names would be recognizable and describe the builds. Main nitpick: The mercenary variants would have long names. Build:Team - 7 Hero Balanced Mercenary Mesmerway is at the pain threshold. Thoughts? --Krschkr (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it might be too early to switch naming schemes. Furthermore, names such as "7 Hero BiP Support" and "7 Hero Triple Energy Surge" are well-known within the community, and replacing these with generic names would create confusion. My personal preference would be to do something similar to the "Navbox" on the Project 7 Hero Meta page. This would be very easy to navigate while allowing for retention of the original page identity. --Xanshiz (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hold out on the merging since I may have a better version for the caster melee support, but I havent found the time to test it. And like Xanshiz said, the names are well known, and might confuse people looking for the builds ZStepmother (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Name confusions are currently happening anyway as neither BiP Melee Support nor BiP Caster Support are what people referred to for years. I find the proposed naming formula to make a lot of sense to describe the page content and show the familiarity of these team builds, both with their mercenary variants as with each other. And in case of builds that are simply renamed and not deleted/archived, redirects can be left for old links. About the navbox on that page – I adjusted it a bit. Is that what you thought about? --Krschkr (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * krschkr do you have any reference to discussion re: bip team naming confusion? As far as I can tell the 2017/18 bip team pages are the first 7h bip support reference I see. I didn’t see any bip teams in the archives. I’m inclined to think the bip support name should be kept for the general composition featured in this and the caster team Juniper real (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Right now it's just an improved version of what it was before. No more Mo/Rt that was only really useful for Splinter+SoH, no more curses necro on the caster team, mesmers are fixed. Maybe Im misunderstanding you, in which case you should ignore this and just answer Juniper ZStepmother (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think what Krschkr is trying to say is that the September changes were significant enough that people are unintentionally sharing the updated version when they meant to be sharing the older version. This creates the discussion of "leave as is" versus "vote wipe" versus "archive + resubmit" versus "rename". It is important to note that, unlike the attempted Bsurge update, the goal of the September update was to fix the obviously outdated bits as opposed to restructure the team. I personally don't think the correction of outdated skill choices (hybrid illusion mesmers) and swapping of secondary roles (command on mm) is significant enough to create "name confusions," so I think the "BiP Support" name should be kept. --Xanshiz (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I like the navbox idea in order to preserve page identity, and agree that it shouldn't be handed down to smaller party sizes. However, the melee versus caster topic adds complexity. For instance, right now, aggressive non-mercenary links to "Triple Energy Surge", but the melee version does require a mercenary or Zei Ri. Also, I'm noticing that the defensive/balanced links also point towards mercenary/Zei Ri pages and are both melee-only builds. --Xanshiz (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Xanshiz is right in interpreting what I said. I personally think that, for the sake of clarity, the previous BiP Melee/Caster Support pages should be restored and properly archived and these clearly improved builds be submitted under a new name. For years these pages included curses healer, terrible minion masters and awkward Mo/Rts, people played it, people liked it, people still recommend it – and I think a fair share of the people who still link to these two pages in fact mean to link to what they always played, which is now gone. As suggested elsewhere, I believe that calling the builds updated by Xanshiz "Balanced Mesmerway" alongside an offensive (triple energy surge) and defensive (paneptitude) one would be the ideal solution. Right now we're experiencing a back and forth and back and forth that's not helping anyone.
 * About the navbox, could we shift that discussion to the project talk page? We're spreading it on multiple talk pages right now, including the renaming discussion, which is quite confusing for me and I fear that I may lose track of all the loose ends. --Krschkr (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I posted Navbox comments on the talk page. I have begun to agree that the BiP Support pages should be reverted + archived, and new pages under a different name should be submitted to fulfill the "balanced" non-mercenary role. --Xanshiz (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m all for improving build pages and trimming the fat on all these MeMeMeSTBiP+2 compositions, but at this point I’m against archival of the 2018 versions of the bip support teams. I’m also not convinced the “updates” are more than just personal preference and actually confer a measurable benefit. My proposal would be revert the bip pages to 2018, submit a new page as the current version, as well as submit the gwlegacy version. If they’re different builds, they deserve separate pages. Juniper real (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

(reset indent) Just for fun I made this if anyone is interested. Basically I hear a lot of "I suggest this and that" without anyone having anything concrete to show because we're all trying to talk about it before we change stuff. But that seems to be resulting in a standstill. Being able to visually show the end result you'd like to see can help everyone understand and choose a singular course of action. Even if no one else uses it, I plan on testing things there, but thought I'd share to anyone cuz why not. Sacropedia (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Revisiting the merge discussion: Revert + Resubmit + Archive
The BiP pages have clearly lost resemblance from their original form with the curses resto on the caster variant and the Mo/Rt on the melee variant. Given the long standing popularity of those pages, I agree that changes this drastic should probably exist under a new page. As a result, I am in favor of reverting the BiP pages back to their older versions.

Since the current pages are nearly identical, I think a new merged page should be submitted (rather than merging them now, as is, due to the above reasoning). The name can be up for debate -- "BiP Support" for historical reasons, "Balanced Mesmerway" for a generic naming scheme, or something else.

Finally, since I think all would agree that the older versions of the BiP Support genre are outdated (PoD on caster, etc.), they should be tagged for archival, pointing to the newly submitted page as a "new and improved" version of BiP support. --Xanshiz (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As I've said time and time again: I don't see the point in reverting. The team went through some logical, much needed changes, while the idea of the team still remains the same:
 * No mercs / Zei Ri
 * ST for protection
 * 2 N/Rit healers
 * 3 Mesmers for damage and control
 * Supportive skills for the melee player
 * Now is just an improved version of what it was before. Let's look at the changes made:
 * 3 "support characters" (Mo/Rt, BiP + 2nd healer) --> 2 "support characters" (BiP, Budget SoS). Could also count the ST as support character, but the idea is still the same. We effectively gain an entire extra bar.
 * Hybrid mesmer bars --> Inspiration mesmer bars (as extensive testing has shown that these are the better choice)
 * 2 heroes with points in Command --> 1 hero with points in Command (thanks to the hero skill usage update from a while ago)
 * This team was made because the build that people would link was 7 Hero Player Support. Pvx was severely outdated when it came to teambuilds. It still took quite a long time for people to start linking a way better team (claiming it isn't would be really ignorant). Reverting the teams to an objectively inferior state, and then archiving them, will only confuse the all the players that make use of this build. People that haven't heard of this tem will go looking for it because people recommend it, but then they can't find it.
 * Votewiping doesn't make sense either because everything the previous versions could do, this one does better (and whether you like the team or not, it could do everything, but not everything was easy).
 * The melee and caster pages are the same atm, but I would still ask to wait a bit longer before we merge them. Like I said, I'm not entirely sure that this version of the caster team is the better one. It's only a matter of time before we have enough test results to would clear this up. ZStepmother (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Energy vs. Armor?
What's the general consensus on running Radiant insignias vs. the class-appropriate armor ones? I'm running your typical VoS Dervish with "Save Yourselves!" so my heroes occasionally get that armor bonus. --Richaslions (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly I don't really know, thats why I left both options on the page. There are valid arguments for either setup. Tests point in either directions. Just try both and see which one fits best for you. If you plan on running the Build:Team - 3 Hero Dual Mesmer team for 4Man areas, I recommend just going for the armor setups, which seem to be much more stable for that team (or for any team without a ST rit). ZStepmother (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)