Community portal

SMW Templates[edit]

You must've noticed I updated site notice. Here's where I'm hiding my little toys! It's wonderful to see everything working together! See if you got any questions about any of the templates and ask them out. {{Skillbar}} is a very sensible one and isn't "ready" yet because we still have to fill up skill entries, there's a lot missing. Besides, there's a challenge called Items (Item tooltip) that I'm not comfortable to touch just yet.

I've created a {{PvP build card}} as Chase requested, it depends on a few template calls on the target build page as to correctly display things. If you fail to give the template all the properties it needs the template will mostly look broken, so I advise you to always have everything correctly set up if you want a build card for a certain build. --Valento (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Beta Skillbar Template is live![edit]

I'd like to present you my final iteration on the {{Skillbar}} template. I've had some talks with Chase in Skype and a few changes took place. The skillbar template is intended to be called only once in a page, and represent the overall goal of a build, and as such it will always store the "utility set" property for a build. Therefore, if you call it twice it will start to aggregate wrong properties for a build.

In order to achieve easy of use and flexibility, I have changed how parameters are passed based on Chase input and also split the old skill bar template into three (full documentation here):

  • {{Skillbar}} – Intended to be called only once. It represents the main goal of a build, displaying mechanics header UI and storing the Utility Set (6-0 skills) internally. Calling it more than once will cause more than six utility skills to be set, rendering in a semantically incorrect property. It always display all elementalist attunement weapon skills (20 weapon skills).
  • {{Skillbar standard}} – A shorter version of the Skillbar template. It's used solely to display a full skill bar and as such won't store anything in SMW nor display mechanics ui header. It can be used throughout a build guide to display different skill bars. For elementalists it accepts a special attunement property to display only a single attunement weapon skills.
  • {{Skillbar weapon}} – A specialized version of the Skillbar template which focus on displaying only the weapon skill bar for a chosen profession (1-5 skills). It's used by Skillbar standard. It queries the database for valid weapon skills, and will always display only the first skill of a chain in case of chained attacks (such as some auto-attacks or swap skills).

On a related note, I'm now skipping "Utility set" storage for team builds. Skillbar will only store utility set property for pages within the namespace "Build" (which tbh makes sense because team builds don't need semantically a utility set anyways).

This is it for now. Check the templates' documentations if you're in doubt about something. As always feedback is appreciated! --Valento (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Gj! I'll start using this one in the new year or tomorrow morning. --Revenant tango icon 200px.pngHanz (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

New PvE Admin[edit]

As many of you know, our previous Dungeon Admin got busy with IRL after he landed a new job. Snow Crows has restructured for the time being under new administration. We reached out and they said they'd like to continue helping MetaBattle. Each profession in the Dungeons will have a dedicated Snow Crows curator (Apart from Necromancer, which no one in their guild mains). Our over all dungeon liason will be Thor who has already done some serious work on our guardian builds in the past. Chase @ 01:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the team! \o --Valento (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Thats great news! Welcome guys!-- Galaxian (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Welcome Thor! Fredor (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey guys! It's nice to be in this community here and I already have some ideas for the complete raid section with different guides and stuff like this. I hope I can finish this as soon as possible, together with my guildmembers and you guys! :) --Thor (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

New Discord Channel[edit]

In other news, we also have a discord channel now. Hopefully we can have group convos in chat form if need be using this (Works in web browser, as a desktop app, mobile app). The link for that is here. You'll still need to register, but after that it'll take you to our server. Wherever you log in from after that will have the metabattle server registered to it. We only have one channel now, but as you know we can open channels for sections like PvE or PvP and we can also open channels for specific builds if there is some serious discussing going on. This will be open to the community as a whole. Chase @ 01:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

You can have private talks aswell! \o --Valento (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I've been using Discord since last week, get on my lvl Kappa --Revenant tango icon 200px.pngHanz (talk) 09:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

New Year's Reddit Post[edit]

A Happy New Year's from MetaBattle!


We wish you a solid start to the new year. It's been quite some time since we reached out to the community. Let's jump straight into the new details.

