ATTENTION: If you have an account that was recently deleted and are located in the European Economic Area (EEA), please see this announcement.

Hello there! We are conducting a survey to better understand the user experience in making a first edit. If you have ever made an edit on Gamepedia, please fill out the survey. Thank you!

User talk:Krschkr

From PvXwiki
Jump to: navigation, search


  • Ingame: Ingame name Erik Schlotzhauer. Note that my online times are irregular and that I might be away or busy without indicating it through my friend list. If I'm not replying, retry it later. This is the least reliable way to get in touch with me, so prefer the other two options if possible.
  • PvX: Add a new section to this talk page, I'll receive an e-mail notification.
  • E-Mail: Send me an e-mail directly using this link.

--Krschkr (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

N/Mo Support Necro

Your section about Archiving is very similar to my comments with the build I posted under "Reaper's Mark." Take a look at what I said if you haven't already.--- IGN: Saxazax I (capital i) or Saxazax I I - (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[And thanks for the comments!]

W/any Hundred Blades Hero (talk · rate)

Just so you're aware, your vote dropped this build below the threshold for good, which means you should change the vetting tag appropriately. Although your reasoning doesn't seem to be for trashing the build, so you may want to revise your vote if a Trash rating was not your intention. Toraen (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The issue I see is that from my tests with 100b warrior heroes I can't really give them an effectivity rating above 3 (mainly due to AI issues), but I also don't think that a build below 3.75 effective rating is actually trash. Imo there's a fair amount of builds which fall into a niche of not too effective, but nonetheless popular (while not being meta popular) and fun builds. Like the crippling anguish split mesmer which is seen in non-tryhard american split teams once a year in GvG. Pretty bad bar, but fun and well-known. Those builds should probably have a place in GWPvX, perhaps with their own category (effective rating 3.0 to 3.75?) or the good category should perhaps allow builds slightly below an effective rating of 3.75, rather 3.5? It'd be sad if the 100b hero dropped out of GWPvX, but I don't think I can give it a better rating. The AI issues hurt that build even more than a dagger spam hero.
On a side note – is there a page which allows a good overview on vetting in this wiki? I vetted a large bunch of builds I tested and it's likely that other borderline builds shifted because of my vote. Would ease adjusting the tags. --Krschkr (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
There's a policy page on vetting. We moved the bar to 3.75 back in the day because it was really needed to clear out builds that were giving us a pretty bad reputation for keeping. We wanted to also at one point move to a 1-10 scale so we could make votes more distinct, but changing the code and existing votes over to a new system is kind of difficult when you don't have access to the backend of the wiki anymore. Generally though, people voted around 4 for a build that is good, 5 for great, and somewhere 0-3 for trash depending on how bad the build was. I actually wanted to revamp vetting some more, but even my plan would've still required tweaking the rate extension. Toraen (talk) 09:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and if you want to see all the builds you've voted on, Special:UserRatings. Toraen (talk) 09:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, a 1-10 scale would help to distinguish a bit more between excellent, great, good, ok and meh/trash builds. But as it's difficult to change it the 0-5 is what we should keep and work with. Thanks for the link to the special page; I'll check it within the next days and adjust tags for builds I shifted into a different category. --Krschkr (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
One of the other problems is that its quite frankly one of the only ways to make a warrior hero actually useable and effective, however limited its effectiveness is. At present, there's missions and quests that require you to run Koss, and with no hero build alternatives, we should at least have one build listed purely for this purpose. NapalmFlame (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

3 hero builds

They're specifically retained for 4 man areas only (because people are still going to look up builds to do those areas in HM). Don't include reasoning based on using them in 6 or 8 man areas in your votes on those builds. Toraen (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Adjusted the spiritway rating and clarified the discordway rating. --Krschkr (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Ty. Toraen (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Clearing PvE Meta

