Community portal/Archive 5

TODO: PvE Builds #2[edit]

  • Guardian:
    • Guardian - Fractal Hammer
      • Update Traits
      • Update Trait Variants
      • Update Rotations
      • Update Usage
      • Check/Update Infusions
      • Check/Update Food
  • Warrior
  • Engineer
  • Ranger
  • Elementalist
    • Elementalist - D/F
      • Update Traits. Hasn't been done anything here yet.
      • Update Trait Variants
      • Update Skills
      • Update Rotations
      • Update Usage
      • Check/Update Infusions
      • Check/Update Food
    • Elementalist - S/F LH
      • Update Traits. Hasn't been done anything here yet.
      • Update Trait Variants
      • Update Skills
      • Update Rotations
      • Update Usage
      • Check/Update Infusions
      • Check/Update Food
  • Mesmer
    • Mesmer - S/S /F /P
      • Give the trait variants some love.
      • Usage might need an update. Dunno.
      • Is there something like a rotation here?
  • Necromancer
How about the team phalanx page? « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 17:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Double phalanx diddn't change. Should be the same for single. Engi got only stronger afaik Fredor (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, and is the format still okay? I ask this one based on the "archive" section in the discussion page. Lastly -- any new teams for perhaps high end fractals or what not incorporating condi classes? « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 20:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The guard/mesmer thingy is already in there. As well as thief/engi. But we might delete the single staff variant and rewrite one or two sentences.
  • Fractal Guide isn't needed imo since you play the phalanx team up. There might be a tweak here and there if you are having trouble but imo nothing that varrants a whole build.
  • Now about the condi builds. Well most of them are quite nice, but imo is the only build that can replace it's counterpart the engi.Guard does the same dmg but wastes utility, Ranger does a bit more damage but isn't as flexible, Ele is just worse than power and nobody can say anything about the venom thief. So we might as well just add the sinister engi to team phalanx. Fredor (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Well these were most of the changes the phalanx setup needed. Dunno about the gameplay and the see also section. Fredor (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
* awesome, sounds good
* okay, that works -- is there a possibilty we can do some "teams" for unorganized groups? aka 3 friends finding a pug, what 3 classes should they choose? and should they tweak them? etc or better yet some type of 3 man that can literally carry pugs regardless of them dying or helping with dps
* let's add engi as a variant. ranger should probably be rated as well as a guardian then (why is it great?). lastly, what is stopping us from figuring out the venom thief? (it has been in testing for too long)
I'm not up to date at all (literally just do the easy paths, and non-competitively), so please forgive any errors in judgment « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 21:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • good
  • Well the most important classes would be warrior/guard/ele, but to carry a pug regardless of damage is difficult. Maybe three guardians x)
    • I already added engi.
    • Condi ranger has like 93% in ratings or so. It is worse but only slightly. You might want to look at the table I made:
    • I am no theory crafter thus I cannot say if the venom share thief is worse. Since the ratings are quite mixed we should let the dungeon admin decide. (The same also goes for the burning elementalist without the ratings) Fredor (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, let's try to get our dungeon admin to answer the less than 5 party team and the condi builds that need placement questions. :) « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 22:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay phalanx strength team is updated with information about less than 5 party teams (small info, not much, but should help players trying to fill important roles better). No info on venom share thief, we might have to contact DnT about that one. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 14:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I edited 1-3 but it should be finished now. Are you going to ask dnt about the elementalist and the thief? I would, but I am away for two weeks now and will only be able to look once or twice per day in here. Fredor (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Sent a message to DEKeyz about Thief, will ask about elem too if she responds. Going to expand thief on reflect shortly « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 17:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

TODO: PvE Builds[edit]

  • Guardian:
    • Guardian - Staff Farmer
      • Update everything or archive. Dunno if anybody even wants to maintain this.
    • Guardian - Fractal Hammer
      • Update Traits or Archive. Might not be worthwhile anymore since you loose quite much damage and utility if you swap in Honor.
      • Update Trait Variants
      • Update Rotations
      • Update Usage
      • Check/Update Infusions
      • Check/Update Food
    • Guardian - GS Mace/Focus/Torch
      • Update Traits
      • Update Trait Variants
      • Update Rotations
      • Update Usage
      • Check/Update Infusions
      • Check/Update Food
  • Warrior
    • Warrior - Dual-Axe/GS Farmer
      • Update everything or archive. Dunno if anybody even wants to maintain this.
    • Warrior - The Gatherer
      • Update everything or archive. Dunno if anybody even wants to maintain this.
    • Warrior - GS Axe/Mace
      • Update Trait Variants
      • Update Rotations
      • Update Usage
      • Check/Update Infusions
      • Check/Update Food swapped with power/ferocity food
      • Swap Healing Surge with "To the Limit!"
    • Warrior - Phalanx Strength
      • Update Trait Variants
      • Update Rotations
      • Update Usage
      • Check/Update Infusions
      • Check/Update Food swapped with power/ferocity food
      • Swap Healing Surge with "To the Limit!"
  • Engineer
    • Engineer - Power Grenadier
      • Update Traits
      • Update Trait Variants
      • Update Skills
      • Update Rotations
      • Update Usage
      • Check/Update Infusions
      • Check/Update Food
      • Replace bugged trait after fix
  • Ranger
    • Ranger - Might Stacking PvE
      • Update everything or archive. Dunno if anybody even wants to maintain this.
    • Ranger - S/A LB Spotter
      • Update Traits
      • Update Trait Variants
      • Update Rotations
      • Update Usage
      • Check/Update Infusions
      • Check/Update Food
      • Swap Heal as One with We Heal as One
      • Swap Rampage as One With Strength of the Pack
    • Ranger - S/A GS Quick Draw
      • Update Traits
      • Update Trait Variants
      • Update Rotations
      • Update Usage
      • Check/Update Infusions
      • Check/Update Food
      • Swap Heal as One with We Heal as One
      • Swap Rampage as One With Strength of the Pack
  • Thief
  • Elementalist
    • Elementalist - Fire/Conjure Farmer
      • Update everything or archive. Dunno if anybody even wants to maintain this.
    • Elementalist - D/F
      • Update Traits. Hasn't been done anything here yet.
      • Update Trait Variants
      • Update Skills
      • Update Rotations
      • Update Usage
      • Check/Update Infusions
      • Check/Update Food
    • Elementalist - S/F LH
      • Update Traits. Hasn't been done anything here yet.
      • Update Trait Variants
      • Update Skills
      • Update Rotations
      • Update Usage
      • Check/Update Infusions
      • Check/Update Food
    • Elementalist - Vinewrath Healer
      • Draft Build that hasn't been changed since March. Dunno if someone will maintain it. Move to Sandbox maybe.
  • Mesmer
  • Necromancer