  • New Layout / Dark Theme
  • PvP Cards
  • Voting
  • Major Criticisms
  • Policy Changes
  • PvE Curators
  • Mobile Support (Coming soon)
    1. New Layout / Dark Theme

We worked over the holidays to bring this new theme, [Foreground](, to you. (For registered users: User > Preferences > Appearance > "Foreground" instead of "Vector".)

Yes! Let's go over the new site design, in case you feel a bit lost.

  • Start at []( Notice that builds are now set up in separate pages at the top. If you ever only want to visit one page when you come to metabattle, feel free to bookmark that link; they're separated now.
  • Profession is easy to figure out; What's up with "Game Mode"? We chose (alphabetically):
* Conquest (PvP)
* Fractal (Used to be Dungeons)
* GvG (What some consider "fair and equal" World vs World; Regardless it is our successor to WvW + Roaming.)
* Raid (New section that we may end up scrapping if they all end up being Fractal builds).
  • There are 3 main forms of navigation outside the profession/game mode menu: Site-wide, User, and Page.
  • The triple cog has site-wide links like recent changes, recent ratings, community portal, uploading files, and admin/help pages.
  • The User icon is the user menu for your page, your discussion page, your list of contributions, etc.
  • The actions hover menu will allow you to edit a page, view it's discussion page, rate a build, etc. (We know it's slightly buggy and have submitted a ticket to the developer; to remove the issue, cross over the menu that pops up, it'll hide itself properly then; The new version apparently fixed this, but we haven't switched over just yet.)

We are still not done transitioning over. We're going to keep a bit of the old system with the new until we're fully moved over. All the basics should be working, but there may be bugs here and there which we're working to fix before the holidays are over.

Since we now allow users to add their own CSS, you can log in and edit 

to add things like:

   .row {max-width: none;}

for max-width content


   #p-cactions #drop1 {
       position: fixed;
       top: 3em !important;
       left: 0 !important;
       visibility: visible !important
       width: 150px;
       background: rgba(0, 0, 0, .2)
   .f-dropdown.right:after, a#actionsbar {display: none;}

to make the actions bar always visible on the left side for wide resolutions (obviously if you use the first two examples together you'll get some overlap issues).

or: {background-color: #2E3136;}
   .top-bar {
   background: #282B30;
   margin-bottom: 0;
   border-bottom: 1px solid #1C1E22;

for discord colors throughout the website!

    1. PvP Cards

The [Conquest builds page]( have more than just the title of the build. We were hoping that most of the information be available to the user just by glancing at one page. This includes a PvP build's:

  • Weapons
  • Sigils
  • Skills
  • Rune
  • Amulet
  • Traits (hover over the three lines and wait for the tooltip)

Of course you can still click the title to go the page (Some builds do have optional choices afterall) and read up on the usage or perhaps view some of the top streamers.

    1. Voting

If you go to a build and open the "actions" menu. You'll see a "Rating" page. You can see a build's rating, how many votes it has, and what the voter's comments were.

Feel free to vote on as many builds as possible. Please try to follow the guidelines. If your vote is deleted, you'll probably (hopefully always!) be contacted by staff on your talk page explaining why. You'll have every opportunity to fix your vote to meet the guidelines. Your vote also has to be sensical. Just because it meets the guidelines you cannot say false things to give it a bad rating. AKA Don't go on the chronomancer build and say "It sucks at tanking compared to a naked glass thief." That's just false even though it's meeting the other guidelines.

In the future we may switch to an IP based voting system that won't require users to log in/register. As long as we can figure out how to handle spam (Perhaps a captcha for non-logged in users).

    1. Major Criticisms

I think it's important that we openly express our thoughts on some of the bigger controversies.

    • Meta^2**

>*Some people thought this was a "funny" joke. Others thought it reprehensible that we would try to confuse new players who visit MetaBattle.* [[link](]

It was not a joke actually. D/D Elementalist was definitely a tier above the meta. A major tournament wrote in a rule limiting Elementalists to 2 per team, because they were clearly in a class above meta. We consulted multiple pro players about this decision. They agreed that elementalist was (at the time) OP. This seemed to be the case regardless of level of play; A newbie could have read our guide and still done quite well. We still value accuracy!

