Hanz/Archive3

Help about Necro build, please.

Hi, i am new here as you could see earlier. :) I am kinda lost but trying to contribute to gw2 community. I've posted a wvw necro roaming build and you helped me by changing title and category which i clearly was doing an awful job at. ^_^ Would you mind teach me how to do that and how proper post new builds in correct categories and stuff? Also, how that rating / category change works? I saw its on testing, but i am pretty sure it fits to Meta or Great, because its just awesome! hehe One last thing, i promisse. It's not appearing on metabattle index, so its harder for people to look it and give a shot.

Sorry bother you. :) >> Donee(talk) 11:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC-3)

1. Style Manual shows you how to make new build articles.
2. Look at another build that seems to be in the right category:
   1. Edit
   2. Copy it's first line template (the {{ }} tags included)
   3. Include this in your article
3. Builds always start in Testing or Trial.
4. You can rate your build to help get it into meta or great
5. You will have to wait at least an hour and no more than one day for the build to appear on the front page.

Welcome to MetaBattle. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 14:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast repplying. I got all points you said, but how does build scales to great/meta? I thought it was by ratings by i was looking at some builds at Meta and went check the ratings and had 0 votes. Am i missing something? >> Donee(talk)

There's a new system in place since last week(?) so all previous votes were lost. Other thing is if something is clearly meta it doesn't have to be rated. --Hanz(talk) 14:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh i see. Thanks very much for being so helpful. Donee(talk)

Np ^^ Though it was Chase with the 1st comment who provided most of the info. Also there is an easier way to use your signature, there is a button for it above the textbox while editing. --Hanz(talk) 15:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both, then. :) Think i am getting used to it. --Donee 15:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

A Request

Change the Meta Roaming Thief title so that the "roamer" bit is capitalized ⇒ "Roamer", ocd is killing me. --TheShyGuyTheory (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh man I can relate xP Done. --Hanz(talk) 11:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually noticed this yesterday when I was editing the style guide. Was bugging me, but I knew we were re-working the wvw section anyways « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 13:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

D/P

Hidden thief breaks the simple burst combo: blackpowder > Hearthseek + steal > Backstab. This trait reveals when using leap stealth combo + steal. Sorry for my bad english. --Discordia

I get that, but both are (now) listed on the build's page and it merely comes down to personal preference which isn't really enough reason to downvote an entire build. --Hanz(talk) 06:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

D/P Ratings

Do you know what happened to them? They're both gone now. http://metabattle.com/wiki/Special:Rating?name=Build:Thief_-_Dagger/Pistol On another note the discussion on my talk page will be moved to the community portal and suggestions to the voting system « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 13:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Removed the 1st one, don't remember removing the 2nd comment though but I might have done that too. Reason = personal preference isn't enough to dislike something especially if both versions are listed. --Hanz(talk) 13:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I would have eventually deleted them too. They were incredibly bad ratings (Not the actual sway of the rating, but the comments themselves). Would you please let them know their votes were deleted on their talk pages and give a short explanation why? If you don't, that's okay too. Frankly I'm not sure people are willing to be objective about their votes here. Will need another look through, but my general idea is that no build can be rated "meta" by the community anymore. That will rely on you, jerem, and haru. The site has to maintain some level of integrity and some voters we've had cannot be trusted to do that. Other idea is that we start "vetting" raters, because we do have some good ones, and allow them only to vote. If you want to vote on a build you'll have to apply for a "voting position". What do you think? Obviously I will move most of this discussion later, once I have some more data collected. Just busy at work :/ « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 13:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it is now. Eventhough the ratings on DP were unjustified in the end it provided some nice feedback and I've added leeching venoms so it was worth it :P It takes roughly 0.2 seconds to remove an incorrect vote so it's not really an issue. --Hanz(talk) 14:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that users will apply for something like voting rights Fredor (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Changes

I reverted most of Scootts changes on the thief build. I kept the utilities but changed the layout of it. Dunno about the traits. I am gonna add that to the list awaiting Jerems review. One of these - the dagger/x necro - has also been changed by scootts and which I already commented. Shall I also undo them or wait for Jerem? Fredor (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Test builds?

I have been looking through the builds to be tested and there are quite many that have been created directly after the patch a month ago and haven't been edited since then. So how long are they normally staying in testing? Half of them seem to be condition builds which may take a while, but the other seem to be weird mixtures of hybrid or def builds which just do not work in pve. So what about removing the latter?

• http://metabattle.com/wiki/Build:Elementalist_-_Valex_Staff abandoned build. last edit in april
• http://metabattle.com/wiki/Build:Ranger_-_LB/AWH_Melter Strange power/condi/defensive hybrid
• http://metabattle.com/wiki/Build:Mesmer_-_Dungeon_Hybrid dunno about this one might be viable but is missing numbers
• http://metabattle.com/wiki/Build:Necromancer_-_D/F_Chilling_Vampire tanky death magic necromancer build #1
• http://metabattle.com/wiki/Build:Necromancer_-_Powernecro tanky death magic necromancer build #2

Fredor (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Depends. Usually we wait until 5 votes, but if they are obviously super bad and only recieved negative ratings / or the poster abandoned it then I move them after less votes sometimes. Valex staff for instance could be trash'd right away because it's not just bad but also outdated. --Hanz(talk) 10:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I would also argue to archive the chilling vampire build. Fredor (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Btw could you please rename the A/T Condition build to A/T-A/T Condition build? :D Fredor (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

B-but.. the build technically only has 1 weapon set :P Imo it's pointless to repeat it, also it's enough if we only include the main set in the name. --Hanz(talk) 14:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that it is also time to trash this one http://metabattle.com/wiki/Build:Mesmer_-_Might_Stack Fredor (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Hanz(talk) 07:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Orbs?

