Variants
Views
Actions

PvXwiki:Admin noticeboard/Resolved Build-Specific Issues

From PvXwiki
Jump to: ,

Contents

[] ( · )

bunch of autistic votes. not liking ele ball doesn't make it bad. ···  18:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

In trash where it should be. -- 14:19, September 11, 2009 (UTC)


[] ( · )

Needs a vote wipe, spirit siphon buff gave it a massive blue bar buff. 05:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved -- 14:19, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

[] ( · )

Bad, low votes. Stance monk is retarded good capping defense shit. ··· 18:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

also, looks like people don't understand how to run it. it's kinda like a D/A - if you don't run it right, ofc it's gonna be useless. ··· 18:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
In the right section now. -- 14:19, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

[]

Search "SoS" and delete at least half of them, seriously. We only need 1 Resto and 1 Channeling version. ··· 19:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This seems to have sorted itself out. 07:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

[] ( · )

Cake Archer is bad at HB. And Peterpoho probably is, too. ··· 17:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Cake Archer hasn't gotten any better at HB. ;o ··· 16:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Tahiri got it. -- 14:41, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

[] ( · )

Needs a vote wipe badly. A lot of votes refer to skills that aren't on the current bar and some complain about the weapon choice when it requires no specific weapon (again probably a consequence of the bar change). Oops, didn't see riposte. 05:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed the bad votes. -- 14:41, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

[] ( · )

Anon making strange changes to make it into a SoS build. I reverted it back to what it was but if it persists then an admin should look into it. 12:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Build not been touched in over a month, 10:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

[] ( · )

unfair votes. :< bitches don't know about my faction farming. ··· 18:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

...-- 14:41, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

[] ( · )

2 Rates with same 'score' and same comment, and 1 with lower 'score' but still the same comment. Leaves the impression this guy is either voting on multiple accounts, or some people are just mayor suck ups. 11:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Quoting a vote that's true is often done so you don't get the same story 5 times with slightly different wording. --- -- () () 13:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

[] ( · )

Rating of 0, not sure if thats allowed :\ but seems like it wasnt even worth rating..? 12:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No, not really. Rating 0 is completely allowed and even encouraged when the build looks like that. -- 12:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

[] ( · )

MindMaze -spending hours to farm glad=/= less effectiveness Dark Chaos - Overrating rupt ability (can at most 1 skill is magebaned, which doesnt ruin spike) Readeam - Good shovespike teams are not beaten nearly everytime 18:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

eh. -- 14:41, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

[] ( · )

Wielder Of Magic's vote-->this is pretty much rampageway w/ daggers + it looks worse on paper 16:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed -- 14:41, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

[] ( · )

Making beginners feel good here. Peterpoho's vote is funny. -- 09:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed -- 14:41, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

[] ( · )

TahiriVeila's vote--deep wound in optional, all sin chains are vulnerable to guardian, not failing at exaust assault makes up for lack of kd (disruption), monks protting target=counter to pretty much all sin builds 23:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Also any votes above a 4.0 don't have proper reasoning, or think that the build has condition removal, or just blatantly overrate it. ··· 17:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Also also, FMK has no idea what he's talking about. The build doesn't pump big damage. At all. It pumps lots of small packets of damage and spreads shittery across the entire other team. ··· 17:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
so remove them some1? thought u were an bm danny 17:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
loll? i ran for admin and declined after series of shitstorms. i don't care enough to BM, and, quite frankly, i don't play enough and i'm not a top buildwars-er by any means. ··· 17:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

[] ( · )

Life and Pikas votes are now redundant due to build being merged into a more general article. Oh and sort this page out it's far too large. 17:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Done 10:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

[] ( · )

It's called zealous daggers. If you're running out of energy for some reason, you can stop for a few seconds to auto attack and regain some energy. -- 18:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Except that this build has to auto-attack every few seconds with using whirling charge, aura of thorns, and armor of sanctity. this barely has enough energy to get through one chain if whirling and aura of thorns was used before it. I was using zealous daggers btw. 20:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Refrain from discussing on the AN. There's talk pages for a reason :) --- -- () () 20:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Opps, sry. 20:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Fiendly Fire doesnt understand still, obviously. The elite is nice to spam DB for AoE so Jaigoda can probably be removed also, and in that case you can probably remove luke's, too. -- 04:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Adjacent AoE is v strong in PvP. stop being terrible. ··· 16:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
even besides that. MS/DB alone is still big damage -- 20:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
So is an axe. ··· 20:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Pretty sure it's you who doesn't understand, tbh Angelus. Maybe you should try the build? 21:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

[] ( · )

Divine Boon removed due to change. Vote wipe might be needed, since the reduction in healing kinda hurts. 00:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Archived. -- 14:41, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

[] ( · )

90% of the votes are basically "fapfapfap, I'm bad at PvE". -- {{}} 16:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorted. 10:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

[] ( · )

Either the low or the high votes don't reflect its effectiveness. -- 11:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Auron got it. -- 14:41, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

[] ( · )

Maf's vote-- 04:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You got it <3 -- 14:41, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

[] ( · )