Fredor (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you use a tiny bit less demanding tone? :P People are still testing stuff, there is no point at updating things we aren't at least 90% certain about and even then things will likely change. Variants/usage are lower on the priority list imo. Besides, you make it seem like 10 times more work than it is which in my experience isn't good for motivating people. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 12:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
That is a quick check list I cobbled together of things to be done or looked over. If you want it to be less demanding then you are welcome to change it :P . Right now it is imo most important to give each build updated trait variant instead of the old ones (I don't know shit about engi and ele or I would already have done this) and cull the dead ones. Then we can go through this list and update the little things. Fredor (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Go ahead and archive all world boss and "other" builds in PvE section. Possible re-work of wvw sections later. Dungeons are doing great so far imo and hanz has the best handle on pvp out of all admins. Once those are archived, I'll hide the sections from the main page. Eventual rework of "Class Guides" should fit in pve section which covers all things as solo builds, dungeon builds (link to main articles), running, tagging, leveling, etc. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 23:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

New rating system[edit]


I have been working with Chase on a new build rating system for a few days now and it's pretty much completed by now. There are 2 pages of the system that can be accessed, one is located in the sidebar where it says "Recent ratings" which displays the 20 most recent votes (Chase will edit the design soon) and has the same functionality as "Recent changes". The other page can be accessed via the "Rating" tab that can be found on every build page at the top. By clicking on that tab, you will be taken to its rating page where you can leave a vote. I don't really know what to say more besides to ask for general feedback/ideas and suggestions for better "guidelines" :D -- Galaxian (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: I Forgot to mention that when a page is being moved, it will lose all of its current votes and they need to be restored manually. Just leave a comment whenever a page with at least one vote is being moved so that it can be noted and taken care of.-- Galaxian (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

EDIT2: Admins can now move votes from build X to Y, just make sure to copy the build titles from the URL as the form is sensitive. It might return success message even though something went wrong, such as wrong title.-- Galaxian (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

\o/ gg :D Though I think keeping the 1-5 rating range (if possible) would be even better, that's where this type of vetting system really shines.--Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 07:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I like that it has its own tab and a commenting system. That's really nice! At a glance, is it just a like/dislike (essentially upvote/downvote) system? I think that might be a bit too polar, particularly with the small sample size of voting users (that will presumably get smaller with a comment requirement). CGSN (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
A strong number of people were already just voting 5, with others voting 1 to offset it. We can't control people to be smart about their votes, and in the end it was very similar to just using an up/down system. If we look at the S/D conditions build for example, it scores nearly the same here and on it's own reddit post. We can change the number system later, but for now the important thing is that we have comments which will help cull the bad logic. Time will tell! Definitely encourage everyone to start voting on all the builds they feel knowledgeable with. ChaseBot (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, definitely wait it out for the first batch of votes to come in first! My main concern was with off-meta builds being potentially either completely swept under the rug or mis-identified to be as effective as the meta builds. I like to make card game analogies, so I'll use one here-- in card games, there are several deck archetypes. One particular one is aggro, which has you build an entire deck to kill your opponent as quickly as possible. In Hearthstone, a tier 1 aggro deck would be Face Hunter, but there are several other aggro decks in the game as well. While none are as adept at putting out damage as the tier 1 deck, they are still viable because they bring their unique tools to slightly change the way the match-up has to be approached. To liken this to GW2, this site receives several builds for various classes that do what another class can do arguably "better". Before, if I saw a build that was different from any existing build and was well put together and managed to fit a role reasonably well that was held already by an established meta build, I'd give it a 3 or 4 out of 5 to note that while it wasn't as optimal for the role the meta build played, it could fill the same role while bringing different tools than the meta build did to fights. Now, I either give it a full endorsement or I give it a thumbs down. While I would clarify in the text of the vote, the %approval number (which would be what the vast majority of users see and what I presume would determine the ranking of the build on the site) would not reflect that. That's the main concern I had with the new voting system. I haven't thought of a better alternative yet though-- you're very right about the problems of a 1-5 voting system and the impulsive extreme votes that are done by some to "balance out" the number to be closer to what they think it should be. CGSN (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
^ I have the same initial concerns. "Like" and "dislike" is/was the biggest problem of voting, on the other now we have a tool which could allow us to actually enforce the rating ranges. :P The following was posted by Dantes like a year ago, displaying this on the top of the rating page should provide sufficient guidance for voters.
5 - Great: One of the most effective builds in a specific gametype. Either fulfilling a necessary role to an extraordinary degree or has a broad effectiveness throughout the gametype.
4 - Good: Is an effective build that has some advantages over Great builds but doesn't have the broad effectiveness of Great builds. These advantages should be significant enough to let it stand out from other builds.
3 - Mediocre: A build that does it's role reasonably well but is outclassed by other builds. Has good ideas but in practice doesn't bring many advantages to warrant it's use.
2 - Poor: A build that is focused on a niche ideas and doesn't bring any advantages that would be significant in its gametype. Shows a lack of understanding of the gametype.
1 - Bad: Has severe flaws that prevents it from being viable, either nonsense reasoning or lack of focus in the build. Shows a lack of understanding of game mechanics.
This should eliminate any kind of confusion. Fairly easy to categorize most of the builds by this (although arguements can be made for more than 1 rating ranges in most cases) and most imporantly it's very hard to provide a legit arguement for a bearbow build using this. Below the guidance to ratings could be some tips for commenting such as "Briefly explain which role it's supposed to fill, and compare the build to other builds designed for the same role, explain its pros and cons compared to other builds" or something like that. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 16:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
@CGSN: Some very good points, but (imo) the user base is unenlightened. Placing a score guideline as hanz has put up above would only help a few people out. Most people will vote basic: 5 or 1. In the end people will see a score and vote one way or the other to "push" it in the direction they want. Perhaps we should encourage a third rating as "No vote". I'm very much for discussing this further, but I'm not quite ready to give up on this implementation just yet. Even a 3 tier system would be better than 5 tier imo (Good, Ambivalent, Bad). Anything that makes it exceptionally clear how the rating works in an objective / non-emotionally ruled method and can be policed by us would be good.
If you look at how some of the votes are going now, the people that gave it a "heart" are giving it a 4 or 5 in the old system. The ones giving it a no-heart are implying it's a 1 or 2. Just keep that in mind and look at what some builds have gotten. (I'm quite sure the D/D SB meta thief build is not a 1 or 2 for instance.) If I get a chance I will try to blur out some names and post up the previous votes that people had cast in the old system as well! That will be a good opportunity to "back-test" the theory. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 19:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Honestly this is only one half of the problem, and the other half is that Mediocre builds are not displayed on the site, period. Users get the impression that any build that they like has to be Good or Great, so they always give those "hearted" builds 4 or 5. I love Dantes' rating guidelines, but people won't adhere to it unless they feel their builds will get a fair shake against the competition. Voting 1 on a build that you simply don't like to play is what happens when there is no Mediocre rating >.<. Then place the descriptions of these ratings in the respective banners. --Shazz Bott (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm just going to jump in here and excuse me if I mention something that's already been mentioned. One of my gripes with the new system is simply the wording of it, me "liking" a build doesn't make it an actual good build so to me it comes off as a tad confusing. I honestly preferred the way it was before where you would rate the build on what category it would fit into(meta, great, good, bad or whatever it was). --Abe
Oh yeah, this is something I also wanted to talk about below at the Rating 2.0 section. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 20:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
It now says "This is a good/bad build". For statistics on how this is working compared to the old system see below conversation. We could talk about adding 2 or 3 more options there. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 22:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Another idea had come up when me and Galaxian were working together. How would it be if we were to keep a simple voting system for the vast majority of our users (non-logged in, ip based) and then we had a separate comment system for the "staff" (veterans included). The "staff" chooses the type of rating it is (meta, great, good, bad, trash) and this is reflected in the banner we have at the top. In addition, on the right hand side the text will say "Staff has chosen this rating; The community believes it to be: " And put in the type of rating we have now there. This is kind of like what many "review" sites do today. Metacritic, CNet, etc often have a "Critic vote" and a "User review" number. Just something to think about. Personally felt it was too complicated for now, but it could be good to get some feedback on this idea as well « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 20:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Bit complicated, the current one might just work afterall. :P We'll see. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 20:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Couple of notes: the end of each line in the comment box breaks words. Currently it's possible to give rating with an empty comment box, maybe it should have a 10 character minium or so, but this is just a minor thing. EDIT: you might also want to disable voting in Draft. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 06:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Admins should just delete votes from draft builds when moving to trial, as there is no easy "fix" for this on the backend (There may be in the future, but only if this system is vetted). I'll work on making the word breaks better (it's to stop someone from typing ajwoeifjwaoiejfoaiwejf for 1,000 characters and break the layout). Just delete votes with no comment. It's already listed as a viable reason to have your vote deleted. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 15:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah it's not that important. However could you add the following to the rating page? "Before you cast your vote, consider how well this build performes in a necessary role of the gamemode compared to other builds designed for the same role (accross all professions!) and whether it brings something unique to the table to warrant its use or not." - or something like this. It's short but should provide all the guidance votes need I guess. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 19:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Skill tooltips[edit]

