User talk:Krschkr

From PvXwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive

Archives


  1. Archive 1

Contact

  • PvX: Add a new section to this talk page, I'll get to it as soon as I log in the next time.
  • E-Mail: Send me an e-mail directly using this link. That's the best way to get my attention as soon as possible.

New wiki representative

Hello, I wanted to reach out (as I apparently forgot last week) and introduce myself as your new wiki representative (formerly called wiki managers). Please let me know if you need anything. --Pcj (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. I don't think we need anything in particular right now that's not already mentioned on the noticeboard, but I'll make sure to reach out to you if something needs your attention. --Krschkr (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Petway

Hey, would you be able to restore the Petway build? I think my vote (saying it had 0 hex removal) caused it to be below threshhold and get trashed, but I meant to return back to it after further testing, and it works okay. I'd like to update my vote. If not, can you move it to my userspace? Thanks! Willarddog (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Restored. Please apply a bit more scrutiny on future votes. --Krschkr (talk) 12:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! After getting to see a good amount of HM VQ and Tombs footage, I think the build has some legitimate merit. It's kinda wonky, but its brutally efficient and has some pretty nifty synergies. However, in my opinion the build still needs more work, theory crafting, and testing. There are obviously still some glaring flaws which need to be worked through (hex removal?). On top of that, the neither of the existing votes (5/5 and 3/3) truthfully do the team comp justice. Would we be able to move it back into testing? It's not ready to be vetted yet. Willarddog (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I did some extensive testing on this as well and essentially came to the same conclusion as you. I provided several suggestions. The author has not been very receptive however. The 3/3 vote from me was reflecting that the build could be better, but that the author wasn't willing to make changes /shrug. I did mention that I think petway as a concept will probably not work well no matter what, but my suggestion is to just create a separate petway build page with your vision of the setup. Us3r1OO425457 (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The page author does not have special rights about the article, see PvX:OWN. Apply the general wiki process by testing, tweaking and voting on the build. If you do not want to touch the build page but still want to change things, the only alternative would be to make a second petway build page that will then be in a competition with the other one. I doubt that there will be two distinctive petway builds that warrant featuring them on multiple pages, so either the old or new page would then have to go, based on vetting. --Krschkr (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks - I am aware of PxX:OWN, I'm just proposing what I believe to be the path of least resistance... I guess. See PvX:DRAMA lol. Anyways, I want to think about my 3/3 rating, it might be inflated, I might adjust it. Us3r1OO425457 (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I'll gladly suggest some comparative testing via PvXwiki:Project Standardized Testing. :) --Krschkr (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Personally I'm more of a theorycrafter than tester, as I have the time and free thought space to theorycraft for fun (while I'm in downtime at work...), while simultaneously I lack the time and ability to test out builds in practice (get to play 0-6 hours a week). All this to say I would rather keep the build page rather than split it off into two separate ones. So far the OP seems open to constructive changes. More importantly, he cares about the page and is more willing to playtest things as new ideas come up.
Aside from that, I'm going to go ahead and throw it back into testing. Willarddog (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

UCX implementation

Hi! I'm Tots, one of the Community Managers here at Fandom. I'm here to talk with you about the upcoming changes we'll need to make on the wikis when the new UCX is released. We'll need to adapt your current content - mainly the design and implemented code - to ensure they're compatible and operational.

Specifically, the UCS will mainly affect the Frontpage, the design (logo, background, favicon, themes), the CSS/JS used, and some templates that will need to adapt their look to fit. It's still several weeks until the wiki will be migrated but I'm here to work alongside you to anticipate all the work regarding review, improvements, and adaptations to the new skin.

If it's alright with you I'll start reviewing the elements I mentioned and describing to you what work should be done. For the design, I can work with the future version and get it set up ahead of time so that once the wiki is migrated it's ready. Regarding the Frontpage, templates, and code, I can work and implement the changes now to have them properly working both in the present and future, but getting all the changes done in advance.

