Thor

Welcome to MetaBattle[edit]

Hey Thor!

First Steps:

  • Be sure to check out the tutorial. Submitting the first edit/create with any external links results in an automatic ban. Instructions are in the tutorial under "creating an article").
  • Sign your comments on Discussion pages with 4 tildes ("~~~~") or use the "signature" button found on the toolbar. It will automatically convert this into a timestamp with your name. (You can indent paragraphs/replies with the ":" colon character).
  • If you have any questions feel free to respond here or add a new topic on the community portal.
  • All users are encouraged to submit valid ratings for builds in testing, good, great, and meta.

Common Mistakes:

  • Try to make a build that has purpose. Explain it's specific purpose and why it's better than other builds. If it's not, re-consider whether it should be written.
  • Make sure the build you want to write is significantly different than other builds already posted. Otherwise leave a comment with the proposed changes on the already existing build's page!

Thanks for joining and welcome to the MetaBattle team!

Edits reverted?[edit]

Hey, I was just wondering why my edits to Dragonhunter - DPS were reverted.--Somohexual (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Because it isn't a good alternative and shouldn't be used. Thor (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Unblock[edit]

Hi, unblocked you - if you blank entire pages you'll get autobanned by a bot :P If a page is entirely outdated I'd suggest archiving it and creating a new one. You can obviously CTRL C+V all the stuff you need for the new one from any source. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 09:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Reevaluation[edit]

We recently downgraded a couple of dungeon builds to good since they are now outmatched by the specializations. What still needs to be done is to delete the ratings and inform the users for reevaluation. I already talked with hanz about this but he has his hands full with the pvp section Fredor (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Could do this yeah, but I once had the idea to somehow change the complete dungeon "overlay". The thing is, should we keep the old builds without the elite spec for people without HoT or not. And if we keep them, why not splitting it up, like HoT / no HoT. Another thing is, a so called meta for dungeons/FotM doesn't really exist anymore imo because no one really plays this serious anymore. I should write down my ideas somewhere, might be easier to talk about it then. --Thor (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Archive the Community Portal and start a list in the new one. But I wouldnt throw away the builds that are great but not fit for raids. Also how do you want to categorize the non hot builds that are useful in hot content? Fredor (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Fractals (Dungeons)[edit]

I think this works as well to write down some of my ideas.

Recommended Team composition:

  • This on top like there is Team at the moment.
  • Complete guide about best team comp, this includes why one class is prefered over another one and so on.
  • This should be the main explanation part for this section

Best build of a class: (seriously need a better name for this^^)

  • "Meta"- Builds for the recommended classes.

no HoT builds:

  • If we even want this.
  • The old recommended meta builds for people without HoT.
  • I would place it, if it is possible, next to the HoT builds like a 2nd column.

Viable options:

  • All the other good, but not "Meta"- Builds.
  • As an example, you most likely will play Tempest ele in raids, but for Sabetha on range, you could go with Arcana. It is an equal option but not the over all recommended build.
  • But I only would like to see good builds there, not some kind of phantasy stuff.

Guides:

  • Maybe put them somewhere on top. They kinda get lost on the bottom imo.
  • The food guide might need a small rework, havent checked it lately, prolly will do this then.


Overall thought:
I dont really like the word "Meta" or more likely the way it is getting used. At the current state of the game, which means, Dungeons are kinda dead (thanks anet D: ) and Fractals are fairly easy (no one is doing high lvl fractals), I dont really want to call something "Meta". Yes there are builds that are better than others and that is what we should tell the people in my opinion. Something like This is the best option to go, but this here is fine as well. If this old content would still be some kind of serious stuff, I'd say nothing about the "Meta" thing. But as I kinda said before, I'd be happy already, if we can make it clear to people, what is the best option for their class as well as the best option as a team for Fractals (Dungeons) and that there are other options which arent bad.
Give me your thoughts on that, thanks. --Thor (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