Decided to start updating some of the professions while playing HS. I'm using lvl 80 base values, even the official wiki's outdated in that regard.

Here's a list of skills that were added with the patch and need a template (I'll expand it as I come across more):

  • Healing Surge "To the limit!"
  • Healing Breeze "Recieve the light!"
  • Tome of Courage Signet of Courage
  • Med Kit skills and all 3 engi F5 skills
  • Elite Mortar Kit skills
  • Heal as one "We heal as one!"
  • Rampage as one "Strength of the pack!"

--Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 17:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Finished updating all the tooltips. Base values for skills that were not in the patch notes are slightly off (as the base stats were increase to 1k), but nobody pays attention to that anyways :P Now we just need to update the traits, remove Roaming from the main page and then we're in a good position again and can rest until the expansion. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 22:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft to test[edit]

Hi everyone i wanted to ask how u get a build from draft to the test section? or how long it takes to get there

yours sincerely Mine Pie

It'll show up in testing later today. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 08:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Zerg + Roaming Sections[edit]

There has been a push to shut down the zerg and roaming sections. A quick overview:

  • PvE sections lost world boss (they have a high condi cap and can be crit, forcing a ruleset similar to dungeons)
  • PvE sections lost "open world"/misc builds (to be fair there was on "competitive" use for these and it had low viewership aside from the guardian farming build lol; this section will eventually come back as a reworked "Class Guides" section which will teach how to maximize damage (phys + condi, solo + party), utility options, running/mobility aspects, farming, etc. and will do it's best to "rate" them across professions; aka thief+warrior will have superior mobility to other classes like necromancer.)
  • Dungeons + Ranked Arena have a very clear rule set and their "meta" builds can be easily designated (Dungeons have a competitition run by DnT, Ranked Arenas have competitions running multiple times every week).
  • Zerg builds can vary greatly guild to guild and still be effective (Reason being that coordinated groups vs uncoordinated groups will often fare better using any sort of good+ build)
  • Roaming builds have no rule set. We can't even define one really. The only true rule (and even this can be negated) is the ability to "escape a zerg". Since there is no competition here and the options are high, this section should be considered an "open world" wvw build (Which we've already decided was not worth putting up on the front page). Perhaps this could also be re-visited as a "class guide in WvW" section?

Zerg builds could perhaps be re-worked as a GvG section. It's also possible we could start writing up "Team" builds instead of individual so that groups that run tanky with 5 shout warriors and some heavy backline can have their own page, a team that runs full condi (have seen it work; again organized > pug groups) could have it's own page as well. Probably still won't fix the core problem that there is no definitive competition to gauge the effectiveness of one team over the other. (Hence the GvG recommendation).

WvW builds in general suffer from the "grind of PvE" and the stat versatility of PvP. It's harder to test wvw builds than it is PvP (you just switch them for free with a couple of clicks in the lobby) or in PvE (generally speaking it's a DPS test, this can be theorycrafted prior to working a set out and it's kind of obvious what will work and what will not stat wise).