    • Vote Deletion**

> *A few people vocalized that our admins delete votes.* [[example link](]

We do. But mostly because users simply write "It's good." Classic "RTM". We literally write in the textbox "Failing to follow the guidelines below may result in deletion." Our guidelines are:

  • Indicate it's effectivess or ease of use within the category's ruleset.
  • Compare with other builds of a similar role in the category (regardless of profession).
  • Showcase what a good or great build does that is unique across professions.

See "Voting" section above for more details on why votes are deleted. For a short time we were requiring users to have 5 proper edits on the wiki before being able to vote as well (This policy crashed and burned and we reverted it, but there were some vote deletions based on people changing simple grammer back and forth to get their required edit count up).

    • How "meta" is decided**

> *People (rightfully) argued that the community didn't seem to have a say in what was meta. This was probably further confused by our rating boxes which said "The community has decided this build is part of the metagame."*

Mea culpa. We fucked up. Plain and simple. If the community could decide what was meta, then intothemists would probably be getting a lot more traffic. We will continue to look at the pros and the top players to decide what is "meta". And meta will continue to be designated by our staff (Now called curators). From now on out we will be very vocally clear about this. Meta will be designated by staff regardless of what the community rates it.

(You may always contact staff about meta standings and changes you believe make sense).

    • WvW Sections**

> *People were wondering why we dropped our roaming section and changed WvW to GvG.* [[only link I could find now](]

Well frankly, WvW doesn't have a ruleset. GvG does. It also has spectators and tournaments. A lot of GvG players say that the builds made popular there were well ahead of the curve on WvW builds.

Personally I decided to run with a high-level WvW guild to see if there was something special. Frankly, coordination won out. It didn't really mean our builds were better than the rest. In a proper GvG setting our guild failed time after time. And that's because GvG has a higher focus on big fair fights than WvW does.

There's less terrain to abuse, no siege allowed, no varying numbers to confuse the situation and equal understanding of how important communication/coordination is.

    1. Policy Changes
  • Meta is designated by curators
  • Curators are handpicked staff members
  • You may contact curators about changing meta designations (It is encouraged.)
  • When votes are deleted, the user will be notified by the person deleting it with an explanation.
  • Custom CSS is now allowed for each user.
    1. PvE, GvG, PvP Curators

Our previous Dungeon Admin got busy with IRL, but Snow Crows [SC] ([track record]( has restructured for the time being under new administration. We reached out and they said they'd like to continue helping MetaBattle (These guys are seriously awesome). Each profession for PvE will have a dedicated Snow Crows curator (Apart from Necromancer, which no one in their guild mains). Our over all dungeon liason will be /u/ThorwynTJ who has already done some serious work on our guardian builds in the past. The PvE Curators list will be up shortly on our Admins / Help pages.

Our GvG curator has fallen out of touch with us. If there are any active GvG players that would like to take the position, please PM me.

Our PvP Curator has traditionally been one person, /u/Gandarel. However we are now looking for a North American server PvP Curator that can help balance some of our designations. In the past there have been differing NA vs EU metas, and it will be good to have a perspective on both sides. Again, please PM me if you're interested.

    1. Mobile Support (Coming soon)

Ever since reading /u/Stacy_X's [comment]( about mobile development, it's been lingering in the back of my mind. Finally things came together and I can start working on this for him/her and any others that wish they could use MetaBattle on their phones/tablets. The biggest thing that still needs work is hover over items. But rest assured we will have mobile support in 2016. (Finally!)