We don't have to use the word "meta". You can just split them up into "good" and "great" builds. We'll just say there is no "meta" for fractals so they don't need that designation.
If we split up HoT and pre builds, we might have to create a new category. Should ask Valento about that, or perhaps there is already a way to do so with specializations (probably is actually). We could split this on two rows, but two columns might take a bit more work. Should be do-able.
Do we need a "best of build" section? Are there some classes that are so significantly worse that they'd be placed at best in the "good" section as opposed to great? I would hope with HoT that these things got balanced (all professions having at least one build in great), but I'm not aware, so I apologize.
Do you think we should have separate pages for raids/fractals? We could copy paste the tempest one and use it for only raids with that variant. Or if you think the variants are less, then we can simply indicate it in the guide. If we use one build for raids & fractals they'll have to start being much clearer about which things gow tih which guide. For instance, gear should explicitly state "For fractals & raids use berserker's" etc. Chase @ 18:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Did some excel(google doc) mastery. This is how it could look like in my opinion. http://i.imgur.com/beqDvU9.png There is no need for columns, just wanted to save some space. For the builds I was thinking, the name leads to the normal build page and the raid in brackets to the raid one, if there is one.--Thor (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
It's an interesting idea. Will have to keep thinking about it. Also be sure to update your theme skin in User > Appearance to "foreground" that is what we'll be using from now on :) ChaseBot (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
It's doable. Just #ask for builds with the "Is for elite specialization" property set. Something along these lines:
{{#ask: [[Is for elite specialization::+]]|limit=999}}. It'll query for all builds with elite spec property (notice +). It's much better semantically than adding a new property because it's obvious that HoT builds make use of elite specs, if not then it would be able to be achieved by base professions. It is that easy. ^^ --Valento (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi and welcome! Meta (at least here) is more about signifying what are the most common builds, technically Great is the highest rating that can be given, those are the best options. Ofc, builds become meta because they are usually the absolute best ones, but they don't have to be. Then comes Good, which is kind of the "I wouldn't kick anyone for running one of those even in a serious/semi-serious group, but if something really important was at stake I'd likely make the guy change build". As for things like Arcane only being good for Sabetha (so far) it could be added as a variant with a line about where it should be used, creating a duplciate page for that isn't necessary. --Revenant tango icon 200px.pngHanz (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm aware of the meaning of meta. :p On raid part I'd even be fine to call the basic team comp meta, but for fractals and dungeons I wouldn't call it like that, just for the reason, that this content is too easy to take it serious in a way to call something meta there. The only thing is, if you remember, when I told Jerem to put ranger and engi to meta for dungeons, the reddit topic that came up. I just dont want to see, that people exclude classes in PuGs or semi hardcore groups just because they misinterpret the meaning of metabuilds which are written down here. Especially in raids now, a lot of classes are viable. --Thor (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Y sry xP Well, imo easiest solution would be to tag the strongest build of each profession as meta for Fractals/Dungeons, maybe even for raids unless one is seriously underperforming. --Revenant tango icon 200px.pngHanz (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Raids[edit]

Ok, it is basically the same as on the Fractal (Dungeons) section.
The difference I'd like to have there, Raids do have some kind of meta.

  1. Team comp:
    • There is a base comp of classes you should have for the raid, we should name them there.
    • The other slots have a best in slot for each boss.
    • Even that there is a best in slot, besides the base comp, basically everything is viable.
  2. Guides:
    • I'd like to have either one guide for the complete raid or one for each boss.
    • This guides should include, most optimal team comp as well as information about the boss and encounter.
    • As an example, Gorseval got a fairly huge hitbox, Tempest staff ele is highly recommended.
    • The question is most likely, do it all in one guide or separate them.
  3. class builds:
    • We most likely will double up information with the guides, because you have to change stuff for each boss depending on the class.
    • Some of the class builds here will overlap with the Fractal (Dungeons) builds.
    • We could make different sections as well, one for the base team comp, another on for the highly recommended builds and a third one for the viable options.
  4. Consumables:
    • As I said on the other section already, we might have to rework it a bit, to make it fit for raids as well. Could start with changing the name.
  5. Others:

I dont really like this weird build section on the bottom. Same counts for the Fractal part as well. Maybe this can be somewhere else, because it might be a bit confusing for some people. And yeah, again, give me your thoughts about that.--Thor (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