Haru should be responding here soon, if not we will have to decide this ourselves over the next two weeks. I have also gotten in touch with a couple other friends of Metabattle to ask their thoughts on the matter. Frankly speaking we've even asked a few top ranking guilds if they'd like to help out Metabattle with the wvw sections and they are very averse to doing so. Reasoning being they believe their builds to be superior to the builds on our site (I have to agree in some comps they do actually have better builds). People don't want to "share" the best way to fight in WvW because it makes it harder for other servers to beat them. Selfish, but logical/rational. This isn't the case in dungeons (common AI enemy) or PvP (inspect tools built in, clear 5v5 set up, multiple tournaments a week to weed out the bad comps/builds). « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 15:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding a change in section material
Many people have stopped roaming for over a year now
It's never been popular and the amount of condis going on sways people against it
for WvW
WvW meta is influenced heavily by GvG meta
I think what you could do is simply rename Zerg into GvG, take out all the non-meta builds, and add new ones from there
here are the builds I think deserve a place in the GvG section
Guardian - AH Frontliner
Elementalist - Staff Backline
Necromancer - Wells Backline
regarding Warrior: shouts got nerfed really badly. I don't think they will be meta.
Killshot or destroyer will probably be meta
Mesmer builds and thief builds are really personal preference
YOu really look to Ranked Arena for inspiration and tweak from there
No one uses venoms in GvG anymore
Engineer has never had a place in GvG. Not sure if it'll become viable.
D/D ele might make a resurgence so we can make a page for that.
Ranger is barely used now
Does that help?
As I said before, I can't make any meta builds because there is no meta
perhaps only the Guardian build is set The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haru (talk • contribs) .
Only thing I want to add is that we shouldn't rename it to GvG. I bet 99% of our users who want to get a build for WvW won't ever participate in that so it can be confusing. Despite that we could still follow the guild meta. Maybe we should merge Roaming and Zerg into 1 "WvW" section, mainly focusing on builds designed for large scale encounters with some roaming builds here and there? --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 06:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the way Haru was explaining it, the best roaming builds are inspired by PvP (thief/mesmer). A stronger emphasis given to "GvG" will make the ruleset much clearer. It's only a click away to see what they're running and a few of the builds are similar to wvw zerg/roaming builds already (guard, ele, necro, thief, mesmer). Seems only warrior is really changing a lot and there will be possibly a new ele build. In addition to these builds (classified "great/meta"), there should be some engi/ranger builds for "good" and perhaps some extra builds like shoutbow (which was nerfed, but may still be "good"). We could perhaps name the tab "WvW GvG"? That looks weird. A lot of builds are going to "get lost" like camp flipping builds, popular roaming builds (even though it's hard to define which is meta/great/good there are still some general condi p/d roaming builds that totally work). So again these "extra" builds will have to go somewhere eventually not only for wvw but also the pve ones. Hopefully will start working on class guides soon. Still thinking what we should name the new tab. I was really thinking "GvG" and have it just say things like roaming/zerg builds in the description when you hover. Or we could even create a new category called GvG or WvW so all our old zerg/roaming builds are left alone in their category, but I'm not sure this is that important. Ultimately I think it would be nice if we had the three main categories "Dungeons" "GvG" "Ranked Arena" and started creating "niche" categories and labelling them under PvE/WvW/PvP. These niche categories could be as specific as "Flipping Camps" in wvw and people could look at all these "categories" in another page. It's an idea for the future, but not right now « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 14:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, the expansion will bring guild rating/ladder to PvP, so the term "GvG" will officially belong to tPvP. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 14:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Is it likely to be called GvG in tPvP? I didn't actually read this information, so I'm unaware. Instead of GvG we could try ZvZ, but that sounds odd to me. WvW would be "too open" of a name, including all sorts of things like escorting yaks, roaming to kill some uplevel getting a vista, and stealth scouting a zerg, so if we can avoid "WvW" as the title, then that would be ideal. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 14:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
We still have months to come up with a name :P Guilds will be able to create multiple separate teams with their own rating for PvP. From what I understand: you que for ranked (doesn't matter if it's Stronghold or Conquest), if at least 3/5 members of your party are from your ranked guild team then the team will gain rating after the match. As this form of play won't have a dedicated guild-only gamemode (and at this point not even a separate que which imo is a horrible idea), people won't be able to refer to these matches by any name other than GvG even if they wanted to. Anet is trying not to upset the WvW people so they're not calling it GvG in any interview or blogpost (which is hilarious as the current WvW "GvG" has nothing to do with the GW1 one which is the last official GvG of the franchise so WvW'ers should be looking for another name not Anet) but be sure that the community will call it GvG, maybe except for the most diehard WvW'ers. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 15:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Roaming and Zerg sections have been merged into a "World vs World" section (marked by "WvW" in the build/rating templates used for marking a build's categories). A re-work of all meta builds will be done by week's end. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 13:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Variants - Format[edit]

The new way where we display variants below each specializations (so strength goes under strength, tactics under tactics etc) is a bit chaotic to me. Should we change back or keep the current one? EDIT: maybe chaotic isn't the right way to put it, all I'm saying is the previous method would look better. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 11:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I actually like it that I can write it directly underneath the specilization. But there certainly is a problem with too long sentences which make it look ugly Fredor (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Give me bad examples and I will try to see what can be doen to make them better. To me so far everything looks great :) I really like the specificity of it. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 14:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Acually let's try a minor adjustment first if you don't mind - could you change the text in the "Variants" box to white (to match the text if the Specialization names, and then change the box's background to black? Also in the 1st version you posted it had a slightly different shape (bottom right corner was rounded), could you bring that back? --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 14:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I could try that :) Just give me till the end of the week, things are a bit busy now :/ « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 17:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
No need to hurry :P --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 17:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
This was done a while ago! Forgot to reply here. What do you think? « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 20:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
i like it Fredor (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Perfect ^^ --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 13:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

General PvE Request[edit]

Add a General PvE or Leveling tab under "PvE", my guild was asking heaps of questions today about leveling since it got pretty complex and i was just about to make a thief leveling guide but there isn't anywhere to write it. Much appreciated. --Thief icon.png TheShyGuyTheory (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that completely unnecessary though? Leveling and open world is more than easy, pretty much just do whatever and you'll get to 80 in a week. A section needs more than 1 build btw. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 12:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
"What do I spent my hero points on?", "what weapons do I take?" "what specialization line should i run first/second/thief?", these are all questions i get litterally every day. leveling is pretty faceroll for us but for new players they have no idea. --Thief icon.png TheShyGuyTheory (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
But i get what you mean though, if you'd like I can make a make-shift build thread on my personal page, just to show you the template and what it could contain. --Thief icon.png TheShyGuyTheory (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
That's a good idea :) You could create a sandbox page for it. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 13:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Definitely put it in your user page for now. I'm very curious to see how effective it is. You can also share that link to all your guildies, so it's an open platform still (in a way). If you'd like to work on the "class guides" initiative, it will be a serious rework of the general PvE where all the intricate details of a class are put into one page. It should include leveling (via the various pve/eotm/pvp methods), profession mechanics (where they excel and what they lack), and end game builds for pve/wvw/pvp with a general outline of how they work. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 13:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback guys! I'll try and incorporate a section explaining where to spend your spirit shards first, how to effectively use your skills and what specializations to use. I was also thinking about adding a "Map order method" type section explaining what maps to go to next and effective ways to clear them but i thought it would have nothing to do with the thread. Maybe instead of Meta > Great > Good > Test > Draft its each profession as well as a "General" sub section that has guides in it like "Map Clear Guide" and "Human Map Orders" (or maybe both rolled into one), and yes i understand this is "Metabattle" but c'mon that's a great idea :D (imo) By the way its gonna take me a while to write up the template as im going to just make the thief one right off the bat instead of just a plain template, just so you can understand where im going with it. --Thief icon.png TheShyGuyTheory (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmm actually if it's more of a leveling guide than a build then we could shoehorn this type of stuff into the Guide section. :P Different topic, for your signature use this [[File:Thief Icon Color.png]] Thief Icon Color.png :D It has transparent background and more swag. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 15:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't the forgotten Guide Section be an appropriate place for what you want to write? --Warrior Icon Color.png Billaboong (billa-talk) 15:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Vote System on Guides[edit]

Can we have the same voting system for builds on the guides? Also, how about a message somewhere on the builds that says "leave a vote if you liekd or not the build" --Warrior Icon Color.png Billaboong (billa-talk) 20:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Ratings 2.0[edit]