So I need to actually get to sleep, but I want to drop this idea here before I forget: do you think we should just remove all the meta tags from the PvE builds (changing to Good/Great as needed) and then re-assess? It's been a long time since some of the tags were applied and not all of them were even operating under the same definition of 'PvE Meta' (let's probably decide what that definition is before doing anything else). Toraen (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Meta is a category of popularity, not quality. I'm not certain whether it makes sense to have a meta tag in the first place, especially given there's so few activity left. If it's desired to make meta builds stand out like now, the tags seem to be fitting in most cases. From what I've seen in the last few months, most builds tagged as meta in GWPvX are meta in game. Some builds might be questionable:
  • Build:Me/A Assassin's Promise – mesmers usually play "regular" meta tagged builds based on panic/energy surge/ineptitude. (Is it worth to keep a separate page for caller builds of different professions? The elite skill and two to three PvE skills are shared, might consider to make a joined Any/A caller page with optional skill sets for each caster profession.)
  • Build:N/any Minion Bomber – rarely played by necromancer players. It's mainly a hero build (and in heroes certainly meta!), players rather go for high level minions without death nova: Bone fiends with OoU or AotL, no death nova. But I don't think that's popular enough these days to be considered meta.
  • Build:W/any Warrior's Endurance Axe and Build:W/any PvE Earth Shaker – most warriors I've met recently were playing daggers or hundred blades. Haven't seen a hammer warrior in quite a long time. Axes are probably borderline, so rather keep them meta tagged than remove them for no good reason.
Those examples already raise another question: Is it desirable to tag hero builds as meta? There certainly are favoured builds. Iirc you somewhere wrote that hero builds are not meant to be tagged meta. If that's a policy to be kept, should hero team builds be exceptions to this? How about the borderline cases like synergizing two hero setups like the spirit spammers? Split every build page which is shared for player and hero build variants when the player build turns out to be meta?
My opinion from the gut's to either keep the popularity tag alongside the (actually more relevant) quality tags and expand their use on heroes and team setups. Or drop the popularity tag entirely, so only the quality tags are decisive. Main issue I see with that approach is that there's apparently barely any GWPvX activity right now. I doubt that we'd end up with reliable common sense evened out vets with just Saxazaxx, you and me. No matter which approach is taken, unless there's a decisive influx of activity (recruit people in reddit? :D) you'll have to find a working system that does not require the activity of days long gone. And that system will most likely largely depend on your experience, making calls to substitute the missing GWPvX community. Else all new build submissions as of mid 2017 may linger in the testing category forever. --Krschkr (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
The Meta tag was originally used to help keep up in the high-end PvP areas (GvG and HA) where vetting was too slow due to the lack of experienced GvG and HA players (and as per policy, these were the only sections where a meta tag could be used to skip vetting). In PvE and low-end PvP, people had different ideas on what the meta tag should mean, so we left it as something that could only be applied after vetting completed. We also didn't want vetting skipped for areas where it is harder to verify a metagame, obviously.
On hero builds not being meta, my comment elsewhere was specifically about melee heroes. As far as I know, melee heroes are not used by the majority of players unless the game forces them for certain missions/quests. Some use them in team concepts for the fun and challenge of it. If there is a difference in how a hero and player would be vetted for a given build, I generally prefer the page split so the concepts are each rated accurately. If both are great and meta and share most of the skills, a single page makes sense (but could still be split if we wanted to future-proof against meta changes).
For borderline PvE builds, I'd say remove the meta tag and just leave the great/good category on, unless it doesn't have 3 votes yet. Meta should probably only be for the most popular builds. As you said, it's not really a statement of the build's quality.
We have the AP callers separate because they're not just a caller build for discord. Also like other such splits, having the separate skill bars for each profession results in less cluttered pages (we could technically have merged all the dagger spammers too, but it's not great for people looking to load a build and go) and more accurate ratings on the concept specific to each profession. Not everyone agrees with me on splitting so many pages, but I feel that its really the only way for ratings to be useful. If there's so many variants allowed in a single page, it's hard to accurately rate a build's universality (or even effectiveness in some cases) because someone can just say, "oh take X instead for that issue" but no one build can take all the variants at once obviously. I've also felt that Any/X pages in general should be sparingly used. Toraen (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Call me crazy if you will, but I'm still running Enduring Axe. Removing the meta tag for axes would be fair if I'm one of the only ones doing it though. Still, its pretty effective for what it does. NapalmFlame (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Removing meta tag would change the community a lot. But it might make people yell at you less often in RA if theres no bulletin for what is meta.--- IGN: Saxazax I (capital i) or Saxazax I I - (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Nothing we do here would change that. They'd just get pissed if you aren't running something in the Great category. Or they get pissed because you're running a wiki build. RA assholes will always find a reason to be angry. I don't think we need to get rid of the meta designation, but we do need to be clear on what it means and make sure we're up to date on it. Also, if we could, let's use the policy talk page for further discussion on this, since whatever we decide will probably have effect on the policy. Toraen (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

- vs –

You may have already seen the page moves, but make sure you use the former (hyphen) in build names please. The long dash isn't actually allowed per PvX:NAME, even though they look similar. Also the long dash crashes the build pack script currently (though I plan to at least fix that now that I've seen it). Toraen (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the fixes. --Krschkr (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Can we try to work together?

Would you like my opinion on anything you're working on?-- Saxazaxx (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

We are working together, aren't we? When you comment on a talk page or in an edit summary that you need assistance with something and I can help (like here or there) I'm always there. And I react to your talk entries when they have to do with the build, like here. Just don't expect me to agree with things I disagree with. But sometimes you come up with suggestions which just derive entirely from the point and strengths of the build on the build page, so I don't really know what to say. If you want to discuss a completely different build, make a page for it. I may or may not have something to say about it. Like here, where your build breaks with the build page build a lot, deriving in multiple aspects from the build page's idea on what the build is supposed to do, which role it's meant to fit. So, to answer your question: Yes, I like to have your opinion. And you improved several pages I made, which I appreciate. But accept that we have different opinions on certain things and try to keep closer to the point and idea of the build you're commenting. --Krschkr (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
all this is really cute and makes me glad I started following the site recently :) Juniper real (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok. I won't post alternative builds that are very different from the original. I will just make my own builds elsewhere. At the moment, my opinion tends to come from a perspective of... I don't know what. I like to think that I am "creative" and that has been my trumpeting cry on this Wiki. I also tend to be a contrarian, no matter what someone says, I have to question whether the opposite is true. I'm working on that. Sorry.-- Saxazaxx (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Questioning and being creative is fine, that's part of how good builds have been created in the past. But sometimes it's time to make a new user subpage/trial build page when the connection of an alternative build fitting into similar roles to the currently visited talk pages becomes too loose. --Krschkr (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Testing Areas

I want to look into party size 6 teams next. Any testing areas you'd think fitting? Suggestions are welcome here and on reddit. --Krschkr (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Policy proofreading

An unglamorous task to be sure, but could I have you look over these two to make sure they're good to go? Pointing out any grammatical/spelling mistakes or legal loopholes would be appreciated! They are mostly the same as their original policies outside of the sections I added. -Toraen (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but as I learned english by playing guild wars and watching british comedy shows I might not be the ideal person to ask for checking spelling and grammar. --Krschkr (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


You've been hard at work I see!--Saxazaxx (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I just wish there were more than five people in the whole community contributing to this project. So many pages haven't been updated in the last 6 years, so there's still much to do. --Krschkr (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
It's lonely at the top.--17:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
That banner X;D--Saxazaxx (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Pre-Curse builds

Some builds have their rating tag from when we were at Wikia, but they didn't make the rating database available for migration (because they were being jerks about us leaving). We probably should have tagged them specially to avoid confusion now that I think about it, but a lot of them are probably in need of review anyway.