  1. We can create a team comp just like we have for fractals, for raids instead. If you'd like me to create a basic page let me know.
  2. We can have a guide for the entire raid and split it into sections for each boss. One guide will be preferable for now as there are only 3 bosses. We can split it up depending on how long it gets.
  3. I'm confused here lol. Could you provide short examples?
  4. Also not sure about this section. We already have a consumables guide, can we add it to that?
  5. Do you mean on the pages that show all the builds? Or on the actual build pages?
Sorry for all the confusion, I'm not overly familiar with raids. Chase @ 17:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  1. Yeah, point 3, should have explained it a bit better. When we make a guide for the raids together with an optimal teamcomp, I would already write down there, that the warrior for example should run warbanner instead of headbutt or the other way round. When we now have the builds, we most likely will explain it in there again. Like main warrior build is this, variations are... and so on. That's what I meant with double up information.
  2. With the consumables, that's what I meant, we put the raid stuff in the existing one.
  3. And the last thing with all in one(Fractals/Dungeons/Raids). We could make this work. --Thor (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
So you want to split the class builds per fractals/raids and then raids again by wing and boss or am I mistaken? That would take quite much man power which we do not have right now and dunno about the future. Splitting builds up will also increase the maintenance quite much. That was the reason why we decided to double tag a few builds for fractals and raids. Fredor (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
At the moment, we have the section Dungeons/Fractals and Raids. Some builds are only used in raids others only in dungeons/fractals and again others work for both. I dont want to split the raid builds for each boss. One mainbuild like it is right now with variants for each boss. And "just" a raid guide where we can explain which class to use and why. Pros, cons and so on. And as I answered to Chase, we prolly can make it fit all in one section. --Thor (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
good good. What do you think about tanks? Should we list everything that works or the highest dps option available or make a general overview over tanks? Fredor (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Good question. In the raid guide I'd write down the most optimal tank for each boss with viable options. I think if we would name all possible tank builds, we will end up with too many builds over all. We should just stick with the 2-3 most optimal tank builds for each encounter imo. --Thor (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Tin of Fruitcake[edit]

May I ask why my changes were reverted? Tin of Fruitcake is essentially superior to Superior Sharpening Stone in every aspect as it lasts the same time, has the same effects with an additional 10% karma boost and costs 6s less on the trading post at present. There is no reason why anyone would run the Superior Sharpening Stone over Tin of Fruitcake unless they already have the stones in the first place. RandomWeirdGuy (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It's an event food which means it will increase in price over time. For now it is cheaper, but you can't tell how long it will stay at this. Another reason is, that I got the feeling that you just wanted to push the price of it with adding it everywhere to make profit out of investments. And the last reason is, that you put it in quite badly. If event food is listed, it has to be mentioned as event food and only named as alternative to existing food which you can acquire with normal cooking. This only does not count, if there is no alternative. Thor (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I would like to point you in the direction of the Chronomancer PvE builds that all have Spring Rolls listed among other foods despite being an event food. Presumably these lists are to allow the reader to compare stats and prices of the listed consumables; should it not at least be made known to the reader than 'Tin of Fruitcake' is a viable pick wherever Superior Sharpening Stone is? Granted I may not have used the right format as I am new to the formatting standards of the site, but that is easily corrected by a more experienced editor of the site - a quick look over other builds in both PvE and WvW seems to suggest that a choice a consumables should appear if there are several that could be considered a strong pick for a given situation. As for 'pushing my own agenda by adding it everywhere', I'm going to deny it but this is a moot point anyway as it would make no sense to add it as a alternative to a single build that uses the stone.
Anyway, I'm not going to push this anymore after this post, but I would like to make my point clear that Tin of Fruitcake ought to be at least known to readers who might not have otherwise encountered the consumable. RandomWeirdGuy (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

saying thanks, hope that's not too dweeby[edit]

Whoops! thanks for your help Anoia (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Premium Membership

Upgrade to premium membership and take advantage of all the premium benefits, including complete ad removal across the entire website, for only $8.99 per year! Click here for more info.