I think we need 3 categories and this is my suggestion: page 2.0 - yes I know it's majestic I even drew the fucking sun. Goal is to have 3 vote options for 3 categories with a brief description of what the rating ranges mean on the top of the page without overcomplicating things. We could also use the medals instead of hearts but that's not important. EDIT: forgot the values: Bad adds 1 point, Good adds 4 and Great adds 5, then the sum is obviously just divided by the number of voters. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 11:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking over the data from the last version. If we apply 1 & 2 to dislike, 3 to no-vote/abstain, 4 & 5 to like, the new version maps to the same category (great, good, bad) in 80% of situations. If we include a no-vote to the current system, it will map 85%. If we include it the way hanz has suggested above it does almost exactly as well as the current method in place. This assumes people will follow the rules as we've placed them. It seems as though in our current age everyone feels they must have an opinion. And it seems also the case that people have a hard time saying two similar builds are both good if they like one more than the other. Time will tell how well our system is doing, the 3-5 votes we have is not enough. In the 20% this system fails to correlate with the old one, the average number of votes was ~3 1/2 votes. In the 80% it did correctly, the average votes were ~4.6. I think to be safe we need at least 6-7 votes to be sure our system is working. That's honestly not a high number imo. If the community fails to upkeep this system we will simply move on to letting our admins decide what is meta. Perhaps our community cannot be trusted to do this objectively/maturely. We've had some votes where a person fully dismissed the build because they didn't like that a variant listed wasn't main-bar. To stress again, this system needs time and good voters. We already have a 3 piece system in place (actively including a "no-vote" to help spread out the numbers, only seemed to help in 5% of cases). If you need any more number crunching, let me know I will be glad to look it over with different scenarios, but also remember our old system wasn't perfect either. We didn't have comments so we don't actually know how dumb those votes were, but I'm sure we had some discrepancy back then too! « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 14:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Also we can tweak our numbers for the categories. It may totally work out! Just need a lot more voters. We should definitely be aiming for at least 5 votes. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 14:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong I know the current system is better :P But it's mostly because of the visible voting. The pros of going with Bad/Good/Great (A) instead of Like/No vote/Dislike (B) is exactly that we can categorize builds more accurately with less votes, especially if the debate is about choosing between Good and Great. In case A where out of 6 people 4 says it's Great and 2 says it's Good it could still go either way. Currently (case B) this would mean 4 likes 2 dislikes, which isn't even enough to get into Good (or we invalidate the dislikes because they disliked a build for the sake of vote balancing and not actual reasons, in which case the build gets moved to Great instantly). --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 15:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
In which case we can move the "points" at which we determine tiers. Still need votes to see how it works though. If a build really is "good" then imagine 33% of people giving it a 1 or 2 (that's what a dislike is, this must be made clear). The old-voting rate of 3 doesn't have anything to do with it. If 1 in 3 people thought the build was bad, then it may not be good enough for metabattle. Also we can tweak these numbers later as said before. Just need 250-500% more votes lol « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 16:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
We definitely need more voters, but Like/Dislike won't work because that requires collaboration between the voters. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 16:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean "collaboration between the voters"? « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 22:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
3 people want a build to be in Good, 3 intend to vote it up to Great. In the current system that's 3 dislike and 3 like which is trash. This leads us to 3 possible outcomes: 1) one party manages to convince the other and they agree on the most fitting place for it (this is the collaboration I'm talking about, chances are this won't happen) 2) some of the voters who want it to be in Good will have to change their vote to a Like just so it won't get trash'd, which means if some other people join the voting and upvote the build it'll be in Great, at which point the previous voter will have to change back to Bad just to balance out the vote, not to mention vote balancing should be forbidden 3) they do nothing, and a potentially Great build gets trash'd for no reason. Plus this makes it really hard for builds to get into Great if there's the slightest debate about placement. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 07:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I have noticed another issue with the current voting system. As there are controversial votes, it becomes a debate instead of indipendent votes. For example: I said PU mesmer on pvp is bad because 1) too slow on killing enemies 2)if you want to use it as a point holder, there are better builds for this role. Then another guy voted the buildd as good with the following motivation: 1) fast enough on killing enemies 2)only bunker guardian is better. This goes against the purpose of voting: you want to give your reason why the build is bad/good, not write the opposite of what other people votes. Also, if you show the votes results before you write your vote, you'll be influenced in many ways. A couple of examples: 1) you see the build has a couple of good votes so you think "I don't need to sayy it's good then, other already said it". This way the amount of votes won't increase. 2) you are uncertain if the build is average or great, but you see everyone has voted great, so you conform. 3) You see people have said "this build is good for XYZ reasons, so you don't write it again. Repetition of reasons and votes might be seen as negative, but it's good. If 10 people give the same motivation when rating a build, it means that's a strenght of the build. 4) The "answer effect". You like the build, you see negative votes, you focus on writing positive aspects of the builds that coutner the negatives. This should remain on the Discussion page. A posssible solution would be to hide the vote results with a button (problem is people acn jsut see them and get influenced) or let people see the votes only after they vote (problem is some people might give a random vote only to see the results). I believe the second solution is better. --Warrior Icon Color.png Billaboong (billa-talk) 09:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I highly doubt that anyone would skip casting a vote just because others already voted. Proof: GS/Hammer was moved into Great immediately after the patch without any votes as it was basically meta. Currently it's the most upvoted build on the site despite the fact that the category was already set and many other people already voted. Conflicting votes are fine too, just need elaboration, like why is the given build better/worse than X, what does it bring that's necessary for the role (and maybe it's something other classes can't). 1-2 upvotes on borderline viable builds are fine, for something to pass testing an overwhelming majority of positive votes is required anyways. If someone's uncertain about the rating, he likely won't vote jsut for the sake of voting, but if someone was convinced by the reasons found among the votes and tested the build accordingly it's fine to give it a good rating I guess so that's not a bad thing - if the reasoning is flawed we can just cross out both votes. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 10:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Five categories is definitely too much. A few people are arguing 2 or 3 is too few. Imagine if we took out a number and ran the test again as a new system. If we took out 1 as an option, we'd be wrong in about 10% of all ratings. If we took out 4 and 5 we'd be wrong in about 44% of ratings. Based on this you can see how much of our failure is mapped when taking a number out of the new system. Theoretical new system maps number for number and takes out:

  • 1 - 9.89% fail to categorize correctly
  • 2 - 4.16%
  • 3 - 3.65%
  • 4 - 14.58%
  • 5 - 28.65%

Combining categories is the next logical step. If we combine 1 and 2's to be 1 then you have this spread:

  • 1 - 20% fail to categorize correctly
  • 2 - 0% (obviously, we've combined it with 1)
  • 3 - 3.65%
  • 4 - 14.58%
  • 5 - 28.65%

3 is already an outlier, it's barely helping at all, so let's just remove them entirely and pretend those people never voted:

  • 1 - 36%
  • 2,3 - 3.65% (there will be a failure regardless)
  • 4 - 22%
  • 5 - 32%

So yes based on this it does seem difficult to remove 4 and 5, but let's try it anyways where the 4's are merged into 5:

  • 1 - 70%
  • 2,3,4 - 22%
  • 5 - 52%

You can see we're wrong in 20% of cases if we use the last method. That's a significant amount! If we keep a 4 and 5 we mess up in only 3% of cases. So logically I understand where you guys are all coming from asking for a "good" button.

But there is a magical "balancing" number (4.75 to be exact) for where 4 and 5 can be merged. Failure is at 0%. It's a pure map, 1 to 1 relation. 0 mistakes.