I guess I don't have to write that script now though. -Toraen (talk) 06:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I already wondered how so many builds could slip through, having ratings without votes. Shall I revert those 0/1 vote tag removals? I plan to vote on farming builds aswell, eventually, but until I get to do that there's still a lot of different stuff planned (especially looking into beginner builds). Saxazaxx seems to have started testing and rating farming builds, so if I do that aswell we'd have enough votes for provisional ratings for most of them. --Krschkr (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, if we want our builds database to get up to date, we'll need to call attention to builds that have sat for a while without getting new votes. If a really popular build ends up getting sent back to testing, we can hopefully resolve that quickly now, either through voting on it (we can at least get them to provisional) or granting it a Meta tag exception. I haven't done a full audit yet, but I imagine most of the remaining builds that are in the pre-Curse limbo are just not that popular. -Toraen (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


Mostly a formality, but I did want to give the option to decline, if you so choose. -Toraen (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Primarily I'm a content contributor, but if you think that some more user rights (timeout in case of vandalism, "deleting" pages) would benefit PvX I'm inclined to accept the nomination. I don't know anything about adjusting filters, more complex templates and things like that, though. In general I'm not so sure which the obligations as an admin would be. It would be great to have some more information on that; if you like you can text me on Discord and tell me what your expectations would be. --Krschkr (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Code knowledge and tool use can come later, as there's not really a way to practice them without ever having had them. You don't even really need to get involved with that stuff if it's not your forte. Primarily, I want someone who has the wiki's best interests at heart (you clearly do) and participates in growing/developing the wiki (which you are currently doing). Having adminship means you will be a leader: expected to help new users, resolve disputes, and develop/interpret/enforce policy (this is the trickiest bit). I'll drop you some more info on what I'm expecting through discord. -Toraen (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Peter Kadar

It is worth it to take a look at some of his videos, from a glance it looks like he has a lot of creative solo farms, and he is uploading a lot of videos at the moment.--Saxazaxx (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know the Youtube Widget we use for embedding videos does not allow to start at a specified time. Péters videos sadly are build collections, so embedding them would be a bit problematic. We could forego the embedding and provide a link to the point in the video at which the respective farm build is presented, but I'm not so certain that this would be the ideal solution.--Krschkr (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I mean more as a source of inspiration for build ideas. We could also try and recruit him to write builds and guides.--Saxazaxx (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I couldn't catch him online or he was busy. Perhaps you have more luck. --Krschkr (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Useful Pages

This list isn't exhaustive, and I may find more things to add at a later time, but here's some things to keep an eye on (I think you're already watching at least a couple of these anyway). Template links included for a quick way to get to their code if you need.

  • Category:Candidates for deletion - {{Delete}} & {{Delete talk}}
    • Category:WELL: {{Well}} Honestly it's probably best we avoid using this one very much. Unless it's really bad just let the build get trashed normally.
  • Category:Archive-Pending - {{Archive-Pending}}
  • Category:Rewrite - {{Rewrite}}
  • PvXwiki:Grace Expired - Check for recent edits on expired builds first, since this page can only track by when the build was placed in its current category. It doesn't check the date of last edit. You can reset the grace period by removing and re-adding the tag (or just switching to a different one) if you feel it's warranted.
  • PvXwiki:Unvetted pages - comb this for anything eligible for provisional status (or vetted, if they're so lucky). Don't move anything to a provisional category unless it's in dark grey.
  • Special:SpecialPages - has pretty much everything else. If you've been using this page before, you should notice your new admin tools in bold. If you have any questions about any of them feel free to ask.

-Toraen (talk) 05:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


--Saxazaxx (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! --Krschkr (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


I'm pretty tired of the merry-go-round that is arenas pvp, gw1 or gw2... people having the worst attitudes ever. Glad rank is pretty much a testament to how much of a politician you are. Do you know anyone that could teach me GvG basics? My play time is pretty limited since I live with my family, but I can probably find some days here and there to play in the big leagues.--Saxazaxx (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Getting into the GvG scene sounds hardly possible to me. The game mode is about dead, there are no ladder matches and barely any AT (automated tournament) matches. The only time when people really play GvG is the mAT (monthly automated tournament), which is highly competitive. The teaching scrims project has been abandoned, so getting into the small, elitist circle of GvG players has become even harder. Your best chance is to join the teamquitter discord and try to get into the irregularly happening competitive scrims (channel GvG). As for teaching: Take a look into the guides over here. Before you ask someone during the scrims to give you personal hints/lessons you should already have covered the basics by reading some guides and practicing basic mechanics like quarterstepping and bull's strike dodging. --Krschkr (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Divide and Conquer

If you want, give me some sections of the beginner's guide to write.--Saxazaxx (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