Can I add a orb instead of a rune to an eqippement? The condi grenadier uses 5 nightmare runes and a coral orb Fredor (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm looks like that template only works with runes. It's Galaxian / Chase territory, try there :P --Hanz(talk) 15:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Ratings

Votes

Hi! I hate to be that guy, but both of your votes were removed. "nice" and "I like it" aren't valid reasons. There are plenty of guidelines provided on the rating page on how to submit a valid vote. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 20:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

But "Holy Maul" is? ^^ http://metabattle.com/wiki/Special:Rating?name=Build:Ranger_-_S/A_GS_Quick_Draw Fredor (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hah I've been thinking about crossing that out more than once :P Also the longbow one below that. --Hanz(talk) 21:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah both are quite useless votes Fredor (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

PvP Equipment

Should start switching to these templates if possible: ChaseBot/WSTemp. Note the structure goes as follows:

Equipment

WS1 WS2 RA

Variants

Dagger/Pistol

• Sigil
• Sigil

Shortbow

• Sigil
• Sigil

Rune

• Rune
• Rune

Amulet

• Amulet

Thank you for the awesomeness of always updating these pages. Shit sucks hard when I change something, I know. Let me know if there are any improvements that can be made. This is specifically for PvP (note "the Scholar" it could be "Vampirism" or "the Pack" as well). PvE versions coming soon too. ChaseBot (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Nah, it's fine ^^ Great change. At least I'm doing something productive while playing Hearthstone and waiting for the enemy's turn xP One imporvement idea: maybe the weapons should have mouseover tooltips that specify which weapon it is. Could be useful for new players. --Hanz(talk) 07:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought about it, but then figured it was a waste to add a tooltip for only one word xP Instead I can add a label on top, I'll try that ChaseBot (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually even that's not necessary because weapons are labeled at the skill bar. --Hanz(talk) 13:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Daredevil

Hey, over the next two weeks when anet reveals the daredevil and when the beta comes out to play it, am I alowed to create a build about it? or is it too soon? thanks -- TheShyGuyTheory (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

We don't have any of the skill/trait templates for the elite specs yet so that would be hard :P By the time it gets tested the beta's already over and by the next beta things would change a lot anyway. --Hanz(talk) 07:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

the core theory of the class wont change, only numbers. Even then its easy to just change via editing, I've started it on my page. -- TheShyGuyTheory (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Btw im asking if I can publish it under WvW, and just keep it down there untill all the assets are in and it releases -- TheShyGuyTheory (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Well I think Chase wants to get the new templates in 1 go near/after release, so idk. --Hanz(talk) 06:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Am I doneing it rite?

Created a new build at http://metabattle.com/wiki/Build:Guardian_-_Radiance_Meditation but I think I did something wrong along the way as Guardian - Radiance Meditation doesn't seem to exist and it isn't showing up under Testing either. A little help? Thanks. Zyke (talk) 07:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You are doing it rite. It takes a a while for new additions to appear on the frontpage, gives us more time to react to trolls and such. When you want to link something put "Build:" as a prefix, basically just copy the URL beginning from the "Build:" part - Guardian - Radiance Meditation --Hanz(talk) 07:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I'm just more used to the old PvX where things would appear instantly. Zyke (talk) 08:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

in depth build guides

hey. i want to make a bunker guard in depth guide and wanted to ask if it would fit in this site/would be welcome here im already usesd to the site a bit from editing various posts and thought i could make it here -lemming --Fearlegend (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Ofc, though it might be better to create a separate page for it that's only about the guide and then link to that page from the top of the Usage. Kinda like how PvX did it with class/role guides. --Hanz(talk) 12:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

if you dont mind, i would put the guide up (on reddit). Its finished. i mean there are still some minor spelling or grammar mistakes but those can get out over time when someone sees them. With more people reading them they should be fixed pretty quickly. Other improvements (like templates increase and images on page instead of link) can also be made while people aready read it. I'm just waiting for you to be ok with it :)--Fearlegend (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait a day :P Didn't really have time this week but things should be better from now on, I'd do some spell checking for the 2nd part of the guide tomorrow. --Hanz(talk) 19:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

It's ready I guess, the last 1/3 could be spellchecked but it's just such a massive wall of text, hopefully some readers will help out. --Hanz(talk) 14:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

thank you again for all the work you put into it :)--Fearlegend (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

posted it on readdit +forums. well kinda bad timing, now chase started reworking it a bit. will be fine tho :D thank you two for helping :) link:https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/3kte74/bunker_guardian_guide_pvp/--Fearlegend (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Rating % breakpoints