As said multiple times before, if we use the same breakpoints as before, then yes we'll have a problem. If people are so stupid they can't figure out how to use the new system rationally/logically, then yes we have a problem. And if the people are malicious enough to start manipulating based on other votes, then yes... we do have a problem.

But the system is sound from a theoretical standpoint. This is why I'd rather wait for more votes to make sure the system works or if people can't figure it out. @Billa pointed out a good method for even fixing some of the manipulation, which is where I'd rather focus on. (Hiding votes until either 1) X number of votes have been cast or 2) until they have voted themselves). Adding a "good" button is an okay fix for the interim I guess. It's really not required when you can easily just map a new balance number.

Another idea is that we simply do not have "great" until 5 votes are casted. If a build is truly spectacular, it should be more popular in votes. 5 upvotes and 0 downvotes = good. 10 upvotes and 0 downvotes = great. 9 upvotes and 1 downvote = good. That's a map to our old system and I think it makes sense too.

Let's look at this from an intrinsic point of view: When our build's page says "the community has ranked this as good/great" can we really say that's true? Less than 2 votes and an admin's support. I have the deepest respect for our admins and I think our admins really do know what is meta (I trust them to be correct about this, that's how metabattle has stayed afloat all this time. The admins. Not the user base!).

But when we say "The community has ranked" that's a total lie. We need more than 2-5 votes to say "the community has ranked". Either the vote system will be deleted and we'll structure the wording to say our staff decided this is the rating, or we need to seriously boost our voting numbers. There is NO inbetween. In the end, the structure, failures, etc of this system need to be vetted in that respect only.

If there is something hindering this system from being open to the public or difficult to understand then that is what I want to hear. Not solutions to smaller problems. Our biggest concern with voting should be the voter base. It needs to be increased greatly or we will delete the voting all together. It's not a "community voting" for 5 people or less.

I hope the gravity of the situation is now more clear. In PvE we seriously do not tolerate the "average" user's vote as they are often wrong for what is great for speed running. They may have a great idea for what carries pugs through dungeons, but that's not what our category is.

Our site has become ... to say the least "very elitist". If we want to maintain this level of elitism and pretend the community agrees with us, well... that's the clash we're facing. Our roaming section for WvW was shut down because there was no one who could police what was good or bad. PvP we can clearly see what works in high level play. But what works for average users in hot join?

Our population comes from a different point of view than what we're show casing. This voting problem is at the heart of metabattle's existence. "Should it be allowed for sub-par players to cast 'incorrect' votes?" Is a much bigger question than "Can we add a 'good' button?" for a slight variation in votes (for me at least).

It's abundantly clear you guys do not like the new system, but without voters and without an understanding of how impactful we want those voters to be, it doesn't seem to make sense to be complaining about a "good" button just yet. If a "good" button is seriously holding back people from voting, then yes I'll add it. It won't make sense, but if it improves the number of votes we get by a serious factor, then I'll definitely add it in. Just give me some good reasoning why people are averse to saying a build is good in the current system and that's why our voting numbers are so down. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 15:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Tl;Dr You guys are worried about users manipulating our system, but we can always manipulate the balance numbers later. Try not "manipulating" the system just yet and vote instead based on what you think is good or bad (the way you should!). It really will work out in the end, I'm confident about it, and if it doesn't we can fix it and move forward with your method. (Dang didn't realize how much I typed!) « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 15:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

"But there is a magical "balancing" number (4.75 to be exact) for where 4 and 5 can be merged. Failure is at 0%. It's a pure map, 1 to 1 relation. 0 mistakes." - I was thinking about lowering it to 4.6 maybe, but we definitely need to draw a line between Good and Great. We simply can't put MM nec and DD ele into essentially the same tier. You are waiting for more votes, but this is holding back Votes. For instance I'm not touching any of the builds that are in good or the ones I think should be in Good because I just can't cast a legit vote for them. Also there were quite a few attempts where people tried to specify that they want the build to be in Good not Great, I was trying to dig up these votes but most of them were altered by the commenter or deleted, probably because they realized that's not how it works now. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 21:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Would there actually be a single downside to having 1 more option to vote for..? --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 13:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
You can now choose between good and great options. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 20:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
<3 You're the best. The final step would be to add brief descriptions for the 3 categories but that can wait, we'd have to figure out what to put there anyway. Then I'll stop pushing this topic I promise xP --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 21:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
There's a minor problem with the Recent ratings page. It doesn't show "Bad, Good or Great" but only "Good or Bad". --Warrior Icon Color.png Billaboong (billa-talk) 10:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

WvW Builds Moved[edit]

A lot of builds have been "abandoned" which were moved to "draft"/trial stage. The ones that have specializations completed are in Trial. It is probably quite difficult to rate these builds because anything can work in open world WvW based on player skill, awareness, coordination, etc. Trial builds that aren't updated will be archived in 2 weeks. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 21:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Im curious[edit]

Why were all farmer guides (especially the guardian staff farmer) as well as the distinctive roaming/zerk categories trashed? --Ark

They weren't trashed, they were archived. We're a wiki not McDonald's, demand isn't enough to keep things running and there was close to none user contribution for roaming/farm builds so after the specialization patch we removed them as they became outdated. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 07:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
And that was even more contribution than what the farming section got Fredor (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Q3 Goals[edit]

Let's get these two done by the end of September:

  1. Public stress test of our voting system
  2. Class guides

The first requires all builds to be updated, and we're waiting on the dungeon section as well as our wvw admin to finalize their section for meta builds. A good example of the second is taking the auxiliary information from dulfy's guides for classes like mechanics, combos, and tricks and putting them in a separate guide for the profession itself. These mechanics are often cross-game mode and the guide itself should be linked at the bottom. This will allow us to drastically cut down on the worries of writing "usage" sections and will allow us to use much shorter sentences like "burst zerker casters" instead of the huge paragraphs we have for thief explaining how steal works etc. The first should be done soon and the second should be the focus of august and september.

