Community portal/Archive 3

How to participate?[edit]

Hi! My partner and I use MetaBattle and frequently pick on each other about how useful it is. For instance,

Me: Let's do WvW!

Her: What build will you be running?

Me: (Something that's not Meta).

Her: I've never seen that build. Is this a joke build?

Me: Worse than that! It's my own version of a Good (not Great) build that reminds me of my build during the launch of the game.

Her: You can't run that!

Me: I can. I have! You never even noticed last time I did. Besides, Metabattle voting is probably just 5 active admins' opinions anyways.

(Then, we amicably debate the validity of MetaBattle ratings while playing WvW)

So I guess I want to find out for myself how this works! How many people are part of the voting team? What are the votes based on? Can I contribute feedback or vote, for builds I've played? (For instance, the Phalanx Strength warrior has two Sigils of Battle, but due to reduced weapon-swap cooldowns only needs one. The DnT build linked to at the end of the page doesn't run those sigils, either.) The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluemarker (talk • contribs) .

Fixed the sigils on the PS build, thanks for the heads up, but it's about to be merged with another warrior build anyways :P Sadly the gw2 community is pretty lazy when it comes to voting, probably around ~0.1% of the visitors care enough to vote. Before a build leaves Testing, a minimum of 5 votes must be submitted. There is an official voting policy in the making about what a given rating means.
PvE dungeon builds: highest dmg and party utility = meta, low dmg and selfish = trash, so there is pretty obvious way to rate the builds.
PvP builds: there are a bunch of top streamers for every class then there are the weekly tournaments too, plus it's fast and free to set up a build and test it (which makes voting/testing more accessible for people), it's not that hard to manage this section.
WvW zerg builds: easier part of the WvW builds, meta barely changes.
WvW roaming builds: now this is a hard task. You can't find 2 streamers of the same build who agree on everything, from gear to traits (and sometimes most popular streamer =/= best build when it comes to WvW). As it's a middle ground between PvP and PvE, the roaming scene is far from competitive and there are stat differences between people and lots of uneven fights (like 5v3) which makes it even harder to judge builds, plus you have to buy an entire set of gear if you want to test something. I consider this to be the weakest section of the site, we definitely need more contributors here. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 13:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
As hanz has pointed out it's really not hard to fix a build page. We have a turorial on the front page that goes over basics and you can easily google other more advanced tricks. Metabattle has been greatly helpful to many members, but if you feel it can be even more, then yes you can submit your feedback on "discussion" pages of builds (this is an example of a discussion/talk page right here). And if you want to help vote there are currently a few builds up for voting:
and one is in testing, which will be revised/formatted or tweaked a bit before we open it for voting:
Hopefully next year we will have a better voting system which requires voters to give a written explanation of their score. It will also help to show a history of the build's votes (possibly). If you'd like to help write this program, please let us know -- we can corroborate together. If there are other areas you'd like to contribute, that is awesome as well. We actually do lack contributors, but I still think the majority of the site's visitors are satisfied and given proper information. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 18:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Difficulty range[edit]

Just saw this discussion over at Reddit, what do you guys think about implementing it? Also, are we happy with the "Modified: X Days ago" tag or should it be removed?-- Galaxian (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I would rather suggest we just explain how to play the builds. What it's main role is in the information so they know what to do, and have a concise usage section that explains quickly what they should be doing later on. This kind of meta build with a basic understanding would still be better than using a "good" build. Plus they have somewhere to grow towards, so it's kinda like having a type of progression xP I'm also still happy with the Modified: X days ago tag « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 01:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Same idea as Chase, it's hard to define how hard a build is, every build is hard if you want to master it and most important: it's not enough to be a master of your build to play good, the difficulty in this game is also to know other calsses, when to dodge, count the enemy^s CD, etc.. too chaotic in my opinion. --Warrior Icon Color.png Billaboong (billa-talk) 16:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible partnership[edit]

Hello Admins of MetaBattle

I’m the current guildleader of [ZeuS] (EU PvP Guild) and recently we have started a PvP Community based Tournament.

This Tournament involves an 5v5 PvP Tournament, which will take place every 2 weeks. We just launched and finished our BETA Tournament, which had a lot of success (co-casted by Jebro; an Official ESL Shoutcaster). The Tournament is strict for non-ESL teams, meaning teams/persons lacking the experience/knowledge to join ESL, are allowed. Respectively, teams/persons who got in top 3 in any Official ESL-like tournament are not allowed. Our aim is to get more inexperienced individuals involved into our Competitive scene and stimulate them to join ESL in the future. Viewers of our Beta Tournament were highly positive about the Beta Tournament, since we’re giving ‘underdogs’ the chance to learn and the viewers the scene with builds and rotations. Our Shoutcasters are PvP’rs theirselves, with experience.

Why I send this message is to ask if MetaBattle would be up for a partnership.

This partnership I’m talking about is that our shoutcasters advertise MetaBattle onto their stream, which will also include a logo or emblem/link of MetaBattle in our Stream Overlay permanently (over the course of our partnership, ofcourse). In return, we would ask you to sponsor our Prize Pool for the winners if the Tournament. Since alot of inexperienced people are watching this tournament, it will surely attract a lot of people towards MetaBattle to enhance their knowledge. There’s no set amount of gold we ask yet, since I would like to discuss this with one of you personally.

If you wish to see a VoD of our BETA Tournament: The Shoutcast starts @ 08:50 in the above linked VoD.

You can also see how we would advertise MetaBattle into our Overlays in the Shoutcast.