Let me know what you think about all of this and we can start working together on the upcoming changes. Thanks! HeyTots FandomStaff.png (Contact) 18:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The visual design changes won't be an issue as long as the functionality is preserved. This wiki is entirely dependent on custom wikia extensions. They need to remain functioning or PvXwiki loses its entire purpose. For reference, compare these two pages:
a) page with working code
b) page with dysfunctional code
If we were to lose our working build code (PvXCode extension), the wiki content would be devaluated. If we lose the ability to have page ratings on the basis of community votes (PvXRate extension), we lose our QA system. As long as the basis for our work in this wiki remains intact we'll find a way to work with the redesign. --Krschkr (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Fun Rit Build

Hey Krschkr, sharing this slightly different take on the Caretaker's Charge build.


Creatures you create have 40% more Health, and weapon spells you cast last 40% longer.
 save
Template code


Basically you dip into Communing to take Binding Chains and empower it with Anguished was Lingwah. Pretty fun dumping Binding Chains on someone, using Arage on your melee, and then finishing it off with Caretaker's. Also Renewing Surge only costs 1 energy to cast when holding the ashes, so you can cancel cast like a god with it and make interrupters mad >:(. Soldier1766 (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Build looks like it wants to get fluxed.
Skill Non-flux Fluxed
Caretaker's Charge.jpg
  • 71 damage
  • 1 activation time
  • 5 energy cost
  • net return of 0 energy
  • 69 damage
  • 0.75 activation time
  • 4 energy cost
  • net gain of 1 energy
Channeled Strike.jpg
  • 89–122 damage
  • 2 activation time
  • 10 energy cost
  • 82–113 damage
  • 1.5 activation time
  • 8 energy cost
Renewing Surge.jpg
  • 8*11 (88) to 11*11 (121) damage
  • 1 activation time
  • 5 or 1 energy cost
  • 3 or 7 net gain
  • 8*10 (80) to 11*10 (110) damage
  • 0.75 activation time
  • 4 or 0 energy cost
  • 2 or 6 net gain
Ancestors' Rage.jpg
  • 3*38 (114) damage
  • 1 activation time
  • 5 energy cost
  • 3*35 (105) damage
  • 0.75 activation time
  • 4 energy cost
Binding Chains.jpg
  • up to 3*20 (60) or 4*20 (80) damage
  • 1 activation time
  • 10 or 6 energy cost
  • up to 3*25 (75) or 4*25 (100) damage
  • 0.75 activation time
  • 8 or 4 energy cost
Lamentation.jpg
  • 0 + either 19*6 (114) or 25*6 (151) damage
  • 1 activation time
  • 10 or 6 energy cost
  • 0 + either 16*4 (64) or 21*4 (84) damage
  • 0.75 activation time
  • 8 or 4 energy cost
Anguished Was Lingwah.jpg
  • 43 duration
  • -4 energy/hex
  • 2 activation time
  • 5 energy cost
  • 47 duration
  • -4 energy/hex
  • 1.5 activation time
  • 4 energy cost
Rip Enchantment.jpg
  • 1 activation time
  • 5 energy cost
  • 0.75 activation time
  • 4 energy cost
You only lose tiny bits of damage which should be entirely compensated by faster casting and even less weakness against energy denial. Especially being able to cast the ashes faster will be nice, as they're the most vulnerable skill in the build and you can only reposition yourself so much. The only skill that's absolutely not worth it if fluxed is lamentation. I suggest to replace it with dulled weapon (12 to 16 duration at 20 recharge with 12 or 8 energy cost, giving 0% crit chance and -11 damage per hit) in a fluxed build variant. I think that would be a good move anyway as you somehow have to justify not having a resurrection or death pact signet in RA/GvG, and bringing some valuable extra defense can do that. I see quite some value in the build and it definitely looks fun, but I'm not currently active and won't be able to give it a try. Also, if fluxed, consider going for rend enchantments rather than rip. I think there are a lot of eles in this flux and 1.5 activation time is not much more than your unfluxed 1.0 while providing a lot of extra benefit. --Krschkr (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)