"Through the voting system, it has reached an overall rating below 3.75, or it was abandoned by the community" What do you want to change 3.75 and 4.75 breakpoints to? The previous system was 75% and 95%. A new one can be 60% and 90% or some other pair of percentages. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 13:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

70-75%+ should be good and 90-92+ should be Great imo, I don't know the specific rating ranges yet, but 60 is too low especially considering how generous most of our voters are. --Hanz(talk) 15:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I think a big problem is that there are not many people that vote. so one vote affects the rating massivly--Fearlegend (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

5 ratings in the past were required to make a decision. Personally I believe that number should be 7 or 8 minimum to make a decision. We could always try to get more ratings with a reddit post (this feature hasn't been publically announced). With the beta coming up tomorrow and all weekend, perhaps we should try for next week? « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 21:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You would have to trash the sinister guard with these percentages, which is a build with one bad, one great and three good ratings. Fredor (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

68% is damn close to 70%. Perhaps sinister guard is trash though? xD personally it should fit an above-average rating. Whether our "good" incorporates that or not is up to you guys. We could do 65-90 good and 90-100 great. There has always been the option of 0-6 votes + 60-100% rating = good and 7+ votes + 90-100% rating = great. Or some combination of # of votes + % of overall votes = rating. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 21:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

or we do ot mathematically. Right now we have a range from 0 to 5. That means each number represents 16.666%. Let's reduce that to 15. That would get us the ranges 71-85 and 86-100. Fredor (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

another problem may be that you can only vote 0 points 4 or 5. so if someone thinks the build is unviable it drags it down way more than the good votes. lets say someone thinks the build is working but not good enough to match this discrition :"Good (4 points): 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." He would maybe give it 3 points. instead he gives 0 points because 4 is too much. so maybe you could help this system by letting people give points from 0-5 and not just 0,4 and 5. There are builds out there that some may not consider 4 but there are not complete trash(0)--Fearlegend (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I would also favor a higher range of votes. Some guys give builds a bad rating because they do not like a certain trait ot necaise they are petty and that really drags the build down Fredor (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Daredevil Build Update

So ive created a condi daredevil build that looks pretty great, wondering if i could upload it in time for the beta weekend. mind looking over it on my personal page? -- TheShyGuyTheory (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't have the templates yet. --Hanz(talk) 16:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Rating Manipulation?

Within 10 minutes three accounts have been created and all of them rated the sinister guardian build with great. Between each rating around 3mins elapsed. Quite suspicious. Fredor (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll ask galaxian to check the IP addresses « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 23:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

We can't find any leads on whether its' the same person or not. If it were three different people you'd expect them not to follow this pattern though:

• Create User
• Rate
• Create New User
• Rate
• Create New User
• Rate

In this case it was very patterned and there was no overlap of ratings (a new user was created in the timeline before each rating). So I will combine each rating into one on onefellswoop user and if they are indeed separate users they can include an email address or anything relaly to prove they are not the same. We will also look into adding some more preventative measures. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 14:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Typo

Blood Magic IV redirects to Vampiric PresenSe instead of Vampiric Presence Fredor (talk) 10:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Typo status: eliminated. --Hanz(talk) 13:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

"You Are All Weaklings!" -> "You are all weaklings!" Fredor (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not a typo, intentional but it's worthy of discussion. Anet is very inconsistent when it comes to naming shouts, idk if we should directly copy the names or stick to the original pattern. --Hanz(talk) 15:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah they are the masters of inconsistency... Fredor (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This will be important for us as our site will not auto-capitalize it for people (or vice-versa). However we can create both and have one of them re-direct to the other. So it's not too big of a deal. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 17:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

http://metabattle.com/wiki/Template:Skill/%22Your_Soul_is_Mine!%22 vs "Your soul is mine!" used by gw2skills and official wiki. Was the former what was shown in game or is this a typo? ChaseBot (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

gonna go by official wiki + gw2 skills naming. leaving up redirects for others ChaseBot (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

hf

http://metabattle.com/wiki/User_talk:J0ttem Fredor (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

http://i.imgur.com/FsUgEAr.gif Kappa --Hanz(talk) 13:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Optional

Can we add an optional Flag to the revenant build codes? Fredor (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Why though? You can't switch skills. --Hanz(talk) 18:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Becauste of this: http://metabattle.com/wiki/User:Fredor/Sandbox/Herald#Skill_Bar Leaving the second legend optional would be nice imo Fredor (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

That sounds easy as long as it's the complete "right side" bar and not just 1 skill, but it's Chase territory :P --Hanz(talk) 19:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what I want. Also: easy codes to create weapon bars. Fredor (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Sword/Axe

Healing

Utility

Elite

½

Preparation Thrust

Stab your foe with your sword inflicting vulnerability.

Damage: 293

Vulnerability (6s): 1% Incoming Damage, 1% Incoming Condition Damage

Range: 130

½

4

5

Precision Strike

Strike nearby foes with precision, sending out blades which damage and chill them.

Damage: 312

Chilled (2s): -66% Skill Recharge Rate, -66% Movement Speed

Number of Targets: 3

Combo Finisher: Whirl

Range: 450

½

12

5

Unrelenting Assault

Shadowstep and unleash a fierce attack on nearby foes. Gain might each time you damage a foe.