If anyone of you is interested, please contact me ingame (Terrorsquad.2349) or through email, which is: [email protected]

I hope to hear from you soon!

Sincerely, Denied

I posted this because he had some trouble doing it and I'm a tournament admin, but anyway contact him directly or I will update him with what you write here anyway. --Warrior Icon Color.png Billaboong (billa-talk) 22:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

How big will the price pool be and how much do you guys expect to get from Metabattle? I am asking this because I can donate some gold and unless nobody else can donate, it feels like it won't be enough for this partnership since I am short on money due to only playing PvP/WvW :/ -- Galaxian (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
How many people watch this tournament? Or how many are they even expecting? « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 17:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
On the first one we had 150 viewers, Jebro helped us by shoutcasting it along with a friend of us, people enjoied it so we're expecting an average of 500 for the next tournament, it's hard to say an exact amount because we're really talking to tons of people and depending on how good these parterships work we'll have mroe or less viewers. Seen how successful it was we're talking to all the major GW2 communities (, Reddit, Guildmag, ...) and we'll advertise it as much as pobbile. We're making it bi-weekly because it requires a lot of organization and we don't want to interfere with ESL. Keep in mind that the advertisement will be for the whole website, we're nto asking one admin to pay. Denied asks how much can you guys gather over the course of 2 weeks, it doesn't need to be much anyway. The minimun prize pool will be of 100 gold, wich is the sum of what teams pay to enter the tournament. (Helseth already donated 100 gold because he likes the idea). --Warrior Icon Color.png Billaboong (billa-talk) 17:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
It looks like we will have to pass on this offer since most of the admins aren't interested in this right now. I would however like to thank you guys for the offer :)-- Galaxian (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Voting / Rating Criteria[edit]

MoonKK has pointed out that it is important to standardize our voting/rating process. In the past we had tried to set a "meta" build for all classes (i.e. in general we wanted to have a farming build for every class), but ideally it should be set up like our WvW Zerg or PvP Conquest categories, where some classes are clearly better than others should be marked meta/great, and ratings should be based on the overall category. To standardize our process I suggest we discuss the pros of each method (feel free to edit this list yourself even though it's in between my paragraphs!):

Category Based Chooses to rate builds based on the category it self. It rates each build against other builds in the category. There is no profession-specific rating. (e.g. "this build does better than other builds in this category for X, Y, & Z reasons" is a good argument for a rating; "it's the best thief build for a wvw zerg, so it should be meta for thieves in this category" is a bad argument for this type of rating)

  • Pros
    • Builds are accurately rated on a "grading" scale
    • Players are not confused as to which professions are excelling in their preferred categories and can therefore make informed judgment on which class to level next
    • ANet hopefully sees the meta and actually tries to even out the playing field in some categories (At the least they should be able to see that necros suck in PvE but are meta in WvW zergs and great in PvP).
  • Cons
    • Some professions will be knocked down to "good" or even trashed if they're less than 60% effective as a great/meta build. This is a con for those that main only one profession and want to feel pride/security that their build is still "great"/meta.

Profession Based Ignores the overall category, but ensures that every class has a great/meta build. For instance, we would allow Warrior and Thief to be meta at running across maps (a sub-category in general) and also allow Mesmer and Necro to be meta even though they are much slower at running and have significantly less mobility.

  • Pros
  • Cons

As you can obviously tell, I prefer the category based rating system. Definitely update the list above and the wording to make it better. This should be regarded as a formal discussion/platform upon which we will make a site-wide decision. Hopefully we can apply this methodology to every category on MetaBattle (if not, we will mark it on the tooltip). « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 13:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