More information on the class guides and the "vision" behind it:

  • Each class should explain it's mechanics, basic skills, and trait lines.
  • Each guide should explain what the class excels/lags in with a relevant comparison (example: thief/gs war/ele using fgs have superior mobility compared to a necro)
  • Ideally each skill should have a "rating" chart that explains what it's biggest hitting moves are, what it's strongest heals are etc. This is endgame for class guides, so not to be worried about yet.
  • Example builds should be given to show how you can "try" different set ups, this should cover all of open world pve, solo wvw, hot join, etc builds

Any thoughts and suggestions are always appreciated. Other goals that are in mind can also be discussed:

  • Hosting gw2 dungeon records
    • Writing dungeon guides for each path
  • Including a calendar of pvp competitions (and eventually gvg/dungeon competitions as well)
  • Keeping track of all winning team comps + builds for each competition in a "Hall of Heroes" sort of page
    • Bold teams that won a tourny with significant rewards
    • Possibly condense all the record wins from dungeons
  • Calculator / build editor using our wiki data

Or any other thoughts you may have. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 14:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I think that we might need more manpower for the guides. Right now most of pve section edits come from 1-3 active users and the random user here and there. Might take quite a while to write 9 full fledged intricate class guides with the current activity. More pve section moderators would also be nice. Right now there is only Abe and the PvP Admins to mediate some disputes about builds.
  • Should we swap all builds to trial phase and let the community decide what they want as meta?
  • Hosting records might be difficult. On one hand reddit was quite upset the last time when dnt wanted to host them after gw2scr went down because of ... reasons and on the other hand I think that it might be quite some work to review all of the videos Fredor (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Definitely would be nice to have more active users. Class guides are actually mostly already written all over the web. It'll be a long term goal, but I want the "basics" done in 2 months. I will do this all on my own if need be and I'm sure it'll be a good enough framework to start with.
  • No. The community in the past has been very bad about rating builds. The trust just isn't there yet. Admins are in charge of "meta", users are in charge of good, great, trash.
  • I believe this had to do with a premier speed running guild taking control of it. There was some confusion about biases. Regardless of whether people want to use it on our site or not, we will be displaying it. MetaBattle should be a "hub" for competitive information and high level game play. ChaseBot (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe but rewriting and maintaining guides is also quite some work.
  • I would still shove most of the builds that aren't meta yet but still have a rating back into trial phase.
  • Mkay, but is it worth the effort? Competitive Speedrunning has dried up quite much. these are the current records which is a fraction compared to a year ago. We would also just be copy&pasting the records from that gw2dungeons. Fredor (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • True, maybe we can do a "class" tricks section only. Things like, this signet on necro can be used without facing the target or even LoS etc. That list might be easier to control.
  • Examples? Would this be all great/good builds?
  • Good point. Let's not do that then xP ChaseBot (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Or we just ask one of these guide writers if they want to write one here.
  • Well all of them of course ;P
  • Btw these ChaseBot edits aren't shown on the recent changes page. I nearly would have overlooked this twice now ^^ Fredor (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
What would you actually accomplish by moving builds back to Testing? --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 09:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
More people would vote on their favorite builds and we won't have as many dicussions like "wth is this build ding in great with only one mediocre vote but build xyz not which is way better". Most meta builds right now also do not have anything like a rating compared to the builds in testing Fredor (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Then vote and give it a rating :P Anyone cast a vote for any build regardless of category. Btw if someone wants to give feedback he's going to give feedback regardless of build position, at least that's my experience. We simply don't have enough testers and can't afford to make the dungeon section unusable for weeks or months by removing them from the working categories. TL;DR If you don't agree with a position, just cast a vote and if you think the other votes are BS and lack reasoning then we can discuss it and I can potentially remove them. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 09:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Not the dungeon section, but all of them ;P but yeah let's keep it like this then. Fredor (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I will make a note of this during the public stress test. They will be encouraged to vote on builds already placed to help us further place them (Or to see how stupid they are and whether or not we can trust the community). If anything I'm totally cool with putting every single build into test just for the stress test to see where things end up. It would be an excellent exercise and quite revealing imo. Before such a thing happens I should streamline the "making a new build" process, so they can also include their own builds for testing. I'll start working on that in a couple of weeks. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 11:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
You might also want to deactivate rating for builds in draft stage Fredor (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Done with the exception of discussion pages. There are no automatic solutions :/ « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 15:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
So when do you want to stress test the rating system? Pve builds are finished imo and we should do it before the expansion hits and all is thrown into flux again. It might also be a good occasion to get some people to write some pve guides Fredor (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be a good "lull" in reddit posts tomorrow (no patch, reveals, etc). We can write something up (posted in a new section on this page for edits/review purposes). It will be up shortly and I expect feedback on it before posting it. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 15:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Nowadays some sites get the elite spec reveals 1 day before the official blogpost, so there is a huge chance for getting Thief elite spec info tomorrow. This is gonna be a busy week :P --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 15:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Dammit Hanz was faster^^. I'll try giving feedback if it is possible. Fredor (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
My spider senses were tingling. Btw I'm also planning to do a reddit/oficial forum post about ele balance. Basically I want to organize a movement with only 1 rule - play nothing else but DD ele until the next balance patch. Hopefully we can increase the average ele/match count from 6 to 7. Or probably limit it to a specific day of each week. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 16:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Trial vs Draft[edit]

We officially use "Draft" now. Order goes:

  1. Draft
  2. Test
  3. Good, Great, Archived, Trashed, or Deleted

More improvements will be coming to make Archive/Trash templates easier to use as well. Front page will also be updated to hide "world boss" "general pve" from class drop downs. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 15:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Open World[edit]

I miss our open world section. It's where I used to put all the silly, yet somewhat effective builds like condi warrior for silverwastes. Has good mobility, does great armor ignoring damage to some creatures, and isn't good enough for dungeons. It's a solo build, of course we cannot police that section, and it is subjective, but I suppose we could work on setting up a solo dungeon build using the same idea? Here is the build as a reference: « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 23:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC) I do not see a problem with adding a solo dungeon build as long as it is good. Fredor (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Power vs Sinister[edit]

Since the Sinister and Power Ranger have quite similar in dps - with the former having a bit more - I wanted to create a list of pros and cons of why which build should be played. But where should I put that? Overview? Own Section? Write a completly new guide? Fredor (talk) 10:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm no need to write a novel about it. Highlighting the main situational difference in 1 sentence in the Overview should be enough. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 10:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Power vs Sinister
Type Power Sinister
Dps Slighlty lower Slighlty higher
Vuln application High Start of the Fight only
Fury Application Warhorn 5 on pet swap None
Burst Start of the fight and later on None
Frostbow High damage Very low damage
Blind application Possible Possible and Birds synergize well with condis
Fire Fields None 100% Uptime
Bufffood Cheap possible. Expensive. Looses quite some dmg with cheaper option
Ranged option Strong with 1500 range Weak with 900 range
Against moving enemies Good Loses dps if enemy leaves the fire fields
High Armor Enemies weak-mediocre Strong
Enemies immune against burning Good Very weak
Special Mechanics Strong against underground fractal endboss Very weak against underground fractal endboss
Condi Cleanse No problem problem
Well there are quite many differences actually Fredor (talk) 11:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Very informative indeed ^^ But I think people don't need to know all of this (and users can see most of it just by looking at the stats, specs etc), the Overview is there to inform them why the build is good, there is no need to compare them to other builds. The only thing I'd add to the Overview in case of the condi build is that consumables are highly recommended. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 14:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
A new section might have been good, but well i can add a few things to the overview. Fredor (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Guides Rating[edit]

Most of the kiting guides are complete and the missing two are about to be aswell. Can we get a rating page like for builds? It'd be help a lot understanding what we're doing wrong and how to improve it. --Warrior Icon Color.png Billaboong (billa-talk) 23:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

This could be added but I don't see any real reason how it could be useful? If there is something bad/incorrect with a guide, the person will most likely edit and fix the issue instead of leaving a bad rating. Even if the person decides to leave a bad rating, it will most likely be a troll vote (some people didn't like the kiting guide idea over at Reddit when it was first released). If there is something that could be improved we could simply use the "Discussion" tab? I might be wrong so feel free to correct me, after all, this could be implemented easily.-- Galaxian (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Reddit post on Ratings Tab[edit]

[MetaBattle] Ratings Update

Hey everyone,

Our PvE, WvW, and PvP builds are finally up to date with the meta. In addition we have a "ratings" tab that any registered user can use to submit a bad, good, or great rating. (Comments are mandatory on all ratings).