If you'd like to do that, go for it. I won't add more to the page until in ~20 hours and then I'll probably focus on the builds sections, so we shouldn't run into edit conflicts if you tackle the basics or walkthrough sections. But keep in mind that I might mercilessly edit your contributions! I don't yet know how I want that guide to look like in the end, so there might be larger changes over the next days. --Krschkr (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do a basics section for now. Is there a beginner guide already?--Saxazaxx (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Probably somewhere, but I don't know any. If there's a good one we could reduce this to the build part and some notes to the nightfall walkthrough. --Krschkr (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't uploaded any guide sections, I have been very busy with school and have been thinking about quitting the game. I mean, I don't see much of a point if real pvp (gvg) is filled with jerks, just like gw2 pvp. I think the game has great gameplay, but it's a waste of my time if people are constantly being horrible. Anyway, I'll have to put any contributions to a beginner guide on the back burner for now. My apologies.--Saxazaxx (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Alright, I'll get to do it eventually. Thanks for the notification. --Krschkr (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

What are you working on right now?

Can you give me a general idea of a large project you're working on right now, or what, in general, your goals are for designing builds for the game? I think I want to stick around for the time being, and I'm not really sure where to apply my efforts, other than the beginner content, of course. I know you have a lot of builds, I'm just interested in what it is exactly that you are trying to discover as you contribute to this site.--Saxazaxx (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Initially I was just looking for a new place with working GWBB-code to store builds as the new wartower doesn't support it anymore and the guildwarslegacy staff somehow managed to break theirs without ever fixing it (and except for one nice one their mods were horrid). But then I noticed that all the toxic people had left PvX by now so I could aswell improve and expand its public content. Despite large parts of the community being so utterly ungrateful or plain toxic I've spent most of my time in GW in the last years helping other players ingame. Now that there barely are any people left in my range the only way to keep this up is to reach out and help people by improving PvX content with the limited knowledge and experience I have. This experience comes from testing various builds and having fun with silly build ideas; the main thing that pushes me to look into a new build is to have fun through variety. That may be by exploring a theme or a certain mechanic (like the recent Rüdiway which combines the positive feedback loop communing prots provide with synergizing shutdown mesmers) or sometimes even following a build challenge.
You see: I usually don't have a definitive goal, no actual project. The testing routes might be seen as a larger scale project? They are meant to serve multiple purposes:
  • Test the viability of teams in the first place, determining whether they are good.
  • Compare the performance of multiple teams to identify which works best (and why).
  • Based on this give relative ratings which take into account other builds.
  • Testing routes could be used by different players to see how large the impact of the individual playing style is.
The final result should be to have less arbitrary team build ratings and archiving outdated/similar team builds based on the test results. Sadly it's way too late to develop generalized testing routes as there are no people left to test builds on them, so all this effort will be in vain. :p --Krschkr (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Good to know. Yes, the toxicity in PvP has driven me away. I will not waste my time playing with people who do nothing but push me away. So, if PvP's off the table because they're all elitist jerks, then PvE is the only thing left. I self-sabotaged myself a bit when I opened 100+ Nick gifts because no one would buy them for 5e each after I tried selling them for a month. As I think you know, in my opinion, botters are totally ruining the game, and PvE is under their command as long as Anet is AWOL (although, I have reason to believe they are not as distant as we might think). The only thing left for honest players to do is to do things that botters simply cannot--this is why I got interested in The Deep - it' very difficult to bot that. Build theorizing is another one, but I feel like there has to be some goal in mind, or else I'd rather leave all the toxicity and cheating by the wayside, and just pick up another game.
I have a bit of training in literary analysis, so another route I considered taking by playing this game, was to analyze the story behind the game. However, when it comes down to it, the story behind the game is rather cliche--it's basically a medieval romance. I think I have been dying to scrape something tangible out of all the thousands of hours I've invested into playing it, and I think it really is possible--since I want to go into game design, I do want to apply what I've learned to new games that I make.
So, as far as my goals go, I think I have mentioned that I have this faint glimmer of a goal to find the "super build" that breaks the game. I do understand that It might be a fool's errand--it certainly is a fool's errand to apply my training in Classical literary analysis to the story behind a triple-A game that is much more market-driven than art-driven. That much I am certain about. But as far as gameplay goes, Guild Wars is high on the list, compared to other games.
I'm writing essays again. As far as your testing routes project goes, I can't say I'm very interested in contributing. I appreciate that you're trying to find a more objective standard upon which to rate builds. But I have found, recently, that the arguments go back and forth, and ultimately nowhere, when it comes to the effectiveness of a "general build," since there are so many different areas, and twice as many as that if you consider Normal Mode and Hard Mode. I have mentioned before that I think it would be a much more interesting project to reverse-engineer each different area in the game, analyze the skills and builds of every type of foe in each general area, and design comps that are more specialized. After all, it only takes a few clicks to load up builds, if you're running through campaigns, or vanquishing a new area, for example. This is part of the thinking behind the 6 Hero Burning Campaign team, that is to say, the fact that I tested it without runes or weapons, so that it could be shuttled throughout the game, without needing to be tweaked for every scenario. Obviously, minor runes and health runes are beneficial in all scenarios, and so are armor insignias.
Side note about insignias and whether or not to put runes and perfect weapons on heroes for general builds: If you consider the different kinds of insignias from a standpoint of being offensive or defensive, in reality, radiant insignias (+energy) really are preferable, if you're going for a more offensive play style and composition; most people would never use them unless they would be farming. I noticed that Barath had full Radiant insignias on his heroes for his Hard Mode/End Game comps on YouTube, that's where I got that idea. So, maybe, for general builds, it would be best to do tests with full radiant insignias, instead of additional armor or health...
So... in reference to your response, I do agree that for the community, as it stands, creating general builds and comps is going to be our best bet, since there are a whole host of toxic players and botters; but we're not making builds for them, anyway. After all, no matter where you go, you'll find people cheating and printing money--if you can't live with that, then you're on the wrong planet. But you're right that there probably aren't enough people to test these builds, or that would even use them if they were perfected - a fool's errand.
This is why I think it's important to have an achievable goal. I have found in my life in general, that when I am trying achieve one thing, I end up achieving many others as by-products, and I don't even realize these other things I'm learning, until that one day when you pull that obscure skill out of the bag and "wow" everyone at the cocktail party. So, playing the game and trying to find silly builds does even have some benefit that we might not be aware of - you might just have a moment of realization when designing the silliest build, that lets you solo DOA in 1 minute. Well, maybe not. I just got tired of SCing the same areas with the same tactics, day after day, accumulating ecto after ecto, for no apparent reason, other than to spend time with friends who, by virtue of being faceless internet people, I would have to keep at arm's length at all times, for fear that my identity would be stolen, or that my safety would be compromised.
So, so.... I want to find that super build. If I have to tear this Universe another black hole, I'm going to find it, I've, GOT TO, MISTER!!! *beep beep beep beep*--Saxazaxx (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
PvP) It's a shame that the state of the community is as it is. I'm mostly a PvE player, but imo GvG is the peak of Guild Wars's game modes. If we just had about 500 more dedicated GvG players... heh.
Bots) People can use bots to do most things. So what? They ruin the economy entirely, but they don't ruin the gameplay. They don't have PvE under their command. I won't stop playing fun content like DoA or WoC just because parts of them can be botted. That'd be a very odd reaction in my opinion, so I can't really understand that this is your reasoning behind the deep endeavours.
Super build) Unless you find a new Doomspike (how about: 1hp dark aura + BiP N/As with mark of protection support for 5x 160 AoE dps? :p) all you can do is try to optimize what all of us worked with in the last few years. And there's still a lot of optimizing to be done. Just look at the current meta team builds' mesmers, ow. And maybe you're interested in Rüdiway? It's a very unoptimized team build so far, but the "your entire team is immune to damage" concept sounds like something you'd like. I'm certain that it can be played without mercenaries if combining snares + skills which cause scattering.
Insignias) Unless you have a player that maintains shelter or SY permanently armour insignias are the better choice as they'll protect your team when it's most vulnerable: During shelter/SY downtimes. More energy hardly helps. +8 energy allows your hero to cast one second longer, but then he's run out of energy and lurks at 0 like a hero without radiant insignias. You need energy management.
General teams) It's largely pointless to create 1200 teams if one with a few variable skill slots suffices entirely. If a build doesn't work in most content it can't be recommended imo, unless it's designed for certain especially hard content where the general builds fall short. And normal mode is a joke compared to hard mode. Anything goes. I'm strongly against normal mode builds for non-transitional use.
Literary analysis) You probably shouldn't waste your time with Guild Wars. Morrowind should be a much better game to take a look at. Different perspectives, no definite truth, a lot of interesting lore taking inspiration from many different sources that are somewhat uncommon in (american) game creation. --Krschkr (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Legendary Guardian Run