Meine,'s vote is really stupid. 22:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Resovled. -- 14:41, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

[] ( · )

Lyssan55 has submitted a petty Trash vote on this build, stating a "reason" that is a clear violation of the voting rules. It is clear they never tried nor tested the build, and posted the vote out something such as spite. I request that the vote be removed 22:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually testing the build is not required. 22:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Still, when you read Lyssan55's "reason" it's still clearly a violation of the voting rules. It is neither "objective" nor do they show "common sense" with regard to the build's potencial which is visible when looking at and reading the skillbar shown in the article.
resolved. Lyssan was providing reasons for WELLing, not for trash voting it. 22:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

[] ( · )

Most of the votes are from when this was just the AoM derv, and don't apply to the current bar at all. 03:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Votes are around the same level, will let slide. -- 14:41, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

[] ( · )

Exo has 0-0'd it, and several of the votes use bad reasoning. -- 19:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorted, I think. Removed votes that refer to an old build with recup. The latter votes from KD and Danny do bring up valid points, though. 10:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Jai's vote doesn't match his reasoning. If it's not as good as Monk builds, then it shouldn't be 5-5. ··· 19:05, September 2, 2009 (UTC)

It's the best a rit can run, and people can't run monk builds on their rits. Outside professions shouldn't have much influence on builds. I would rate it a bit lower, but am trying to compensate for the terrible votes (danny, drah, the short one, maybe pika). Remove those and I'll rate it down a bit more. -- 04:17, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
is better. 04:29, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
Don't vote balance. Says 06:22, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

[] ( · )

Ikimonos vote contains flawed reasoning. The buld has setup time with having to cast Asuran Scan (which has aftercast delay), Critical Agility (although maintainable) and Locusts Fury. Also as proven in build talk it does not have the same single target DPS as MS/DB assuming both builds have the same buffs. Also some of the trash votes lack reasoning. 15:25, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

Meh, its well within the Trash catagory anyway. 16:21, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

[] ( · )

Tyraelxy's vote is wrongful reasoning to trash 1-1-0. 16:10, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

Sorted. 16:18, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

[] ( · )

Yuri's vote: The paragon is no longer in the build, and it's only about 20% slower than the fastest of hero builds. -- -

Also, Anvil God's vote is even worse. The paragon was never "gimped", and a meta core team does not make a build a 3-4. -- -
The paragon was just that, gimped. And until a new viable build\set of bars has been decided on his vote should stay. 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Yuri's vote says that the build needs to be more tailored to the individual, and yet there's already an ungodly amount of variants in the build as it is. Anvil God's vote is retarded, because 1) The paragon is not gimped; 2) The paragon is optional; 3) the standard meta bars are rediculously powerful. -- -
In addition, see my last note on the bottom of the for these 'godly' builds Yuri is pushing for (which are mostly inappropriate for the build goals anyway). 19:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It's currently one (higher than most) trash vote out of 15 total. A few of the 5-5s have reasoning that conflicts with their numbers, and I should probably remove those as well if I remove Yuri's. The only available admin I'd trust to make a good decision on these vote removals is Life and, aside from his brief appearance yesterday, he seems to not care that much about the votes. The build is in Good, which is what I voted on it. In my opinion, it is a perfectly fine rating for a build catering to people who don't want to specialize/give up defense. -- 20:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I guess it's not so much about the vote as it is about the discussion/arguments and the person surrounding it. 20:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


[] ( · )

AegisDok's vote balancing. — Rally- kupo! 15:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved. — Rally- kupo! 16:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

[] ( · )

Excluded's vote. Obvious is obvious. — Rally- kupo! 19:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

[] ( · )

Jai is currently serving a ban, could someone please remove his vote until he's available to change it? 05:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Same with minion's vote. 05:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Vote wiped due to build change. -- 06:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

[] ( · )

I asked Kracatoan to change his vote for invalid reasoning, he sidestepped around the issue and claims I tested this in normal mode (tested it in hard mode city of torqua). 05:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Vote removed. -- 15:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

[] ( · )

Vote wipe after update.-- 07:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. -- 07:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

[] ( · )

Vote on a trial build. 23:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed vote. -- 23:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

[] ( · )

Requesting vote wipe, the build has significantly changed and there is a lot of synergy with the dervishes going on that is pretty epic. 10:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure it needs a vote wipe, most of the votes still apply with their current reasonings. Try asking people to revote. -- 10:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

[] ( · )

Toraen and Roland has outdated reasoning. AegisDok is outdated. the rest are copypasta.-- 20:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible to make some sort of policy that people actually TRY the builds before rating? Jai's vote is largely invalid, testing would have revealed that Churning is anti-scatter and that the earth nukes have a rather large DPS, which were also buffed by the update. 21:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
This build as well as Markway above are candidates for vote wipe in my eyes. I'd like more community input on each build's talk before flicking both back to testing though. -- 22:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Even if you don't votewipe this AP one, theres 3 Vorpal sock votes on there. 02:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I've split a section of the discussion on that is basically just about AP. Would it be possible to move that section of the discussion to , since it's more about AP than it is about EA? 11:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