    1. Conclusion
  • Transitioning to a new theme
  • PvP Cards are being implemented
  • We apologize for mistakes in the past and are working on your criticisms
  • Meta is designated by a curator
  • We need a GvG Curator
  • We need a PvP Curator from NA
  • Thank you.
    • Remember, metabattle is a volunteer project.** It's supported by ads and extremely few donations. The money made goes to maintaining the server costs. If you were to ask me my net balance after working with MetaBattle, I'd tell you "Negative $250 USD" or more negative. I've put money INTO metabattle and made none of it back. Please respect the staff and crew. If you can do better, go ahead do it. But feel free to use our framework, it's free and open to the public. If we're too restrictive for you, then please have a discussion about it (We can change afterall). I'm not a dictator (And MetaBattle is not a dictatorship). I've compromised multiple times on site design choices against my express wishes. But without compromising our team would have bad blood, which would lead to less effective work being done, and we're already a very small team that provides this content to you. So we put our differences aside and continue working on our own time. For free. And for the love of the game.

Thank you for supporting us through the ups and downs. Overall I think we're still headed in the right direction. And hopefully you're still with us when 2017 comes along!

With warm wishes,

From the MetaBattle Krew


Please provide any thoughts on changes/grammar/etc. Are the links to the "criticisms" a bit too much? Should we try to make it shorter? Is there not enough of an emphasis on so-and-so topics? etc. Chase @ 15:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The mea culpa thingy is too strong imo. We made a mistake should be sufficient. The meta thingy was also mostly about the pvp section or am i mistaken? If yes we should specify that. Fredor (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
That is some decent wall of text :D The wvw section should still be called WvW imo, because from an official POV it doesn't exist, but we could still be featuring gvg builds. --Revenant tango icon 200px.pngHanz (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

What's with the new ratings banner?[edit]

They stretch pretty much all the way across the page for me, looks pretty bad IMO. Or is it just a Chrome thing? Zyke (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It's new design, I somewhat agree, but I think all it needs is a bit more text for Good/Great to not feel empty, archived builds like Guardian - Burst Burning look good with it imo. --Revenant tango icon 200px.pngHanz (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
There's too much space and I the logo needs to be centered within it'space and maybe enlarged, ideally the tag should be long as the skillbar IMO; the giant empty space on the left throughout the site always irked me. The Archived tag could also have more info in it I think, such as archive reason and old rating. Zyke (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Main Page[edit]

On the main page in the ranger tab there is a category "stronghold" where the "raid" category should be. It has the pve symbol and there is another category "stronghold" at the end with pvp symbol. Neijala (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Something Broke[edit]

The PvE builds are missing on the frontpage Fredor (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry. I attempted at transitioning a parameter but forgot we had front-page, so the whole thing broke. I reverted already. =| --LordShuckle (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
There are still a lot of missings builds, though. Neijala (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm aware of the issue. I started a full SMW repair. Hopefully it fixes. --LordShuckle (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Could you please check a few builds again? --Valento (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Some of the builds are back, not all of them though. --Revenant tango icon 200px.pngHanz (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
SMW repair hit 100%. Are they all showing now? --Valento (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
No, unfortunately not. Neijala (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
It looks like I'll have to handle them manually. If you can, please link the builds here and I'll check them personally. On a side note, the "technical issue" error doesn't have to do with SMW, it's a broader error. --Valento (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Game type to become obsolete[edit]

Hi there, guys. I have changed {{MBuild}} to accept a designed for parameter instead of game-type. The documentation no longer mentions game-type and it will be dropped soon. With designed for we aim at offering more direct options to categorize a build, given how the game structure emphasizes certain game styles/modes. You will see designed for has a predefined set of suggested values and they're more in line with Metabattle. I'd like to ask you guys to carefully switch game-type to designed for, the categorization will be kept but for most part one or two categories will be inexistant. I have also culled PvE/PvP/WvW top-level categories from displaying as they've strayed a bit far from how the builds are connected to the various game styles.