Hey, I had an idea that since the Mesmer meta seems pretty fast now, I would want to gear up my heroes and do a 100% run of all the campaigns and see how fast I could do it. I envision that recording standing as a sort of testament to the current state of heroway theroycrafting and the game in general. My question to you would be, which team comps should I use, if I was to run this on a Sin, for the 4- and 6-man areas? Thanks,--Saxazaxx (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Party size 4 is not relevant. You'll do the Shing Jea missions before you get your first heroes, you'll be level 20 when you get in range of the remaining party size 4 missions and can just roll through them with some of these OQljAoCsJOnAT30LHAAAA7YAA so there's not much of a build required. Party size 6 is slightly different, as that includes some longer missions with actual foes in prophecies. OwAS4Y4OmkqPelf0Fp+uk5B with and OAhkQoG4hEyzdYqWVnDSzJnwbcC filled with something like OQljAoCsJOnAT30LHMEwp7YBA 3x should do. 2x shatter enchantment in the crystal desert over resurrection signet. --Krschkr (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I would be running it with a level 20 char through every mission with level 20 heroes, not starting from a new Proph character.--Saxazaxx (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
In which case you can run the triple Me/P in Cho's aswell. Or you bring mind burn. Star burst. Invoke lightning. Anything, really, those are just level 8 warriors you're fighting. --Krschkr (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
...In HM. I was talking about what 4- or 6-man teams you think would be best for the low party missions in HM, level 20 with fully geared lvl 20 heroes.--Saxazaxx (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Might want to correct the section header to "Legendary Guardian Run". LifeGuardian (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Like that?--Saxazaxx (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Ohhhhh, sorry, I did get that totally wrong. Thought you just needed normal mode. This changes matters quite a bit. In general, the fastest team for party size 4 which I have played is this one, but it is designed to be played as a midline role. Using some additional defense on your assassin (flashing blades + critical defense) wouldn't work so well either because of Shove (factions) and Wild Blow (prophecies). It might work well enough with an AP caller build – OwVjMOesATyA2kLQ7imOxk4UXA – surprise, with mesmer skills :D. You'll have to do some tests to check whether it works well. In Nolani Academy you might be faster in total by playing a tank build, so you can take the quick route out of the academy. For factions one ineptitude mesmer over one of the energy surge mesmers might be a good idea because you fight an unusually high amount of warriors. For Jokanur Diggings you'll have to change that a bit because of Melonni. That team is what I'd go for. No spirits and minions which slow you down or risk the bonus. In general that's what you should go for if the triple energy surge plan doesn't work. Melonni could probably replace the E/Mo quite well for that mission, roughly like that: OgOlwyqxq4gP68envIY1L6mcrFnH – let's avoid losing out on strength of honour. The build page features a relatively defensive build variant. For some more offense, take an energy surge mesmer with spiritual pain and shatter hex over the keystone mesmer. You shouldn't need the AoE interrupts, just more damage. In Chahbek you could bring a selfheal and play without a healer. I haven't yet done much testing for party size 6 so I can't provide you with actual test results indicating which build would be best-suited for your endeavour. You could start your tests with this and then move forward with it until you find something that fits perfectly: OAOjEyiM5MXTMm3scyMlmTuWCOQhkAoDoAHKzJY6lDMdDhMARI5COQhkAoB8AGK0LACYeGJgIQGARwFDOAljUwGpZSKgUB4BbhVV8Y7Y1YOgNEwbHu+6QLqFkEtY94uC1mH – you just play a standard dagger build. Good luck with your project. --Krschkr (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but if there isn't a consensus on the best general-use comp for low man areas, then there wouldn't be much of a point in doing a run like the one I mentioned, I would have to only do the 8-man missions and cut out most of Proph. But thanks for the info anyway.--Saxazaxx (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
There is no consensus for any party size. --Krschkr (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