Damage: 202

Might (8s): +30 Power, +30 Condition Damage

Number of Hits: 7

Evade: ½s

Range: 450

½

10

12

Frigid Blitz

Hurl your axe at your target, damaging and chilling the foes the axe passes through. When the axe reaches the target, shadowstep to it and deliver a large blow.

Pass-Through Damage: 81

Final Damage: 813

Chilled (2s): -66% Skill Recharge Rate, -66% Movement Speed

Number of Targets: 3

Unblockable

Range: 900

½

10

15

Temporal Rift

Slice into the Mists, creating an unstable rift. After a short duration, this rift will collapse in on itself, pulling in enemies.

Damage: 378

₃Torment (8s): 382 Damage, 763 Damage if Moving

Number of Targets: 5

Duration: 1s

Width: 300

Range: 900

Staff

½

Rapid Swipe

Swipe your staff at your foe.

Damage: 339

Number of Targets: 3

Range: 130

¾

5

5

Punishing Sweep

Sweep your staff at your foe. Gain access to Debilitating Slam if your foe is using a skill when struck.

Damage: 509

Weakness (3s): -50% Endurance Regeneration, 50% Fumble (Unrestricted)

Number of Targets: 3

Range: 130

1½

10

10

Warding Rift

Create a rift from the Mists, warding you from attacks. While the rift is open projectiles will hit nearby foes, blinding them.

Damage: 138

Blind (4s): Next outgoing attack misses.

Number of Targets: 3

Duration: 2s

Range: 600

1

15

15

Renewing Wave

Send out a wave of mist energy that heals and removes conditions from allies.

Healing: 1,295

Conditions Removed: 2

Number of Targets: 5

Combo Finisher: Blast

Range: 300

1

15

20

Surge of the Mists

Charge forward, knocking back enemies that cross your path.

₉Damage: 2,745

Knockback: 120

Evade: ½s

Number of Targets: 3

Range: 600

^ Looks like Chase already did it before you posted, lel. --Hanz(talk) 20:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I always added optional and code template errors :D Fredor (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

DH Template

The game uses one word for Dragonhunter but the template here uses two. Should it be changed to match? Zyke (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Definitely. --Hanz(talk) 06:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

My brain is fried. Where is this? I can't fix what I can't find. :( ChaseBot (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I think he's talking about this. --Hanz(talk) 13:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The druid traits are also in the wrong order Fredor (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Druid's in the right order, official wiki is completely off in this regard. Only Chrono's in the wrong order afaik. --Hanz(talk) 14:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

dragonhunter fixed. ChaseBot (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Request

sorry but i have virtually no clue what im doing, could u email me at '[email protected]' so i don't mess up anymore pages? Phasma Extravaganza(talk) 10:55 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Np ^^ I'll get back to you a bit later today :P Busy atm. --Hanz(talk) 07:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Mind moving and vote-wiping?

Would you mind moving and voting-wiping Guardian - Radiance Meditation? I changed to DH since I feel it works better. Thanks. Zyke (talk) 02:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, done. --Hanz(talk) 07:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Base game only builds?

Are we maintaining separate builds for addon and no addon owners? Btw the update of the pve section will take some time because i fear that i will have nearly no leisure time in the coming weeks Fredor (talk) 10:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

 :/ Well elite specs get their own pages and titles (instead of Engi your write Scrapper) so it should be easy to distingiush between them. --Hanz(talk) 11:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

the new meta condi ranger build uses new stats and pets but doesnt use the druid :D what then?Fredor (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You call it a ranger. And preferably include variants for HoT only content. If it's not a viable variant, you simply note that non-HoT users can not use this build to it's maximum potential. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 13:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Why has the standard phalanx warrior build been renamed instead being created anew with berserker traitline? Btw the berserker template is extremly outdated. Fredor (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, standard procedure would be to just change a trait line, but given how it's an elite spec renaming was also necessary. --Hanz(talk) 13:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

So the newbs will never find a warrior build? :3 Fredor (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing that Berserker would completely replace warrior :D Idk about PvE but it's useless in PvP. I'd worry more about Revenant being completely absent coz it sucks without Herald. --Hanz(talk) 07:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

So you do not believe that berserker can replace warrior, but remove the only warrior build? ^^ Fredor (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you're discussing this with the wrong person, I don't remember ever touching the PS build for other than formatting. ^^ --Hanz(talk) 08:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Skill Update

Well of Corruption now also generates life force and thus needs an update. Btw how can i do this mystelf? Fredor (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Search for the name of the skill/trait on the top right, hit enter, now there should be a bar below the search field with options such as "Content pages", "Multimedia", etc - on the bar either go to Advanced and tick the box next to Template, or just click the "Everything" option. Now you should be able to see templates and not just content pages like builds. Select what you were looking for and just edit the part that's wrong :P Btw Valento is working on a massive trait/skill overhaul so I wouldn't make too many changes for now. --Hanz(talk) 08:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Druid

I found a bit if time and updated the druid spotter build. Would you please wipe the votes? The other ranger builds need the same treatment. I'll update them somewhere in the future when i find the time. Fredor (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Bit later, probably tomorrow morning I doN't have time to message everyone who voted etc right now. --Hanz(talk) 18:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

 :D Fredor (talk) 04:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Yo Hanz, in the end Fredor rewrote the guide I made and i corrected his typo and wrong assumptions so it's good. This page : http://metabattle.com/wiki/Build:Druid_-_S/A_LB_Avatar needs to be deleted now so we keep only the final build on the test phase. Enaretos (talk) 13:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

kk, done - made it a redirect too so anyone who's looking for it (even from reddit) will be sent to the up to date build (the link should disappear from the frontpage soon) --Hanz(talk) 14:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The link has never been in the frontpage afaik. At least I could find it with strg+f. Dunno might have been a strange bug Fredor (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Dungeons -> testing, it's there :P --Hanz(talk) 14:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hide edits?