TL;DR please change game-type to designed for, accommodating the new values. --Valento (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Skillbar template AMA[edit]

If you guys got any question, feel free to ask me whatever you want. I have also updated the Skillbar template examples, so you might want to check them out. My time is UTC-4 so I'll be leaving for a 2h lunch break in 40min. --Valento (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Please bring the old layout back[edit]

Not that i have something against change, but the new layout is hurting my eyes. The black background and the grey font really takes a toll on them. Also I think that most of the new changes are not intuitive and even counter prdouctive. Nobody will ever find the community page again since it is hidden in the abyss of a strange mixture of an options tab and a useful link tab. The actions button is also quite strange since you have to click it to got to discussion and then click it again to actually to do something to the page. Also this is one of the most confusing and congested pages i have seen in a long long time TL;DR: This new layout is harmful to metabattle Fredor (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Scratch that link, this one is actually worse Fredor (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by congested? About the layout, I'm also having a hard time to switch. I kept the vector style, so as long as Chase don't drop support for it I'll stay around (the new layout bugs me still). --Valento (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
overfilling with information and stuff Fredor (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Well those pages are suppose to be summary of all builds in a particular category, really no way to make it less stuff short of removing info or using drop-down menus. I think the dark mode is okay as it uses the same scolors (or similar enough) to other sites, but it conflicts with the color scheme used on the main page, it makes the blue links and the menu colors seem washed out.
@Val On a somewhat related note, am I correct in assuming those pages aren't finished? The menu button (I'm assuming the three stacked line icons = menu) doesn't do anything. Also, is it possible to remove the other appearances (mono, modern, cologne) as they seem to break things? Zyke (talk) 11:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know css well enough to fix these things... I tried creating a light theme on my own but it's not a beautiful css code. You could contact Chase in Discord, he's more versed in css and will be able to fix these things in a way that won't break other. --LordShuckle (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
And yes, those pages aren't finished. --LordShuckle (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, this "fade to white" thing for proceeding comments seems to be really annoy, is it really needed? Plus the indent bar makes it look like we're stacking cards on top of each other. Zyke (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the idea behind the original post here (i.e. the colours are awkward), but would it be possible to add a new skin to the wiki, something like ForegroundLight, where it uses the base Foreground skin (with mostly default colours) combined with the black top-bar that you've setup at the moment? (theres only so much #333 CSS you can override without going nuts...)
As an aside, I like the idea of not having a bar on the left-hand side, I'm okay with pushing the actions to the top-right corner, and I quite like the skin not looking like a standard wiki.-Chieftain Alex (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Alex I'd love for a second skin that is light (personally I would use it too, not gonna lie). That being said, what do you think is the best way to do it? There are some changes to the actual foreground skin php files, so if I have to do it twice I can -- if I can get around doing it only once though, that'd be great. ChaseBot (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh my, Alex is here! I'm gonna try and hide myself while he doesn't see the smw templates! :X --LordShuckle (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I also have a custom css. I like it. --LordShuckle (talk) 11:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I thought a good start would be to clone the Skin:Foreground off mediawiki, and rename all the files and occurences of "[F|f]oreground" to "[F|f]oregroundLight". I can't see why that wouldn't work (provided the installation instructions are mimicked but with "Light" stuck on the end of any foreground occurences. google drive copy of edited and zipped version. I don't know if all of your grey themed edits were to Foreground.css file, or if they're applied on the extension's stylesheet directly. (Firefox refuses to load the stylesheet in the developer tools box for foreground.css, no idea why. The console log also dumps a list of fonts.) -Chieftain Alex (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Edit: I think I've found an issue preventing Common.css from being loaded, it looks like "@import" rules have to be the first thing on a stylesheet if used at all. "@font-face" goes next, followed by everything else. -Chieftain Alex (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Probably doesn't help that there's a bracket missing off the end of Foreground.js either. (yay JS errors...) -Chieftain Alex (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Chieftain senpai join us on discord :P --Revenant tango icon 200px.pngHanz (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

PvP builds are going to disappear[edit]