Hey, is there an IGN I can PM you on in game?--Saxazaxx (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Erik Schlotzhauer. Don't try K R S C H K R, that name has been stolen in 2016. --Krschkr (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Rt/any Destructive Was Glaive Bomber

Hey Krschkr, I cleaned up the DwG page, with the most significant change being the removal of the Arcane Echo variant. The reasoning for this is on the DwG talk page. Let me know what you think, and feel free to add it back if you think its needed on the page. Soldier198 (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

AOTL Change

There's a note on the BIP Melee history mentioning an unofficial change to AOTL. I looked around but couldn't see what changed, so I figured I'd ask. Also saw you hadn't been around the GW reddit recently, and wanted to say I appreciate your contributions, and hope the negativity hasn't driven you away. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grokwell (talk • contribs) 14:47, 13 May 2019.

The game update on february 5th 2019 changed the AI usage of a couple of skills. A guild mate of mine noticed that at least two skills had been affected by this update which aren't mentioned in the patch notes: Aura of the Lich and Masochism. Prior to the AI update heroes would let these enchantments run out before applying them again. Now they try to reapply these enchantments right before they end, so the skills benefit from their own attribute boost. I changed a couple of attribute values on hero builds to reflect that change.
About reddit: Alas, you're right. I've never enjoyed that place much because of the unpleasant or outright hostile demeanour of many active people over there. (At some point I came to know that a certain circle of "high end PvE players" over there frequently made disparaging memes about things I had written, taken out of context. This included passages taken without permission from private messages I had sent.) Therefore I have, coincident with my break from playing GW, left reddit. I only go there every now and then to check and react to my private messages and other notifications until I don't anymore receive them. The few people which are active in PvX are nice and positive, so I'm going to stay here. Of course it would be better with some more activity, but I prefer having few mostly good experiences over few good embedded in many, many regrettable encounters. --Krschkr (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

My builds

Hey man I've noticed I'm not very good at theorycrafting builds myself. Maybe I'm trying too hard to make the perfect shutdown team like PvE. But I don't have a clue when it comes to PvP. I'm wondering if you were interested in designing theoreotical builds.

You've told me in the past that you prefer practical working builds. And reading most of the metagame of pvp's team builds I see they all have evidence of being used in GvG matches. You've got matches recorded to prove which have been used. Is this the way the meta pvp builds will be formed on this website?

I'm asking this because I can't design builds to counter the meta if the only builds put into meta are the builds that are actually used at the moment. What I mean by telling you all this is that I have some ideas of builds such as this one: Anti-everything Spirits:

Template code

And I've seen builds like that applied in: and

But I'm wondering if pvx wiki is here only to document the builds used in the metagame or to try to counter it. I know there are players much more experienced than myself in the pvp scene who know what works and what doesn't. I know you love this game and have passion for it and I've seen your dedication to running the site.

Don't consider me an enemy of you mate. If you remember I was one of the first people to give you a positive comment on your profile. And look at you now you're the leader of PvX wiki. And look at me I can't even get a single pvp build vetted lol.

I'm asking for your help. I need a friend in this world and if you'd like to be it on this website and introduce me to the pvp scene I'd appreciate it. I have so many good nostalgic memories of guild wars.

I was never part of the group of people who were pros in this game. In fact in the past as a kid I was permanently banned from Guild Wars for trolling. I'm ready to grow up and to listen to people and their concepts.