+1 for Category based. This won't lead to situations where someone can't decide which profession is better, comes to the site, sees that both are rated Great and then goes with something that's actually far from optimal. Meanwhile people who know they want to play profession X will still see which is the best build for them, but won't have illusions about the viability of the spec. The viability situation is not that bad because every profession can get at least into Good in every gamemode with a build or 2 so we can keep recommending builds for every area of the game for every prof, the only difference is that we'd represent the effectiveness of builds more accurately. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 14:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
What I personally want is Category based in all WvW/PvP and the Meta category in PvE. While it's Profession based in Great/Good for PvE. While the Meta is the Meta (entirely different meaning than great/good). Because it isn't feasible for 90% of the playerbase in PvE to simply just reroll your 100% world completion/dungeon master character. I have done this but I'm like the 1% in this regard with my 17 Berserker/Scholar characters. The casual players still wants to run good builds but can't simply reroll to the better classes. WvW also has this problem but it has competition like sPvP does. With that competition it can quickly become impossible to succeed with that class in WvW/PvP. But PvE doesn't have that problem and I can take any one of my classes and lfg any dungeon path and be done in no time. The hardest PvE (fractal 50) does have this problem but at that point you are dealing with the Hardcore players that can feasibly reroll and regear. This is me being a little care bear but this is also from experience teaching very casual players to very hardcore players --Human icon.png Dantes (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I have been following this discussion on the other pages. I think part of the problem is that with respect to dungeons it needs to be well defined and known what Meta / Great / Good mean, and if their application is for speed runs, organized runs or pug runs. Without a clear understanding of the application there will be issues; the Ranger Spotter build and the Necro DS build are good examples of this. They will never be meta builds and only mediocre in an organized party, but in a pug group they can be great since they are self supporting. -- Ankin (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I personally think that metabattle should rate dungeon builds basing it self on a daily reset run + dungeon guild/exp group scenario. And there is really a need to define builds in to roles, to clearly define which builds and classes are interchangeable. Blackie (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with this. I think that only Conquest has definitions for their Meta, Great, and Good. The definitions fit my perception of them before the main page overhaul, which was a time before the descriptions of categories existed. I currently assume that the same concept of the difference between Meta and Great is the percentage of use and the difference between the first two and Good is the relative effectiveness in the assumed situations the builds will be used in. Nicoli20 (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree that something needs to be done concerning our definitions of various categories on here, and in particular the use of the word "meta." At least my perception of the word is that it denotes a strategy (in this case build) that is not only one of the more effective strategies, but importantly also overwhelmingly used and understood by the common player base. It isn't just a badge of honor that we can stick onto anything that we think is the best, or the strategies that are exclusively the best. For instance, in the "General" section, we have a bunch of farming builds that I have personally never seen apart from this wiki and besides for "lootstick" guardian and mark spamming necros, have generally never heard discussion on meta farming builds and don't know why its necessary to have them on here. I think we just place way too much weight and value on "meta" when, as mentioned below, sometimes even not as good builds could be meta. By the implication of most commonly run and most effective, all classes would have to have a meta build by definition regardless of intra or inter class comparison. Yet somehow right now in the dungeon section, the GS guardian build that I would like 80% of the guardian community uses isn't "meta" for the reason I assume that guardians haven't been on many speed clear records recently. MoonKK (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I think GWPVX in GW1 did this pretty well. Builds were rated from good to great and even a good build could be meta if nothing better was available. Blackie (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
This might be the right path to take. Every prof will have at least 1 build under meta, but some labeled as Good and some labeled as Great. To visually emphasize this, we could use event completing badges just like GWPvX used gold/silver cape. Golden dragon = Great & meta, Silver Owl = Good & meta. Thoughts? --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 14:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Something else that I think is also confounding our difficulty with ratings is the lack of builds on this page. In general, I feel we are pretty strict and harsh on builds that make it onto the page in PvE, and (taking the dungeon section as an example), only the truly top tier builds make it on (and basically the vast majority of them are already meta before making it on here), builds that I personally would consider best of the best for the respective professions and would all deserve to be "great." With a limited number of builds, it's inevitable that even great builds would only be either better or worse than another "great" build, and with so few examples to compare against, I feel that's part of the reason we got into this conflict in the first place. If we had greater variety of builds, some would be objectively better or worse than others and it would be easy to see whether in intra or inter class comparison or not. For example, a sinister warrior build would be completely viable under its own set of conditions, but perhaps because of these conditions (like no other condition users in party) it would be more limited in scope and fall under a "good" category rather than "great." Other examples would be condition builds for other classes. Perhaps still viable in their own right, but objectively worse than zerker builds, and so that would be an example I would see going in the "good" rather than "great" category. In this respect, I also propose an additional change where we move some of these builds over to the general section as well as the dungeon section (and thus have more than one tag) because, let's face it, we generally run these optimized zerker builds in open world/personal story as well and seem to be very general in usage to me. Things like specialized fractal builds seem like examples that would be solely in dungeon but not in general, but like the GS, Axe warrior could easily fall into both categories. Also in this way, builds like condition warriors could be "good" for dungeons, while condition necros or engineers could still be "good" in general. I just feel that the general use section looks sort of empty and shouldn't be defined by purely zerg tagging builds. Sorry this got sort of off topic from the main discussion, but getting this down might affect how we vote under each category. MoonKK (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
From a PvE prospective: You can't just not have meta builds under the meta category. They're the best that class had to offer, and everyone in the GW2 community already thinks of them as meta. If someone goes into the ranger section of the official forums and asks what build they should run in dungeons, the reply will be "the meta build is" and then a link to the 6/5/0/3/0 s/a lb build. What we need are tags showing what type of runs each build should be used in. For example, the necro DS build would be tagged for "unorganized dungeon runs", while the d/f d/wh build would be tagged for "organized dungeon runs". The ranger meta build would be tagged for both, and the ele s/f build would be tagged for both and for "record runs", etc. This would let people know what settings a build is optimal for without adding a ton of new categories to the front page. I think the PvP section could benefit from similar tagging, either something like "unranked", "ranked", and "tournament", or low-tier, mid-tier, high-tier, or something similar. Sins (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Necros are not meta in dungeons. Period. That is a problem with ANet's system, not our rating. There is a "best build for necros in dungeons" but the best builds FOR dungeons don't include necro. It's because they're not as good as other classes. People say "meta build for ranger is..." but that's exactly that, it's the meta build for rangers. Not necessarily a meta dungeon build. It's a meta-profession build. What we need by your argument is more categories. That would just look silly having like 5 categories for PvE, 2 for WvW, and currently 1 for PvP. However, it is something we can look into for sure. It might be the best solution. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 18:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The PvE class X meta builds were in fact designed for dungeons, ergo they are dungeon meta builds. My point is that the community thinks of them as meta already, and not including them under the meta header is not lending this site any credibility. Sins (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
They were organized as such using information from top guilds that speed clear dungeons. I personally even asked one of them for verification of how it should work. They recommended that necro be used to trash, which I thought was too harsh, hence why we've left them in good. It's as credible as our PvP section. Same complaints; still got great traffic. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 23:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
+1 Category based I know I was originally a proponent for the latter system of rating, but the more I think about it, the more it seems that the problems I see are related to different issues (as considered in my other posts). Ideally, I'm of the opinion now that a "great" build exists for every profession, but its hard to recognize because we don't have other "good" builds to compare them to (for example, sinister sword warrior, zerker well support necro, zerker hammer support guardian, condition and vuln engineer would be builds that I would consider viable for dungeons, but objectively worse than say GS/Axe warrior, Dagger/X necro, GS/Sword Guardian, and power engineer, the latter list being the current meta). For instance, right now with like 10 dungeon builds, they can't possibly all be great. But if we somehow had 30, our original 10 could in fact all be "great." This isn't to say that we should just start making suboptimal builds to inflate the ratings of our current ones, but it seems to me that once a build becomes meta, we add it to this wiki, instead of something originally on here becoming meta (as often happened with the pvx gw1 wiki), so the builds here do initially seem to all be great. MoonKK (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
To add one more point, I think a lot of rating conflict in the dungeon section has occurred because of the neglect of the general section. Currently, the general section just contains a bunch of niche running and farming builds, which is simply not general by any definition. Given the lax nature of open world/personal story/champ trains and the like that I would consider general, I think this is where it is much easier to evaluate builds within the context of class rather than cross-class because there's no inherent competition or optimization (beyond self-optimization) involved as in something like PvP or speed clears. More builds belong in that category, and perhaps a build considered "great" in general would only be "good" in dungeons. And in that way, perhaps builds should be graded inter-class in "general," and intra/cross class in dungeon. MoonKK (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm a big fan of moving a lot of dungeon builds to the general section (for pugs basically) and then restricting our Dungeon category to speed clears. We can even re-name it to Dungeon Speedclear if need be. It would be nice if we could set the meta, and honestly the closest we could get to that would be having speedclear dungeon guilds write our builds for us. We'll have to keep working to get our community built up with smart and intelligent players. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 18:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: This section will close in two days. Thus far we are for category based and for proposing two new systems against that: (1) Meta = Best for category, Great includes builds that are best for profession, good is just some builds regardless of profession that are okay-ish (this is totally muddied imo) and (2) Meta = Best for profession and can include great/good builds. Again I think it's obvious where I stand (pure category based, no profession bias, move best builds for class to their respective drop downs when you scroll down on the main page), but we will tackle that next week after this one closes. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 16:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Metabattle Direction and idea[edit]