Is there a way to hide all the uploads and templates on the "recent changes" page? There are so many that it gets easy to overlook something Fredor (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm I don't think so. Only if the user has special status like Bot. --Hanz(talk) 20:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we declare them as minor edits? :D Fredor (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Would be too easy :P Actually maybe I found a way around it: set the Namespace from "all" to Build. You'll only want to see edits happening to Build, Build talk, and User talk. Leave it set to "all" by default but when there's a massive wave of template edits and file uploads filter them out like this. --Hanz(talk) 21:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Uhh that is nice ty. But one has to use it carefully since it also filters all community talk and member talk Fredor (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You might also want to archive the reaper elite build, but beware the creator was lamenting that we diddn't like his build. Fredor (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I just wanted him to have time to see the votes before moving it to Basic so he wouldn't complain later. --Hanz(talk) 07:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

He already complained about us not liking his build a few days ago ^^ Fredor (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh guys... I'm so sorry. I missed this talk, and I'm probably the reason you're all getting lost. It's because I gotta go fast so I didn't pay attention to this, but rest assure it will be mostly a one-time thing. If you could switch namespace so I don't interfere with the "monitoring" I'd be very happy! Again, sorry for the inconvenience (there are too many skills and traits). Valento (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Chrono

Fyi:I pushed the chrono build i and a guildie made yesterday directly to meta. It is basically the old comprehensive mesmer page with updates based on DnT and rT guides. I hope that curbs the flood of half finished or broken chrono builds in the dungeon section Fredor (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

K but tagging builds with 0 votes as Great doesn't look good. --Hanz(talk) 21:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You mean just like they did it with the dragonhunter build?^^ Fredor (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

exactly --Hanz(talk) 21:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Trait ids (and skills too)

Hi, Hanz. So, I see you create a trait page every now and then, and you're following the format correctly, I'd like to ask you one thing. I forgot (my bad) about the trait ids (these are found in the official wiki pages btw), so if you can, please add them while you create the trait pages. I'm planning to create an easy build-to-chatlink template, so people can share the build in-game by copy-and-pasting trait links, and skill links. ^^ LordShuckle (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

kk ^^ I only did skills so far though :P But I'll go back and add the IDs when I continue with the templates tomorrow. --Hanz(talk) 20:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Tempest Staff DPS

Hello, Hanz. I noticed the comment you left in the discussion section of the http://metabattle.com/wiki/Build_talk:Tempest_Staff_DPS, I'm not aware of any other tempest staff dps build for dungeons that are anything close to this build. I would like, if possible, to have the name of this build be changed to something like "Tempest - Dungeon Staff DPS" just to make it easier for the community to see this build is dedicated to dungeons and Fractals as opposed to the raid build (because they do have a few changes in each build) thanks for any help you can provide Terranist(talk) 9:25, 07 December 2015 (EST)

http://metabattle.com/wiki/Build:Tempest_-_Berserker_Staff This is the one btw :P Well, this and the one you posted for raids can be accessed from different parts of the frontpage, I don't think it needs further clarification maybe I'll rename it later. --Hanz(talk) 14:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

http://metabattle.com/wiki/Build:Tempest_-_Berserker_Staff seems to be a little incomplete along with differs in a few ways from the http://metabattle.com/wiki/Build_talk:Tempest_Staff_DPS build. Thank you for looking into this. Terranist(talk) 9:55, 07 December 2015 (EST)

The concept is the same. Your version is probably better (except for the heal maybe), but still in this case you should change the already existing one for the better instead of posting something very similar. --Hanz(talk) 15:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Legend skills are automatic!

Seeing your edits I entered this page and realized utilities are fixed for revenants! I'm like "Duh! I should automatically add this information to the {{Skillbar}} template." hahah I will add it next week! :P Valento (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to elaborate: I can't display utilities for all other classes simply because the skillbar considers the play already in combat. Valento (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Already in combat? What do you mean? --Hanz(talk) 14:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of the template is to show the skills available for the choices you make, considering that you're in combat (i.e. can't equip weapons), because of that I locked utilities, but since they're uniform for revenant (depend on the legend) I will display them as long as legends are passed as parameter. Valento (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Builds