Maybe I'm a rebel without a cause. I've always had a personality that challenges the norm. So I guess my final question is are you willing to try to change the meta or just document it here on PvX wiki? Rickyf16aus (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I fear that you overestimate my influence, both in PvX and the PvP scene. As an administrator I'm expected to solve disputes between PvX users if they were to occur and my user rights are extended so I can counteract vandalism. But regarding the content on this site my word doesn't weigh more than that of any other user (PvX:ADMIN). If it appears otherwise that can be explained by the low community activity in the last year. Basically, you can add any good build to PvX (PvX:AR) and it has always been a common practice to add sparingly or untested builds to PvX. Unless a build violates PvX:WELL it's given the benefit of doubt and stays until it has gone through the PvX:VETTING process. Whether a build is of sufficient quality to be featured in PvX is thus a matter of community consensus. However, as far as I can tell, it has also always been an issue that PvP players weren't very interested in PvX. That's one of the reasons why there's a meta category for PvP builds in the first place: It bypasses vetting for selected builds because there are too few votes, especially for GvG. That's never been more true than nowadays. What should and what shouldn't end up in the meta category is the topic of this discussion – feel free to be the first to voice his opinion. My personal approach to PvP builds in PvX was to document the working builds, not to theorycraft. The reason for it is twofold: Firstly, there are many good and different GvG teams that already exist and are in use, so they should have priority. Secondly, as a personal note, there's no chance that I ever get a team to test my theory crafted builds so their functionality can be verified, the builds optimized and the build page rated – I don't rate builds I don't have experience with. Yep, despite I've been playing GvG for about three years and even managed to form my own team in very few occasions I was never able to convince people to test my selfmade builds. They wouldn't even listen to my build calls if it was something pre-existent. For me as a builds person this always was a huge disappointment and I still lament it in retrospect. Due to this experience and the state of the community I personally won't add PvP build theory crafts. But don't let my approach stop you if you'd like to do it, because as I said, doing so is covered by policy and common practice. Just don't expect that anyone will ever rate them.
Due to the unsuccessfulness of mine I layed out and my recent withdrawal from the GvG scene as a result of another failure to form my own team I'm definitely not the right person to shake up the meta, or to get you into GvG. If you want to get into the GvG scene, the most promising thing to do is to join the PvP focused Guild Wars discord servers: (Teamquitter) and (North America)
My nowadays very reduced activity is PvE-only. I'm sorry that I can't be more accomodating. --Krschkr (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


I'm reading through your edits and you're doing a great job for your adminship.--Shadowrelic (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I hope I'll be able to keep it up for a while, there's still a lot to do! --Krschkr (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

June Flux D/E Team Build

Any comments and suggestions on this? I think there's potential with something like this. Would it be better if 3 derv, 1 mes, 1 ranger, 3 backline? Or change ranger to mesmer? I'm thinking the 4xD, 1xR 3xMo version is more resilient, esp with multiple imbue health dervishes. Energy can be a problem esp for the "Conjure" versions but switching to a radiant scythe can help a bit. But maybe it's just more worth it to have more imbue healths - that allows a derv to push in deeper to harass stuff (like flag runners) more safely without needing the monks to come up so fast - because the other dervs can help heal that derv. Cute Lethal Puppy (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