With the removal of soldier, celestial, settler, sentinel amulet and a big nerf to the AIDS build, 99% of these builds are going to disappear. --Goruu (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not sure if ele will even have a viable competitive build :D Well, maybe cleric auramancer or one with the new amulets, but that health pool is bunker guard lvl which is a huge nerf. Even condi rev took a huge blow. --Revenant tango icon 200px.pngHanz (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
S/F Fresh Air Ele may see some viability again, since one of the biggest issues that build had was the loads of bunkers that it just can't deal with. For Tempest, I'm also thinking maybe Merc or Paly amulets (Power/Condi/tough/vit and Power/Prec/tough/vit) could be an option; with the exception of Overload Water, Tempests don't scale all that well with healing power, so it's not a big loss to switch to an amulet that doesn't include that. Most of what they miss out on is the mix of offense and defense stats Cele provided. We'll have to see, they almost definitely won't be the same jacks of all trades, but they could shift a bit more towards offense as a result. (D/D ele is going to be weird.)
I don't think they disappear though, especially not when so many other builds around them also disappear. Less bunker-v-bunker teamfights, etc. may push them more towards damage and area control roles again, staff builds and so on. --Jio Derako (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for getting people to contribute[edit]

So I was reading the Behind the Metabattle scene reddit thread and there was a post that stood out for me. "I'm sorry people are mad at you, but please realize that you do not want most of your visitors to contribute." To be honest, I feel exactly the same as him. Plenty of builds that I feel that are fine are taken down and removed just because some other build does a little better. Static Discharge build got removed because power grenadier fulfills the same role..

So I have a suggestion. Split between two sections: Meta and Sandbox. When I mean splitting, I meant split it in two boxes like Conquest and Stronghold. After all, Stronghold is empty and there are no builds in it.

  • Meta builds will be the creme of the top or the most commonly played. There is no build better than that. It is what esport people bring to tournaments and win with it. It is highly discussed if it belongs in the meta status or not. Community has a few say in influencing it. If splitting the section is implemented now, Celestial Druid, Celestial Ele, Mallyx Hearld, and chronomancer bunker would be on this page. No other builds will be on it.
  • Sandbox are community made builds. Community has the most say in it. Metabattle mods would be lenient on these builds. Obviously these builds are not well optimized compared to the meta builds. But they stay as long as they aren't fully terrible nor randomly created. If splitting the section is implemented now, every Great build and good build will be in this page. The Great builds will be the best role for the profession. While the good builds are there for variety sake. The only requirement for good build is that they don't suck completely. An example for splitting between Great and Good builds: Power Grenadier will be on the great section while Static Discharge is on the good section. I want to play Static discharge because I want to feel like I am using a rail gun. Condi grenade Engi would still go into the Great build because there is a missing role for condi engi; however, Condi Flamethrower engi would go into the good section because condi grenade is better than condi flamethrower.
The vote system will be changed in Sandbox mode. There is no 5 star rating in it. Instead, I suggest a new rating: "I like it" or "I dislike it" If there are more good votes, then it goes to the good section. If not, it gets trashed. If the build passes then it gets compared with the Great builds. Is it better than the great build? If not, it stays in the good build. If it is, then the new build replaces the old build.