I purged a few dungeon testbuilds. We still need to decide which condi berserker and staff ele build we want to keep and improve. I think we should also archive a build here or there that became outdated. Like the ranger quick draw build, maybe the ele lh builds, the hammer guard build and so on. I think we should also consider to move the necro raid bloodmagic support build to the guide section Fredor (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I also double tagged berserker phalanx for raids and dungeons. Seems to work fine until we get an template update Fredor (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

kk, but I don't think you have to use the entire tempalte twice. Might work as a band-aid fix. --Hanz(talk) 08:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Dunno how to shorten that Fredor (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It begins! \o/ --Valento (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm rather confused, guys. Do we need a state parameter? It seems to me that only Bad, Good and Great are actual ratings, so "what" is draft, test, basic and archive? Are these states? Valento (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Builds that are being worked on start in Draft, if it's finished it goes into Test to be rated, if it was rated bad then it goes to Basic (used to be called Trash) :p If a build made it to Good/Great/Meta but becomes obsolete by balance patches then it'll be moved to the Archives. --Hanz(talk) 11:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

So, are these ratings or states? As I can see, the only thing that should be on the user's hands is differentiating if it's draft (being made) and test (available for rating). All the rest should be automatically defined by pulling the rating from the Rating tab (bad, good, great, basic, archive). Valento (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a bit complicated. After a vote treshold (5-6 votes minimum) values could be pulled and the build automatically moved to Basic/Good/Great sections, but sometimes builds get moved before the treshold (if a build's clearly meta and voting is just a formality) or after (if it's a controversial one). Meta/Archive isn't associated with ratings, these are situationaly things - for instance even lower rated "Good" builds can become meta as it happened with burn guard a while ago in PvP so we have a template for that scenario too, and Archive is for builds that were once decent but are no longer viable. Meta/Archive should be manually assigned at all times. Manually setting things in general (as we do currently) can make the process smoother actually.--Hanz(talk) 12:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

How do you prevent trolling once it's just a matter of modifying the template in a certain build page? Valento (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it has its cons, but that never intentionally happened yet actually. I like the idea of automatically assigning builds to categories after x votes, but admins should be able to move builds to Meta/Basic/Archive. Another idea, if the vote treshold could be manually modified on certain pages (5-6 votes by default, and then it could be lowered ot extended) that would be the dream scenario. --Hanz(talk) 12:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

We could have a page only available to admins that accepts a pagename and sets the sysop rating for that build. This way no one would have access to the sysop-side of build rating. This can be extended to meta, and archive aswell. How does that sound? Valento (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

On a second note, no, this isn't possible... it always invoke a template call regardless of what I do. I'll just go ahead and set things normally without worrying about security. >.< Valento (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

(reset indent) Tell me what you think. --LordShuckle (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Things are shaping up. I still got a lot of stuff to do, but hey! Multi-tags! \o/ LordShuckle (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

So how do you want to approach tagging builds for two sections? Do you want to let them write the builds and delete them later if they are a duplicate or should we suggest to write the variant into the same build? Would be great to know since i just got rebuffed for doing the latter for a build that got turned into a raid variant by swapping a weapon and some sigils Fredor (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if I get the question, but if a Dungeon build only needs 1-2 minor tweaks (1-2 utility, 1 sigil or 2) to work for Raids then it should be on the same page, if the changes are significant, (multiple major differences when it comes to gear/traits/skills) then those should be considered separate builds if that's what you mean. --Hanz(talk) 08:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay good. So what do I do when someone doesn't want to do that? ^^ When I compare the druid power buffer build and the offensive raid healer build then the differences are staff instead of longbow and different sigils. The usage is also still quite similar "use sword until you need staff, swap to it and swap back asap". But the creator of the page is adamant about not combining these builds. Fredor (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Well an entire weapon set could be a key difference. --Hanz(talk) 09:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Well if it is a difference that completly changes the playstyle then yes, but this is just sword camping and swapping to your offhand weapon if needed in both cases Fredor (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking good! The build focus part is potentially a great addition and those could easily be determined for PvE and WvW, but for PvP it could get complicated because some builds are just good at too many things to highlight 1-2 :P What I mean is, for instance, there's Condi Revenant which could be considered to be a pure DPS build, however it's one of the best rezbots in the game but I wouldn't call it support for that alone. --Hanz(talk) 08:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Focus only shows up if you set something, if you don't then the text is culled. About usage: I know nothing (just like Jon Snow). You will have to decide how you use!

On a related note, I'd like to call your attention about categories. See, when you guys didn't have SMW you had to carefully create specific categories (for instance, Elementalist Conquest Builds). With SMW, you can PULL all pages belonging to more than one category. What I mean by that? Your categories can be laid out not to be so redundant and you can still retrieve all the info you need. Instead of having a "Elementalist Conquest Builds" category, you can tag that build in "Elementalist builds" and "Conquest builds", then you can use this small code to pull all "elementalist conquest builds":

{{#ask: [[Category:Elementalist builds]][[Category:Conquest builds]]|limit=9999}}

Now, you may want to actually display this in a nice Metabattle-style, then you can have this other code:

{{#arraymap: {{#ask: [[Category:Elementalist builds]][[Category:Conquest builds]]|limit=9999|sep=~}}|~|@@@ <!-- For each of the elementalist conquest builds, do as follows: -->

|@@@ <!-- @@@ means the current item being iterated, inputting only '@@@' means show the build link -->

|\n <!-- This parameter is the separator, \n means a breakline so we can jump each link line by line -->}}

The #arraymap is, like I explained to Chase, a very neat function that comes with SMW, and it's used to loop through an array and, for each item, you choose how you display that item. A more simple example:

{{#arraymap:Fire,Water,Air,Earth|,|@@@|* @@@|\n}} - this loops through each element (@@@) and the output is a bullet item (* @@@), separating them with a breakline (\n). :) LordShuckle (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, categories actually go a long way. I took the freedom to copycat the same hierarchy GW2 Wiki uses, you can check the whole structure here. LordShuckle (talk) 11:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

A noice example. When Galaxian enables "Build" namespace to generate SMW annotations I'll show you how it fits! LordShuckle (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Help with parameters

I need a little help moving forward. I've scratched some parameters for builds, but I'd like to know if they're ok or should we add more? Remember that game types and build focuses will both be multi-valued, this means any build will be able to be tagged by more than one value for each parameter. For instance, I can have a great build tagged for raids, dungeons, and open world, and it can also be good at dps, condi dps, and tanker (tanking). Just tell me if I should close it with the current options or if there are options missing. Hmmm... it's not that it won't be impossible to add later... just wanted to get as many things ready as possible. \o LordShuckle (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

o/ Maybe Focus should be renamed to Role(s), but I'm not sure about that yet. Hybrid DPS should be added as Focus option along with Utility, Support, Mobility, Backline/Frontline/Roaming for WvW. Or what if we had both Focus and Role? For example Role: DPS Focus: Conditions, Mobility. --Hanz(talk) 19:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

How broad is that? Would you mind writing a full role/focus draft so I can have a better idea? We must ensure we're accounting for PvP and WvW, this separation is really interesting. LordShuckle (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Too broad. Started to collect them and Focus alone should be enough, otherwise it's a bit redundant. For Focus: Direct damage (or Power damage), Condition damage, Hybrid damage, Support, Utility, Mobility, Tanking, Boon removal, Bunkering, CC (or Control). Probably missed a few though :P --Hanz(talk) 20:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Welp, {{TBuild}} has been updated with the focuses you gave me, and I created a nice build search form. How does it look? LordShuckle (talk) 12:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Reevaluation

I think we should reevaluate the dungeon builds since there are new standards for builds now Fredor (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Sigil and Skill missing

I tried to figure out if and how I can add them myself but just ended up confused x) The 'Deja Vu' mesmer shield skill is not displayed properly and the 'Superior Sigil of Concentration' doesn't work either. Could you do something about that? :)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neijala (talk • contribs) .

Those don't work because they were never added, and I'm likely not going to add any new skills in the "old system", only after we have the new skill templates. The only part where you'd use that is the usage, just don't try to link it use text that's all :P I'll add the sigil later, maybe. --Hanz(talk) 17:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Superior Sigil of Concentration

9

Superior Sigil of Concentration

Boons you apply last 33% longer for 7 seconds when you swap to this weapon while in combat. (Cooldown: 9s)

Should be working now. --Hanz(talk) 11:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Condi Food

The condi duration foods are in dire need of an update Fredor (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Are they missing or simply outdated? Which ones btw? --Hanz(talk) 10:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

All the condi duration foods like the pizza and koi cake and stuff got nerfed when hot hit. Fredor (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah k, will look into it. --Hanz(talk) 10:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Bot Acct

Please create a new acct that I can make into a bot so those edits don't clutter the recent changes ;) They are important changes of course, but we can toggle bots on/off in the recent changes menu in case we need to see the technical changes. Let me know the name of the account using your main acct. Then when you want to "hide" edits from the recent changes simply use your bot acct to make them. ChaseBot (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

^ Confirmed. Or.. is it? :o --Hanz(talk) 18:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

You're good to go. Or... are you? ChaseBot (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Well played sir, well played. --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Multi-tagged builds

IMO you shouldn't do this. I don't know exactly what styling practices are stablished here, but it hurts my eyes when you remove a tag because it shows up more than once. It's semantically correct to display a build in more than one section... it's... normal, unless it really damages the front-page logic-wise. --Valento (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

There's a bit of a misunderstanding here :P There's another Reaper build called GS/x in the dungeon section which is 99% the same as the blood support one. So by tagging Blood Support for both raid and dungeons, we basically had 2 copies of the same build with different page names show up in dungeons which is pointless. We should either merge them into 1 page and then tag it for both Dungeons and Raids or keep them in their current forms: GS/x is slightly better tuned for dungeons with only a Dungeon tag and Blood Support tuned for raids with only a Raid tag. --Hanz(talk) 11:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Ahhh in this case no problem. Just remember it's perfectly fine if builds appear twice in the main page, it's sort of why we have multi-tags after all. :D --Valento (talk) 11:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I know that's why I asked for it in the firt place :D --Hanz(talk) 12:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh man... I still have to continue filling up skill entries so that guys can use {{Skillbar}}, but I'm soooo lazy. hahaha --Valento (talk) 12:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It's holiday season, take a break ^^ I'll help with skills in january btw. --Hanz(talk) 12:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not that I dislike it, I love seeing things taking shape, but I see that amount of skills and *yawwnnn* hahaha --Valento (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention Anet has a tendency of constantly reworking everything. I'd be more willing to do these kind of things if I knew they aren't going to touch them anytime soon - for instance it's like what, 3rd iteration of the trait system in 3 years? lol. They didn't really touch skills yet which makes me be afraid of what's to come. --Hanz(talk) 13:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Utility DPS