I see many players talking about class builds are Meta but that class isnt and it was the reason that the None Meta class Build was put into the "good" section instead of the "Meta" section, even tho thats classes build was its "Meta Build".

Can we get a a "Meta Class Builds" section and a "Meta Team Comp" sections?

The point of this would be to have a Section ONLY for what is the Classes builds from Best to Worst. So players wanting to play a necro/Mesmer etc... in dungeons/team play would know what is the best builds and what not to do. The other point would be so players Knows what the Top speed clear builds/team comps are.

This can work for WvW/Pvp too. It would be A LOT more work to manage but I believe it would help the community out and would move Metabattles into an even better spot for top build website info.

PS. This is my 1st post I hope Its in the correct location and I followed the rules.

I agree with the idea that we might need more expansive labels and categories, but splitting something like meta might be a bit too confusing considering they use the same terminology. In this aspect, I think Dantes had a good suggestion and clarification where "Meta" doesn't have to be a "great" and could simply be "good" and still be meta. If you look at the GW1 PvX, you'll see that they have group builds as well as solo builds, so maybe doing that is more in line with your suggestion while minimizing extraneous labels and categorizations (not to mention different uses of the same word meta). Also you can automatically sign your posts by adding four "~" at the end of your posts. MoonKK (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
that is what the profession specific sections are for when you scroll down on the main page. We could improve it I suppose « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 18:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


So according to reddit we're dictators. I'll try to live up to the expectations so LF more followers for world domination! Only 10k AP+ pure-blooded (gum rosin'd) Sylvaries. We do Molengrad SC every Friday with field training on every Monday at the Black Citadel where we're going to practice world-class panzerkampf. Dress-code: fancy winter outfit. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 19:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes you are on a dictatorship, but this is none of your fault. Since the communtiy doesn't come and vote they leave all their power to you, and then they balme you because you have that power. It's like real life politics, everyone blame people in charge of power but they forget that they voted them.--Warrior Icon Color.png Billaboong (billa-talk) 13:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
If hotjoin builds pass trial, everyone blames me because "I" let it happen (actually voters let it happen). If someone posts a hotjoin build despite the fact that it's against every fucking rule (redundant, fits no role, inferior, it's in the wrong category, etc) and I remind people of that then I'm a dictator. With horrible builds flooding the main page we'd become an unrelyable source, and the site would eventually die. If sane person = dictator then I'll take it as a compliment. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 14:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
C'est la vie of a Dictator (more commonly known as "Admin" xP). I have to buy a fancy winter outfit now :( « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 17:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Priory scholars have proved that Fancy Winter Outfit on mesmers increase damage dealt by 27.3%, Fancyness by 103.9% and unlocks the "World domination" specialization. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 10:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


The admins have been in a guild together for a while. Perhaps we can have better discussions if we join a guild together. There is no rep requirement (except we would prefer to get together at least once in a while to discuss ideas). If you're on NA/EU and would like to join the MetaBattle guild in game, please whisper/send mail to "Chase" or reply with your account name.### -- Thank you. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 16:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

From Frontpage Talk[edit]

WvWvW organized group composition[edit]

I feel like there should be another section under the WvWvW zerg category for organized group compositions for 15 up to 25 people. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nailuj (talk • contribs) .