AP Ele votewiped, discussion from EA page that was almost entirely about AP was moved. -- 12:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

[]

has extra Starburster links (E/A Starburster, E/A PvE Starburster)

It was a redirect. Deleted. 00:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

[]

Vote wipe. Most votes talk about squishiness pre-. — Rally- kupo! 02:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

[] ( · )

Herps vote displays both a smug sense of self-importance and no contructive content whatsoever. — Rally- kupo! 03:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

He's made it quite clear on the talk that he's not changing his vote, his theory-crafting is half-baked and he clearly refuses to test it. Alex's vote is also meh, but I'm sure he wouldn't mind bumping it to a 3-3 or something once he's seen the discussion on the talk. ♣ 11:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, vote balancing... -.- -
Herp's vote clearly doesnt explain why it is worth that. Also, bssically what everyone else said. 17:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No one's vote currently warrants removal. Discuss amongst yourselves if you still want to but . It currently averages to good, might fall to trash someday, and I won't care either way since it's not a meta build or far on the wammo side of the scale. -- 18:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Technically that's not true, since policy says votes have to have sufficient reasoning to warrant the numbers which are given (meaning "it's bad because it's bad" isn't a valid vote). - 19:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
HerpDerp changed his vote since this topic started, and has left a WoT on the talk. His vote itself is sort of lacking, so if you want to remove it until he beefs it up so people don't need to read his rant I've got no problem with that. I felt it wouldn't really accomplish much though. -- 19:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Updated my vote again. 19:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

[] ( · )

Proposing a vote wipe. Also, Herp's 0-5 vote is rather off, while also breaking a policy or two (Lau only just removed the thing with contradictory efficiency and universality, but still ;o) -- -- 09:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. -- 17:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

[]

Vote wipe please. 23:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. -- 17:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

[] ( · )

My old account's vote must get removed please -- 16:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. -- 17:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

[] ( · )

People are trying to salvage the build after the IoP nerf, so needs a votewipe (or archive). -- -

Done. -- 00:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


[] ( · )

Xenomortis' vote was refuted a while ago, and his "number crunching" gave results that were far from those seen by simply testing the build. The vote's reasoning revolves around SF being a mediocre damage spell, which it isn't. -- -

[] ( · )

A lot of vote balancing going on. All 0-0's have ulterior motives and are not judging the build. They either hate AP or want one build page. Well, that's not happening, so they should stop trashing all AP builds. I know you've been policing it, but the 0-0's shouldn't be tolerated when it is so obvious the build has been tried and tested thoroughly in every zone. ~ 17:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, the 5-5 votes that followed the trash votes have far, far worse reasoning than the 0-0 votes. Those should all very much be looked at for vote balancing. -- -

[] ( · )

I've changed the usage to reflect how the build is meant to be used, almost all of the voters seem to misunderstand how this particular role is meant to be played. I'd like a vote wipe so voters can revote based on the new usage. 03:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

[] ( · )

Might need a votewipe, but I'm a bit consfuded about what's intended for that page. -- -

Fianchetto decided to move it to testing for some reason even though They is currently banned. I'm going to go through the votes though and probably just leave it in testing (only a few votes warrant outright removal actually). He'll be back in 2 days and the build has at least 2 more weeks on the wiki if he wants to keep at it. -- 16:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

[] ( · )

GWPirate mainly, but Brandnew as well. GWPirate openly admitted to after his main arguments were refuted. Brandnew really didn't do anything to argue his vote other than saying he didn't give a crap about it. -- -

Resolved 21:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

[] ( · )

A lot of vote balancing going on because people simply want to put this build into archival. It's an utterly preposterous idea and the reasoning doesn't work (single-target only) because there are AoE skills which aren't being taken into account and AoS does not compensate for the loss of AP or justify SF/EA. Thanks for your time.

~ 04:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Didn't Frosty remove the 0-0s and they revoted with 1-1s and such? If so, it seems they lowered their votes just because you posted, which is dumb and unnecessary. -- 14:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
You are correct. 17:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
rask 0-0ed his vote, which enabled him to tag the build for deletion. minion posted about an hour after that.-- 19:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

[] ( · )

Revert war. I am not touching the build anymore; reverting to the last good revision and starting actual discussion would be nice.-- 22:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The current version is fine, they are just optionals. So, start discussing. Any further reversions before consensus will be dealt with punitively. 08:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

[] ( · )

Fianchetto can honestly save this build if he wishes. Requesting votewipe. Besides the silly names and bypassing the vetting process for the meta tag, he should be given the chance to hold his ground. 21:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there any reason this was returned to trial? I don't have a problem with the initial votes being polar. Even if trashed it still has two weeks to be turned around. I'm not understanding the reason for a votewipe or the return to trial in this case. It should only be returned to trial and votewiped if significant changes are going to be made, in which case, they should be made. 08:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

[] ( · )

Permaswag's vote, he's been asked to change his vote twice already and doesn't seem to care much. His argument is that PI has more shutdown, but 4 seconds of shutdown < permanent shutdown of a mob. 19:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved. 21:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

[] ( · )

Do I even need to explain why Cuilan's vote is terrible? -

Removed. User warned. -- 21:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""