We'd like to open up the rating process to the general public. If you're already registered, check out any of our builds on the [main page](, and if you'd like to sign up to vote, then [begin here]( Everyone, regardless of logged in or not, is able to see a list of the [latest 50 ratings](

Thank you to everyone that helps make metabattle relevant and up-to date!

Feel free to comment or fix the above message. It may not be sent out tomorrow as there's already a thief specialization and PAX event going on. If anyone can think of a better date, please post that as well. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 16:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Pve ratings[edit]

Most of the pve builds are still only sparsly rated. Maybe we should take the initiative and rate a bunch of them. It kinda sheds a bad light on the system if not even the admins and most active users rate these builds imo. Fredor (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

My only reason is that since I have not personally used them, I should not rate them. Unless I've had a great discussion or seen it in action, etc, I tend not to make a vote. Also I'm almost always afraid people will say the admins run the ratings on this site. These are the reasons that I personally try to vote less than I normally would. However I wish we did have more ratings going through. I would encourage everyone comfortable/active with their sections to vote for those builds. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 22:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough i guess Fredor (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Beta brotips/impressions[edit]

Sword/X Staff revenant with Shiro/Mallyx and Valkyrie amulet, Invocation/Devastation/Corruption will be so meta. k after spending 99% of my beta time on Shiro/Glint marauder, it's better xP --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 14:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Old Builds[edit]

If a build+talk hasn't been updated in over 2 weeks please move it in this order:

  • From draft to trial
  • From trial to trash if no votes (we'll consider this "abandoned")
  • From trial to good if 4+ (meaning 5 or more) votes over 65%
  • From trial to great if 4+ (meaning 5 or more) votes over 90% (I think?)

Regardless we should start moving these very old builds. There are some in draft that can be moved to be rated. The ones that have been in rating and have accumulated no votes should be moved to trash as "abandoned". This applies to builds in all game modes. If you find something with a few votes (but less than 4) then try to encourage others to rate it on the talk page. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 18:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Tutorial on adding new specializations[edit]

Hey everyone, I will continue to be busy with work so I can't help out like usual. Creating new templates for specializations is luckily a pretty easy job (though boring and slow). What you'll need:

  • An editor that copy replaces a phrase (my favorite free one is Atom where you can highlight a portion and hit alt+F3 to find all instances and then type what you actually want there).
  • A browser to check traits on gw2 wiki
  • A basic understanding of patterns


Use this resource to get an idea of what a "base" specialization template looks like. TheShyGuyTheory has already started one for daredevil.

  • Click "edit" on a specialization
  • Copy all the text into your editor and replace fields (Air Magic Daredevil, etc)
  • Change the address bar in your browder (Air Magic Daredevil again)
  • Paste contents and save page

This will create a page with red links (naturally, as there hasn't been any sub-templates made). The subtemplates are usually of the form

They are written in the base specialization template. If you go to any of the current existing ones you'll have a good template to copy paste into the new one. A couple things to note in the trait templates:

  • link=gw2:Zephyr's Boon|Zephyr's Boon
    • This is a link to the gw2 wiki; format == gw2:address|title
    • You'll note sometimes a trait's actual name is like "Retribution (trait)" on the wiki, this is what is placed after the "gw2:" to keep links same. The repeated part after the "|" pipe character is what is displayed (so please don't include the "(trait)" part there). Example would be "link=gw2:Retribution (trait)|Retribution" as you can see in the master traits of guardian's radiance line.
  • <div class="desc">
    • This is where the description of the tooltip comes from. You can technically add a bunch of cute awesome icons after this, but it is not necessary in the first draft, more on that in the next bullet point
    • Adding icons comes between <div class="desc-det"></div> tags. Examples are abound in the old trait templates: If I recall correctly some of the most complex ones were in the elementalist grandmaster traits for arcana where you doubled up some icons and had to add green numbers for might stacks etc.
  • [[File:Trait I.png|
    • You've probably guessed it, this is where the image for the trait is being shown. If you have the man power to Upload the actual files and link them in the traits for a specialization, then you are kicking some serious ass. Not required though as we have the old place holders there.

I will add background images on my own time that shouldn' take too long. But this is the actual work that needs to be done to display new specs. And I seriously doubt I'll be able to work on them any time soon. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 13:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Food Template[edit]

{{gw2food|Plate of Truffle Steak}}, {{gw2food|Master Maintenance Oil}}, and {{gw2food|Powerful Potion of Flame Legion Slaying}} now work as tooltips. If there are any missing, they will fall back to the old method. Also please post them here so they can be added by the bot. You can see the entire list here. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 03:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


I added Metabattle to Cloudflare, mainly so that the website is up and running even when the main server is down (might add their other services later on). The changes should take place within 24h, send me a message over at Reddit if you are unable to access the website during the next 24h.-- Galaxian (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I might also add SSL but I am not sure how that will affect the redirection that I did a year ago (friendly URL).-- Galaxian (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Is it just me or did the images on the frontpage disappear due to those changes?-- Galaxian (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Ahhh now i know what was bugging me. Yep they are gone Fredor (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I think they disappeared after yesterday's frontpage revamp, you just don't see the edits made by ChaseBot under "recent changes". I miss those too :/ --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 15:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I thought that something was wrong with the caching settings :D He might be changing the layout to make guides more accessible.-- Galaxian (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I cannot open the drop downs btw :D Fredor (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Images from the front page were deliberately removed. We will be switching to a new method of showing all builds on the front page which more properly capitalizes on all the wasted space when using a third of the page as a column.
I am not currently having a problem with dropdowns. However the change to cloudflare might explain why javascript settings are being cached for so long. My development has spanned over 2 days of work because I have to wait for it to catch up lol. Sorry for the inconvenience. ChaseBot (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Guide visibility[edit]

I think we should do something about the guide section. The colorful drop-downs kinda overshadow the fact that we have something like that down there. I also only learned about it when I wasn't able to find the guardian guide Fredor (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Guides are moving to their respective sections. If a guid covers multiple sections it will remain "hidden". Waiting on dungoen consumables to be finished before implementing this ChaseBot (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Multiple sections? You mean a class guide that has info about pvp and pve or sth like that? Why would you hide that in the abyss at the bottom of the page? Btw sorry for the late anwser, chasebot edits do not show up on the recent changes page Fredor (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
As you can see, all guides are showing up properly. Nothing is hidden. This was done based on your comment from a few days ago. ChaseBot (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)