We should probably have a specific page for 15-25 people before we create a category for it. A test page in your user space would work just fine for an example. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 08:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Minor Punctuation/Spelling Issues on Non-Publicly Editable Pages[edit]

"Beginner's can read our tutorial..." should be "Beginners can read our tutorial..." Is there a preferred method for submitting minor corrections to pages such as this for administrative review apart from creating a new topic under Discussion? --MetaMesmer (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Category vs "Profession in Category" Meta Part II[edit]

Last week we worked on getting some ideas for whether the meta builds should be build based (ignoring professions) inside a category or if they should be profession based inside that category (each profession would have a meta).

The overall tally came to 6 votes:

Category Meta Profession in Category Meta Non-counted/New ideas
3 2 2

New ideas introduced:

User Comment
Dantes Category based in WvW/PvP. Profession based in PvE.
Blackie Builds should be rated good to great; Even a good build can be meta if nothing better is available. (note: this was actually implemented soon after the suggestion was made)
MoonKK Different builds are meta in different scenarios. Examples include: Solo completion, Speedclear, Pick-up Group. Objectivity requires proper environmental definitions.
MoonKK Some builds should move to general, zerker builds are used there. There are too many farming builds in General section (xP).
MoonKK Profession based in General PvE. Category based in Dungeons.

My thoughts:

  1. A scalable model is the best model. It perpetuates pattern and creates consistency across the board. We are using category based in PvP, and I would like to keep that going as best as we can in the Dungeon category.
  2. Meta should be defined
    1. Thief is meta (skip trash is OP), Warrior is meta (double banners, EA, and possible phalanx strenght is OP), Ele is meta (conjures for skipping/bursting down bosses is still way too OP), Guard/Mes is meta (because they have reflects/condi clear, and in the case of mes they have portal/best heal for centaur runes).
    2. Let's try to remember why other classes are great (they come close to this) and
    3. Why other classes are only "good" (they are maybe above 65% as effective but well below 95% as effective).
  3. To alleviate our troubles, we should rebrand Dungeon into Speedclear
    1. This explains the "environment" in which builds are rated
    2. This will alleviate the concerns of those that think there is no competition in Dungeons
      1. At least three DnT hosted dungeon competitions 1, 2, 3
      2. A speedclear website that keeps track of the best compositions/video runs currently recorded
      3. Dungeons were very graciously designed to be completed even by a party wearing fine/masterwork items. There is a competition for Speedclearing, not for how slowly you can complete a dungeon (because let's face it... if someone can solo it with enough time, then any pug should be able to complete it with enough time)
      4. The competition in dungeons is against the timer
  4. We can remove most meta builds in Dungeon/Speedclear category unless it is heavily used in it's format in 85% (95%?) or more speedclears (note that builds do change during speedclears)
  5. We can introduce a team comp/strategy build for every path of the game.
    1. These pages can be meta and they can include other builds inside them.
    2. This allows us to explain how a centaur rune mesmer might be considered meta for certain scenarios.
    3. This alleviates the confusion many players have on which spec they should be running (phalanx vs dps war; mantra dps mes vs even more reflection dps mes)
    4. This allows us to clearly define how well a certian comp works in certain scenarios. It lets us define every aspect of the encounters as best as we can (I will try to go through the AC P1 speedclear by qT as best as I can as an example later)
  6. A good build is currently rated 3.25 to 4.75; Let's remember that's 65% - 95% of the total score possible. A great build is currently 95+% which in my mind is "meta" but for scenarios not used as often that's all.
    1. Let's add more good builds so user's understand how things are stacking up. A DS shredder build and sinister warrior are probably similar in effectiveness. (Or *gasp*, the warrior is probably still better...) and explains why your profession is stuck so low. Again not our fault... ANet's (and they're pretty busy too I bet!).