By splitting the sections, people can contribute more to the site without feeling shot down. I know that the mods want people to contribute more. But they have to let them contribute. It also helps keeping metabattle clean. The top builds gets its own section so that the less optimized builds are not seen and compared to. While those that just want to play another build can find something to play. --Goruu (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea, and it seems like a wonderfully direct solution to the problem. On the other hand, I feel like people come and go for other reasons and are just complaining.
On a separate yet similar issue, recently on Reaper - Powerful Conditions, a guy was lashing out on me and wouldn't be sensible in any way since he kept shutting down the conversation pointing a finger at me for things I did not commit.
Also, I see a lot of people just being dumb on this wiki; they do things to set off the Auto-ban rules. Point of the story is people are just complaining most of the time. Yet, I really do believe there should be a place for non-optimal builds that work. Foxman525 (Elementalist Icon Color.png /u/ Necromancer Icon Color.png) 04:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Part of it also, I think, is simply the fact that not everyone knows how to use a wiki, and while some of the functions are obvious to us (discussion pages for example), to a newbie, they don't even realize there's tabs at the top. This is something the new skin(s) will probably help to address, but also something to keep in mind when designing said skins. If things look too technical, people will think they shouldn't be touching it. They're also getting used to sites like intothemists and gw2skills that provide build editors right in front of them, and in the former's case, it's easy enough to submit as a build afterwards. Not too much we can do there though without a complete site rework.
Beyond that... I do agree, this stuff is intimidating and despite the invitations, it doesn't always feel like the site goes out of its way to encourage new builds. If there's a sandbox of some sort that encourages builds that aren't quite as optimal, that in turn might encourage builders to submit builds that ARE more optimized as well, because there's an easier stepping-stone. The more obvious downside is that it's easy for this to turn into a mess of builds, if everyone's submitting builds left and right. "General PvE" would be overfilled easily. But perhaps there's some manner in which it could be made to feel like working builds aren't being pushed out for not working well enough, while at the same time not flooding any one section with builds.
Something else to throw out there, if I remember correctly, there was a more in-depth rating system back on PvXwiki that allowed people to rate based on different factors. It's kinda the opposite direction as the "like/dislike" suggestion, but might actually be more intuitive to use in some cases. (the ratings were: Effectiveness, Universality, and Innovation, with the latter being a yes/no checkbox.) --Jio Derako (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Get on discord already :P --Revenant tango icon 200px.pngHanz (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Wasn't that what PvXwiki for GW1 was like? The categories were Meta, Great, Good, and Trash. Meta and Great both shared the same ratings category; RrandomEditor build#23 rarely made it into the meta category but often made it into the good and uncommonly great category.
The vote system will be changed in Sandbox mode. There is no 5 star rating in it. Instead, I suggest a new rating: "I like it" or "I dislike it" If there are more good votes, then it goes to the good section. If not, it gets trashed. If the build passes then it gets compared with the Great builds. Is it better than the great build? If not, it stays in the good build. If it is, then the new build replaces the old build.  
IMO, the ratings system needs to stay, otherwise we'll end with numerous inferior builds. Just remind users to keep in mind that sandbox builds aren't competing against meta builds but rated against other sandbox builds and on how well they achieve their intended purpose/work.
@Fox ::A quick look at the histories page and it seems the author somehow saved the incorrect version of the build (probably multiple tabs, I've done that sometimes) and got into an edit war with himself.
Hanz y u gibe me confilicts. >.<Zyke (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Make sure you really want to take this path. We have draft builds (flagged by rating=draft) in the template, and that's it for "this is my build and I liek it". If you put it under test phase it will be mercilessly rated and classified by our admins according to how well it performs. In short, just leave your build under draft state and be done with it. I don't really think it's worth it to create an all-new sandbox build rating system, and tbh not sure if that will be that useful. The community rating is something that Galaxian is working on so we can have a magic word to display it, this way we can have our curators' final judgment and also the community rating, but regardless of the community rating our front page will always display builds as tagged by curators. --LordShuckle (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
@Zyke, Yes, i understood the situation fully, but my point stands that the guy was being nonsensical, and that others as well sometimes act foolish here. Foxman525 (Elementalist Icon Color.png /u/ Necromancer Icon Color.png) 17:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Draft/test status does not really hit the mark to my understanding, Valento. There are many test/draft builds that don't get touched or seen by the community. Foxman525 (Elementalist Icon Color.png /u/ Necromancer Icon Color.png) 17:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we have an active enough userbase atm for the sandbox system anyways, many of the testing builds sit there for weeks to months without a single vote or comment. One of the problems might be that the testing/draft builds are located towards the bottom of the screen so it requires the user to scroll down substantially to seem them. Zyke (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
What Goruu is suggesting would require a main page over-haul to be more like the GW PvXwiki. I just never liked the lay out of this website's main page and it's drop down lists; I dont know if I'm asking too much, but this would be an even greater update than the already helpful updates to the quick links bar at the top. Foxman525 (Elementalist Icon Color.png /u/ Necromancer Icon Color.png) 01:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
A new design for the front page is already planned. But I guess it will still take some time until it is finished. Neijala (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The new front page layout is basically finished (but it's just a way to use the navigation at the top, nothing that special). I'm not sure the layout of PvXwiki is beneficial since we don't have that many builds in each section, that's why we kind of just use the "All" link that pvxwiki has. You can see a preliminary design of the [| front page here]. Couple of changes are going to be perhaps switching the profession to be a 3x3 grid instead of a drop down, and making the font size smaller so it's easier to use on desktop. They are just links to the top nav-bar though, so nothing out of the ordinary. We can transition after we have those pages all set up properly. Still working on pve/wvw build rows (moving away from cards) and then working with SC to organize the raid/fractal pages so they don't use the word "meta" as much and include things like stickied raid guides etc. --ChaseBot (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Small break[edit]