Could you please rename the Chrono - Utility DPS build to something fitting? That name is quite misleading since mesmers don't do any dps by using utilities. Fredor (talk) 08:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you're the only one who interprets it this way tbh. --Hanz(talk) 09:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Then persuade me otherwise. Fredor (talk) 09:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Team Phalanx Strength isn't a 5 phalanx warrior team, D/D S/P shortbow doesn't have 3 weapon sets at a time, etc. --Hanz(talk) 09:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

And the Chronomancer doesn't do DPS with any of it's utility combinations. The sole and only purpose of mesmer utilities is support, not dps. Glamours -> Support. Mantras -> Support. Signets -> Support. Wells -> Support. Even 50% of the weapon choices are about support instead of dps. Focus -> Support. Shield -> Support. Let's check if the rotation is about dps. One random phantasm (support/dps), two shield phantasm (heavy alacrity support), wells (heavy quickness support), time warp (heavy quickness support), Signet of Inspiration (Support), repeat. Which let's us conclude: Rotation -> Support. Even the gear is tuned to give more support by quickness. So Gear -> Support. Thus we can sum up: 90% Utilities, Gear, Rotation and 50% of the weapons are all about supporting your team in various ways. Now tell me, where comes "Utility Dps" into play? Fredor (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a utility bot that can deal good damage -> Utility DPS. How's Berserker/Assassin gear support btw? But what would be your ideal name? --Hanz(talk) 09:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

They do less damage than necromancer wells and these ones also aren't the creme of the crop. So no they do not deal good damage. In fact many teams started giving the main comp tank stats since the shield clone doesn't do dmg and the chrono thus wouldn't lose much dps. Where gear is used for support? Rune of the Chronomancer gives more quickness to your party than a boon duration rune can. Superior Sigil of Concentration gives an huge amount of quickness. Dunno why this isn't the main variant anymore. Maybe it was an act of wanting to give a recommendation for all build variants. Or because it is expensive as hell. But back to topic: Utility in combination with dps simply makes no sense. If you want to keep dps in the title call it something like "dps support" or "support dps". I would prefer the former since you are only in the middle field in dps if you go full dps. Fredor (talk) 10:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to pitch in since I'm the one who moved pages. IMO the name must focus on the broader use of the build, not the adds, so if it's a support build with a few damage possibilities it should be solely "Utility", but as it's too vague it could use another way to further identify in what sense it's utility. Something like "Quickness Utility", etc, I suck at names but it would be awesome to have something to distinguish it from the broad term "utility". Maybe add to what game type it applies? Or focus? "Utility Roamer", "Utility Bunker", etc. If you'll be 99% of the time being support-ish, then DPS is a strongly misleading title. --Valento (talk) 10:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

DPS support would (in this case) mean that it supports DPS team members, while Support DPS makes even less sense - the 2 terms are basically the polar opposites of each other. Btw quickness from my point of view is utility, not support - doesn't directly help your team to survive. Support would be difect heals, defensive boons, mass condi cleansing, utility is quickness/reflect/stealth/blocks. --Hanz(talk) 10:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

If this build isn't going to focus on dealing DPS, we should strip it from the name and improve the name by adding something to further distinguish its unique style. --Valento (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Ports and stealth are utilities imo. Reflect and blocks is defensive support since they protect your team from damage. Quickness is mostly offensive support especially since autoattacking classes like revenant have a up to 50% dps increase by this. Getting your utilities out a bit faster is mainly a secondary effect. Slow is also defensive support. What alacriticy is can be argued since it improves your offensive and defensive capabilities but I would also shove that into support. Fredor (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I think 'Support and DPS' works fine for all game mode and playstyles. When you go full personal DPS (dungeons, fractals), you will still support your group with your utility skills, either offensive or defensive. When you equip shield and want to focus on offensive support (quickness, alacrity) for you team in Raids, you personal DPS drops (but not more than necessary) but the group dps increases, so it's still a good build if you want to increase the dps of you group and 'DPS' in the name of the build is not misleading. I also think that Fredor undestands 'utility' more in the sense of 'with utility skills', while Hanz uses it in a broader context. I think it might be important to dicuss about the terms 'utility' and 'support' and where the differences are. I centainly would say, that reflect and offensive boons also support you team. Neijala (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I like the terms Faster and Support in the name. Faster because it applies a lot of quickness/alacrity. Support because it is doing damage through other people. I have no clue how "utility" works. Utility is like a toolbelt skill for engi, or the three slots for skills that every profession has. It's too vague to use "utility". Plus most mesmer builds are "utility" focused in a way. In history they've often dropped self dps for group dps/reflect etc. Support in the name is fine, as long as we explain how it is supporting the group. Same with utility (dps is also too broad for it to be combined with haha). I would call it:

• Alacrity Anchor (Pretty sure that's what they use it for in raids, though it lacks too much toughness to be called a "tank")
• Faster Party Support (FPS?)
• Quickness Alacrity Support
• Etc.

It's not like the name really makes sense, hard thing is figuring out a better name for it. Should be identifiable from previous mesmer "meta" and also separated enough from other utility dps roles imo ChaseBot (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to avoid using sentences tbh. --Hanz(talk) 15:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)