Overall, half of us voted for category based, and we should work towards that as a community the best we can. Let's create a category that is well defined for it's usage (environment) and place the builds in there without profession bias. Personally I think we should also get on board with the idea of creating multiple team builds and perhaps reducing our meta builds. Also splitting up all the builds so they are well defined and can be used in Team comps easily. This allows a phalanx warrior to even be rated Good without meta, but still be in meta team comps. If need be. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 15:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess I'm a bit late for voting, but I still want to say that I favor category-based over profession-based. I like Blackie's implemented suggestion as well. So far, the points you've made are all things I would like to see in MetaBattle, especially team pages since this game is largely group-oriented in content. Some questions I do have: Should the farming builds in General be moved to its own section? If so, what will be the rating criteria for General builds? Nicoli20 (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The way I see it, General is a place for unorganized open world content ranging from world completion to event farming. So pretty much a casual section for open world :P For organized content we have Dungeons and World Bosses. Btw i think we shouldn't rename Dungeons, might confuse a lot of people + 99.99% of the players who are running dungeons will never participate in a true SC run. We are on thin ice because we must keep the dungeon section both accessible to newer players and veteran ones, so we can't encourage anyone to run selfish, easy to play builds with relatively low damage (I can't even imagine the pure hate we'd get for that :P ) but neither can we alienate casuals by only focusing on SC. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 20:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
@Nicoli20, I would recommend we move General to be anotehr page and not a dropdown. It will have it's own sections like Farming, Fastest Running, Map completion, gathering, whatever. It will have no "meta" builds but instead have "the best of each profession" and will be separate from the metabattle category-based setup.
@Hanz, I think we'll have to keep necros in the good section. That is the best necro build out there and better than using anything they could come up with. This keeps them paired with the other good builds but also indicates it is the best necro build viable on the hierarchy. We will also note it as such in the information section as "The best DPS and group utility a Necromancer can bring to an organized party though still subpar in effectiveness across professions." or the such. We can even say "if you are running in an un-organized group that lacks might etc, then switching to the DS shredder would output even greater efficiency." What do you think about that? DS Shredder would be moved to "General/Other > PuG Dungeons" in that case as well « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 20:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I know nec deserves to be at good, I support that idea. I just think we shouldn't overcomplicate things by fragmenting sections with ~10-20 builds into 8-10 smaller sections. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 21:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
They won't really be new sections per se would they? There would just sort of be in the name of the build, eg. "Thief Running" or "Ele Event Tagging" or whatever. I also don't think there will be much discrepancy between a dungeon pug build and an open world build. They're both basically zerker builds that use the highest DPS weapons, but perhaps dropping some group utility for some self-might or signets or swiftness/faster running. I do like the idea of redefining the dungeons part to speedclears, and would then allow for some more descriptive and/or niche builds akin to the speedclear team setups for the GW1 pvx and would allow us to put more things into the general category which I still think is pretty barren, especially given that a lot of common dungeon builds are just used in general open world as well. MoonKK (talk) 05:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe i misunderstood the intention, if it's only about adding things like "Running" or "Farming" to the name then I somewhat suppor the idea. But in an ideal Tyria, nearly everyone has optimal builds. Just because it's a pug doesn't mean there will be no teamwork, no might stacking etc. Last week I had multiple dungeon runs while pugging on my ele where a 2nd ele asked if I can stack perma fury or not because he could trait for it, and then a warrior said he can bring FGJ too if we need more Fury / might. PUG =/= baddies with bad builds and no teamwork. If we begin to encourage selfish builds for dungeons even if it's just a pug team it can lead to a scenario I want to avoid: you go in with your selfish build that brings nothing to the team and then they kick you for that or tell you to never use the same source again for builds. I think if we keep the Dungeon section as it is currently and encourage more people to run the current builds even in pugs, it can improve the performance of the playerbase in general. That's the point of the site afterall. But we could always add Team comps for SCs and such (not for every path though :P ) so we don't have to mark an entire build for SC-only. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 15:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
What do you guys think of having builds with multiple tags? Eg. A build in both general and dungeon/speedclear section. Would they have different ratings or same depending on category? Or is the latter part too complicated? MoonKK (talk) 05:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi guys. I wanted to throw a vote towards the category system proposed. I also wanted to throw a few remarks that I hadn't seen covered in previous discussions. There's some difficulty here in that we're trying to achieve maximal clarity while also catering to both new and hardcore players. As a resource, however, I think Metabattle serves a greater purpose in leaning towards the more casual end. Good players tweak their builds, traits, gear, as necessary; they understand on a higher level what a build aims to do, whether in PvE, WvW, or PvP, and what changes are situationally better; and MetaBattle often does not (and probably can and should not) map out all of the little tweaks that might be optimal in specific situations (I think most WvW guilds do not run the Metabattle build to a T, and run probably significant variations thereof). Keeping that in mind, I think it's important (for the casual crowd) that a necro or ranger who wants to run dungeons with his/her guild can find a best-in-slot dps build. For WvW and PvP, which are more competitive environments, I think the tier system does a very good job of illustrating what classes are good above the others (although it's also worth noting that, at least in PvP, a newer player can get quite far on a suboptimal class by simply getting better, well before the restrictions of their build catch up to them (at which point hopefully they are good enough to move on to something more "meta", or at the very least be comfortable with their disadvantage)). Maybe Moonkk's system is the best option; a build can have a "meta speedclear" tag or a "best-in-class" tag or something to that effect. Apologies for the bad organization of this post, I'm in a hurry. AzNsAnTaGiN (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I also wanted to comment on the narrowness of the "Meta" category under PvP. Notable builds that are confined to "great" builds include S/D thief, Terrormancer, and shatter mesmer, when arguments can be made that they are, in fact, "best in slot" for specific roles. It's not just that they are the (arguably) best builds their class (and I sincerely believe that S/D does more right now than does D/P); they hold characteristically unique roles, fill unique niches, and are arguably as effective as the "meta" builds when used properly. In the mouseover PvP tooltip, you define meta as "the most widespread/effective". I assume that you are using "/" to mean "and", which results in the exclusion of the builds I mentioned, but IMO, if the lack of Terrormancers is because no one but Nos can play it well enough, that doesn't make it not meta! It's not like we're playing Hearthstone, and you're fighting 30% one deck and 40% another and need to have the tools to deal with both; there are very few hard counters in PvP, and many can be mitigated with proper rotations/teamwork. We must, of course, still pay deference to what is run and what isn't, but it is definitely very strange to see S/D thieves and terrormancers in the same tier as spirit rangers, or condi survival rangers, or condi engineers. As a remark, I think it would be really helpful to Metabattle to have a rigorous definition for what constitutes "meta", as I haven't really seen a focused discussion on that in my cursory scanning of discussion pages. Anyhow, this is my first contribution to MetaBattle. Thanks to you guys for all the hard work! AzNsAnTaGiN (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The PvP section is category based. Technically both meta and great builds recieved approximately the same rating so they are really close in effectiveness, in fact most of the builds in the Great section were once meta for a rather long period of time, such as Spirit Ranger, Condi engi or Axe/Hambow warriors just to name a few. Terrormancer is "best in slot" for necromancers, but that does not make them meta in a category based environment. On EU cups, months can pass before you see a single necromancer and even on NA it's mostly just Nos. S/D thief is closer to meta in the NA scene (even there it's less popular than DP), but on EU SD thieves are fairly rare nowadays - for a build to recieve the meta tag it must be used widely at the highest tiers in both regions or should totally dominate one region and have some presence in the other too. Regarding condi survival rangers - you should try it, it's one of the most effective specs imo and it's very underrated, but it's overshadowed by cele specs. Afterall, why would you bring a spec dedicated to skirmishing if you can just take a cele spec that can fill that role and every other role too? But the moment cele gets nerfed (hopefully in my lifespan) condi ranger will be the new king of sidepoints, calling it now. I hope I was able to clear things up a bit :) Also, welcome to the site! --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 13:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't have time for a full post right now. It may be beneficial to keep in mind that there "soon"(TM) will be a second sPvP mode, Stonehold. There is an user simplicity benefit (meaning more active and more return users), if the system can be logical and functional, while also being (semi-)consistent between the different game modes. -- Ankin (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Profession Matchup[edit]