Just a heads-up here as I'll be taking a small break from the wiki for 2 or 3 weeks to work on some IRL stuff. The skills are created, if any skill is missing there's the {{Skill info}} template along with its documentation to help creating whatever is missing. Behave yourselves! =) --Valento (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Great job mate, good luck and take care ^^-- Galaxian (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Solo open world builds?[edit]

I'd love to see a section for these, because the HoT maps are significantly tougher to survive in than everywhere else (of course), and at least the more difficult-to-play professions (Ele/Tempest? Thief/DD?) might need some build tips to survive in the wild. I've met some players who have no idea how this all works... one Ele I ran into was wearing mostly Magi gear and dying all the damn time. Also, I'm sure other mainly open-world players like me will want tips for maximizing both damage and survivability in all situations.

I don't think these solo builds should be rate-able though, because players should have a wide range of options and not have to stick to the best-rated build. I'd personally like to post some great ones from the GW2 forums and my own characters' builds as well.



I'd like this as well, for HoT and PoF. Obviously Core Tyria has a much lower bar for performance, but the new maps definitely demand more from the player, especially solo. A raid/fractal build is built assuming certain buffs/boons/support are present, meaning a top DPS build for raiding might not perform as well in solo open world (not without some significant tweaks anyway). A player might need to adjust for better sustain, or say, pack traits and utilities to counter Forged chain CC. Veteran players may be better equipped to make the necessary adjustments to meta builds, but the same can't always be said for new players. Plus, at the end of the day, having a PvE open world meta category might increase engagement? (there are a few threads on reddit echoing a similar sentiment today) Islarose (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

This is the only place I can see to post category questions - Re: WvW[edit]

Why aren't any of the build categories actually JUST WvW instead of being so confusing "raid" and "gvg"?

The builds aren't valid (from playing quite a few of them and wasting so much gold) for straight WvW play.

We need a new category that says WvW and nothing else.

Emails links to the people supposedly in charge of this website are not working and finding the "community portal" took me to this page to make this posting.

Please add WvW specifically to metabattle

Please fix the emails for admins

Please make it much clearer where one may post valid questions

Thank you, Kat The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moirraine (talk • contribs) .

Hi, this is actually a topic of discussion now on our Discord. I for one would prefer WvW too. For the record Raid has nothing to do with WvW, it refers to the PvE endgame, Raids. --Revenant tango icon 200px.pngHanz (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

April patch '16[edit]

Elementalist Tick green.png Tyroxin (talk) 08:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Updated skill mechanics of the elementalist skills mentioned in yesterdays patchnotes, didn't touch changed damage facts yet. --Tyroxin (talk) 08:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Build::Requires_expansion missing on core builds[edit]

It looks as if filtering for core game builds is supported with Requires expansion; however, it looks as if all builds that don't require an expansion are missing the "None" property value, and it does not appear possible to search based on !Path of Fire && !Heart of Thorns - no results are returned.

I'm not that experienced with SMW, but would it be possible to update all builds where the Requires_expansion property is unset to "None"? as it would be quite a useful resource for f2p players, or people with only one xpack.

Kaela Pyremaw (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

What seems to work is the Core game builds category, so you could filter for that. --Tyroxin (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Aha! Nice find, thanks for that! --Kaela Pyremaw (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Edit: Hmm, it doesn't seem entirely accurate... Engineer - DPS Condition for example shows up in Core game builds yet is marked as requiring HoT. --Kaela Pyremaw (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)