Like there are for LoL guides where you can "show notes" against a certain opponent and have a bar that shows you the chance of winning against them. It would be useful from a 1v1 perspective, so perhaps the dueling classes should at least start incorporating this aspect? I've had this mentioned by a couple of redditors and now a skype friend as well. It would be really cool to add, if possible « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 12:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a great idea but it will require both time and knowledge, which I am unfortunately lacking :D We could however try to implement this in small scale and see how it works out, hopefully more people will joing by time.-- Galaxian (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
It's cool indeed but it's a nightmare to maintain. I'd rather not spend 24 hours each day listening to people who don't agree with the difficulties for given matchups. :P And after a balance patch we can start from the ground. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 16:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that is how intense you have to be. For instance you see d/p thief drop black powder, expect the stealth and interrupt it with so and so skills in your class's build. These things won't change over balance patches, they can't be argued for their usefulness, and they still help new players counter other classes. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 17:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Academy Gaming EU[edit]

Hello, I'm writing to update the situation of our turnament "Tournament of the Gods". We have made some major changes:

  • We're now in the same ship with Academy Gaming, so our name has changed to Academy Gaming EU"
  • We've got Anet to sponsor us with 14,000k gems to split between 1st and 2nd place. This also mean that the getting donations is now a minor probolm, since it's only for 3rd place
  • We are into a big project with a major tournament organizer but can't tell much about this until the deal is official.
  • We're making the tournament weekly, instead of bi-weekly, wich means the popularity will increase faster

Therefore we're focusing on increasing our popularity. After reding your views data on Reddit I was really impressed by two things:

  • Up to ~780,000 monthly visits (30,000 a day)
  • ~35.6% of referred traffic comes from Twitch

We have now a pretty popular stream on Twitch, and it will occur every week, wich is your highest source of referred traffic. The tournament is aimed to new player, wich means they do not know all the builds. Also new players will watch it, and they also will want to know wich builds the players a re using.

Now, our offer is to have you putting this banner (still shows the old name and "weekly" but you get the idea. Will take a while to change it since it's a friend of us doing it for free) on the wiki and we will put your banner/logo on our stream.

--Warrior Icon Color.png Billaboong (billa-talk) 13:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

We will use the same banner we use for everyone else with some slight modificatons if you'd like. Sending us the logo icon etc would be great. If you give us the calendar and timing we would also be appreciative. Please contact me for our logo / design that can be used. GL & HF « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 15:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a fun post[edit]

Was just browsing and thought that it would be fun to post a few screenshots of how Metabattle looked back in the old days, it's actually impressive :D

Version 1:

Version 2:

Traffic growth:

Dat traffic growth :P --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 20:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Meta Tags?[edit]

Well, what happened to the meta category?

Hmm, what do you mean? The meta tag/category is still there?-- Galaxian (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
E.g. the guardian gs sword/focus isn't a "great meta" build anymore but a "great" build. Is this intentional? Fredor (talk) 09:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes -- We want people to figure out what is "meta" by using the team builds. There are meta team comps, not meta builds anymore. This way we can totally say Team - Pug and put in all the pug builds as "meta" (slightly joking) « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 11:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Then the tags from pvp and wvw will be removed later on? Btw about the rating systems... Right now we have only the categories "great", "good" and deleted(?), which is imo not very expressive. Thus I would argue to add a category like "Excellent" which could make selecting builds based on ratings easier. Fredor (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The tags from pvp/wvw are the same. It's just the dungeon one's we're experimenting with at the moment (we might go back and include a section before meta as "team" simply). Star ratings: 5 = great/excellent, 4 = good, 3 = average, 2 = bad, 1 = trash. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 12:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Edit: Where does Excellent fit in? « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 12:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Basically you want to rename Great to excellent, feels pointless to me. As for PvP afaik meta builds won't be replaced with team ones because there's no reason for that - unlike in PvE, there's no determined "meta comp". Top teams usually form their comps by picking 3-5 meta builds and occassionally 1-2 from Great. For WvW I have yet to see someone saying "LF 10 necs, 8 warriors and 15 guardians for taking garrison" so it's unlikely to happen. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 12:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
That being said hanz, I think it would be incredible if we started saving all the builds top teams used in matches so we can "go back in time" and see what won what. Just a thought (but one that requires a lot of effort.... >_<) We could have a page called "Champions League" or something and list them all under there maybe « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 12:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Some teams change their comp often to counter their opponent so it's really hard to keep track of that. But maybe we could do something like archiving finals of larger tournaments like the WTS. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 12:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Let's definitely do it for the WTS :D « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 13:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
No. I want good, great, excellent and deleted. "Excellent" would be the best builds you can play. "Great" would be still awesome builds but kinda outranked by the excellent builds. Good would be nice builds which are quite a bit behind the others. Something like this:
  • Excellent:
    • ele staff conjure
    • ele LH
    • guard gs sword/focus
    • ...
  • Great:
    • engi power grenadier
    • ranger s/a lb spotter
    • ...
  • Good:
    • Necromancer dagger/x
    • ... Fredor (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems I totally failed to reply to this. However you can kind of see this as being the set up we have except Ecellent is called "meta" for dungeons. Great is how you have it and so is Good from what I can tell. If you need scores think of Meta/Great being 95%+ and Good being 65% or better. There is a huge range for "good" builds and quite a small amount for great builds. Excellent is just narrowing down already great builds (loosely similar to "meta") « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 15:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


Beta invitations are going out, don't forget to check your mail. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 14:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Underwater Combat[edit]

In the last few days we have been doing the underwater bosses and hotw and we came to the realization that underwaterbuilds are mostly guesswork and that nobody knows where to find builds and rotations for that. Thus shall we add a few trait setups as a basis so that other can build upon it? Fredor (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

there are some videos for underwater combat actually, not sure if they're using different trait setups but they had rotations at the least. The one example i can find is this one. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 14:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Might be worth it adding guide for the PvE meta since you actually find yourself using watercombat in Fractals and dungeon but PvP and WvW surely don't need it. --Warrior Icon Color.png Billaboong (billa-talk) 15:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Then we should add what we find and improvise the rest? Special build pages? Fredor (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
No that usually leads to disaster. Do we even need it btw? As far as I know, the only time when you actually do underwater combat in a dungeon is either when you get the aquatic fractal, play Path Ihavenoideawhich in HotW, or do TA story mode (only a small part of it). I doubt people actually care about UWC or that normal traits wouldn't work. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 15:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Then new pages. Mossman, Underwater, Ta Story, HotW 2, HotW 3. A few trait setups can be tricky like the guardian and we need rotations for all of them. Fredor (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
It'll be weird to rate underwater builds as "great" in dungeon category « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 16:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Underwater section or just rate them good :D Fredor (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Guardian Med DPS Variant/Hammer Runes idea[edit]

Hi All,

I've been experimenting with similar builds to the ones in the title, and I've noticed that Rune of Vampirism is quite a useful substitute for the ones we currently have listed.

1) It secures stomps when someone downs you mid-stomp (via big wallop)

2) You can heal using your Virtue of Resolve while in Mist Form. Earlier I had said Meditation, don't know why...that is incorrect...but Meditations are insta-heal right after getting out.

3) Often when I pop out of Mist I have additional time to use either Renewed Focus and/or Shelter in quick succession and get back into the game.

4) The life-stealing is humble but still amounts to something...

5) I find that if I am affected by Swiftness, I am hella fast in Mist Form and can move quite a distance from danger...

I've just noticed that, relative to Rune of the Pack, I don't always mind sacrificing the Boons and the extra Precision. The top 3 points above have literally turned the tides of battle so many times...a second chance to come back in and finish off people!

Anyhow, thanks for responses in advance, and it's my first post so please forgive me if I didn't understand the tutorial and/or rules.

Organic X

Welcome to the site :P I may move it to a build discussion page later as this doesn't really belong here. But for now: for Hammer you have to have pack, that's your only access to Fury, and hands down it's one of the (if not the) best DPS rune for PvP. Pack gives the same amount of power as vampirism, but also 125 precision and provides powerful AoE buffs. Not to mention Shelter is on a long CD, which isn't optimal for triggering the 4th rune bonus of Vampirism. In general vampirism sucks pretty hard, it's only useful when the enemy team has 5 zerkers and 0 condi pressure, as an uncontrollable Mist Form will work against you while overloaded with conditions (even more so if the virtue cleanse is on CD). The mist form can also prevent you from finishing off the target with your burst. The fact that you can't control it will screw you over many times, but can indeed help with stomps and resses. TL;DR there are more cons than pros for taking vampirism. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 09:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome, and for the thoughts. Of course that all makes perception of the rune is that it is saving me sometimes, but really I don't know what the outcome would be had I not turned to useless mist. I am starting to feel that using that Rune is lazy too. There is no control, as you pointed out...Thanks. I will try to put it into the correct area next time. --Organic X(talk)

Heavy Edits / Reverts to Dungeon Builds[edit]

  1. ) New user makes lots of changes to a front page build (meta, great, good, or even trial -- draft is somewhat excluded)
  2. ) Check if the user has a page (Have they explained they're from Snow Crows or some other really good dungeon guild? Then it's probably okay, otherwise:)
  3. ) We should err on side of caution, revert and ask them on the user page to explain why they're making these changes in the discussion page and alert them by linking to it on their user page's discussion (this sends them a banner notification at the top).
  4. ) Avoid revert wars, seek out an admin if the new user reverts your changes. Most likely they are not authorized (but in some special cases they are our new members from SC that aren't taking the time to write out their user pages xP)

We've had some well-meaning users on here, sometimes even back things up with maths, but overall we should respect (in the dungeon category) the hours of work done by the video guide makers etc. Very often there's something missing in the calculations and it's rare for an individual theorycrafter that's just picked it up to seriously prove these builds wrong. But if they want to, they should definitely use the discussion pages first.

This is a bannable offense if new users keep abusing it. Err on the side of caution and use the discussion page when making serious edits to a front-page build. Serious edits include:

  • Changing weapon sets
  • Changing rotations
  • Changing main bars
  • Deleting variant trait set ups

Minor edits which are okay and most likely will not cause you to be banned:

  • Fixing grammar mistakes
  • Fixing formatting
  • Adding streamers

Hopefully this helps new users understand what they're allowed to do. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 15:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)