By the looks of the build the game plan is an 8v8 flag push with spread pressure when fighting 8v8. Until testing it there's no way to say what happens when actually using it. However, I'll let the team run through a thought experiment against the team which the majority of teams ran in the last years during this flux: Build:Team - GvG June Elementalist Spike
  • Training single targets. Shielding Hands greatly reduces the damage dealt by the dervishes. As their scythe damage is already reduced from Grenth's Aura it will likely drop to 0 upon further reduction: The scythe damage is reduced by 34/hit, after all. The health drain itself is reduced to 0 aswell, since shielding hands has the same reduction as grenth's aura drains health points. In the worst case, the entire attack damage is reduced to 0 during shielding hands' uptime due to the damage split and reduction and the dervishes won't do much more than the vampiric scythe's bonus damage. (Vampiric weapons bypass shielding hands, for whichever reason.) Likewise, a single Guardian can already drastically reduce the single target damage output of this team. Add Dark Escape from the flag holding elementalist and you can't even force a kill with the point blank area spells.
  • Evaluation: The team can't force kills on single targets.
  • Relevance: By the looks of the builds your team needs the flag push to gain on the opponent. But if the opponent doesn't need to actually run flags you can't make any use of this tactic. Capturing the flag alone won't make the opponent start running flags. If they see that you run a flag push style team, they will hold the flag as long as possible as they have a great 8v8 power. For the beginning of the 8v8 you'll even be down a player since you need to run a second flag right away. If you cap the flag while having 8 people at stand, the opponent will simply overcap when possible and push very hard when you send someone running a flag. So, if you want to enter the flag push game any soon (and you need it!) you need to kill the flag holder or have threatiningly powerful single target damage options.
  • Suggestion: Either Mark of Insecurity (see this) or Air of Disenchantment (see that) would allow you to deal with the protection prayers. Since the dervishes don't spam shortliving conditions like the common Avatar of Balthazar and uncommon Avatar of Grenth dervishes you won't be able to make much use of Fragility (PvP) and due to having Aura Slicer the cracked armor from Shrinking Armor seems redundant aswell. Toying with the assassin build might be the best choice. Mark of insecurity seems to calculate the remaining enchantment duration in three steps:
  1. (New enchantment duration) = (Original enchantment duration) * (1 − MoI%)
  2. Round up.
  3. Reduce the enchantment duration by at least 1 second.
Assuming that the prot monk had equipped the staff before applying mark of insecurity, the resulting enchantment duration of shielding hands/Spirit Bond (PvP) should be one second at 16 deadly arts, two at 14 and three at 11. If the prot monk switches to the staff after the hex is applied, the resulting enchantment duration should change to two, two and three seconds respectively. For Air of Disenchantment it'd be at 14/11 illusion magic staff first four/four and hex first three/five seconds. I'd say that an unfluxed 16 deadly arts mark of insecurity assassin is the more promising than a fluxed 11 deadly arts one (unless you get interrupted) and preferably to fluxed aswell as unfluxed air of disenchantment mesmers. So, if you want to go the hex-based way of making protection prayers unviable, the unfluxed assassin is your best bet. It'll also help against dark escape, by the way.
  • Side note: The utter power of shielding hands against health drain dervishes is also the reason why that skill on a monk runner is a direct counter against Bezman. Not only will the protected target not take any damage worth mentioning, this protection also completely negates the health drain from aura and Avatar of Grenth. If some pit NPCs are still alive or the dervish received additional pressure it's possibly a death warrant.
  • Lineback/shutdown potential: Looks low. The dervishes have neither interruption nor enchantment removal nor any form of punishment to intercept the Stoning spam. Attack the elementalists won't even force them into their shield sets as the scythe attack damage is already very low from Grenth's Aura. So the only shutdown you have is from the unfluxed ranger. However, the faster casting during this flux will make interrupting very hard, even more so on a ranger compared to a mesmer. I don't see that this team has any means of effectively stopping the opponent from doing their work.
  • Evaluation: The opponent will force his game plan onto your team in 8v8 situations.
  • Relevance: If you can't stop the elementalist spam you're unable to take action and you might just die.
  • Suggestion: Unless you find a way to perform deep enchantment removals on your D/E characters (coordinated attack skill usage on knocked down targets with Rending Aura on everyone, spamming Rending Sweep, working with Rending Touch or Winds of Disenchantment or Test of Faith) there isn't even a way to deal with the opponents' energy management. Large-scale build changes might be required: A spike with wind of disenchantment + dual damage Gust/Mirror of Ice, drop scythe mastery entirely and keep Grenth's Aura for a bit of self-healing and pressure? That wouldn't really help with shutdown but you'd keep the flag push abilities and might be able to spike targets at least.
pwnd0001?download pawned2 @ | Copyright 2008-2018 Redeemer
  • General pressure: I don't think that the dervishes will do much of that. The elementalist spells are definitely annoying, but the expected damage output is nowhere near killing. The ranger can't really change that either, especially if his poison is taken out. If your dervishes spread their attacks a single Shield Guardian will block about 5 attacks, producing 160 party healing on top of the proection power. That really throws you back, and will you use the ranger solely for taking out shield guardians?
  • Relevance: Well, you want to kill, don't you? The team doesn't have very good spikes so you have to deal more damage than the opponent can outheal. Especially if you happen to succeed with the flag push plan: When you're in the opponents base and boosting, you need to finish them off somehow. I don't expect that to happen with this team.
  • Suggestion: Idk.
  • Flag game: You have the snares to keep a target permanently at 10% movement speed: Mirror of Ice alongside cripple will do that. Thanks to mirror of ice recharging in 6 seconds and having two copies of it you may well keep it up through normal amounts of hex removal. But the single target damage issues mentioned above may prevent that the flag push really drains the opponent. Gust will do some nice knock downs aswell, but only during the short downtime of Aura of Stability which you can't remove. Your own flag running should be done by one of the gust dervishes due to the relatively good speed boost, the additional armor, the cripple removal (don't expect many rangers this month, but still) and your need to keep the monks in main team to somehow survive.
  • Evaluation: If you take the anti enchantment assassin or mesmer over the ranger the flag push abilities of this build look very promising!
  • Suggestion: Drop the ranger for an anti enchantment character and the second gust dervish for a more flexible midline character which runs flags and may defend splits or split itself.
pwnd0001?download pawned2 @ | Copyright 2008-2018 Redeemer
  • Resilience: With just one Balanced Stance and Aura of Stability without meaningful shutdown or energy denial you're going to get Stoning spammed, first destroying your killing potential and then your backline.
  • Splitting: None of the build's characters have a chance to kill through a monk or survive either of the splitable elementalists of the opponent. None of your characters except for the monk can defend against a split elementalist.
  • Relevance: If the opponent loses in an 8v8 situation (which is your team's strength) he'll start outsplitting you.
  • Suggestion: The flag game team suggestion features a split defense elementalist.
  • Over all comment: I think that fluxed dervishes are best-suited as support characters in teams like Spirit's Strength or Star Burst replacing a point blank gust elementalist. Attacks don't benefit from the flux, so results with fluxed martial characters tend to be... not so shining. If you want resilient Any/E characters making use of the flux, use a bunch of star burst rangers. They have good pressure and due to Teinai's Wind they can even do ranged pressure spikes. Mixed with enchantment removal mesmers they could be quite dangerous. If you want to make use of melee and casting abilities of the dervishes, use them as support for spirit's strength. Or you may even try them as full casters as a replacement for the elementalists in a Dual Elementalist Spike, using a dual gust midline for less prominent spikes with more utility, melee harassment and the option to bring dervish healing in form of Imbue Health or Watchful Intervention. However, I fear that simply taking stoning spam elementalists is going to be more useful even in that context.

I don't want to shatter hopes (and again, I really can't tell how the team will actually play out) but from the looks of it, its killing potential won't deliver, it's susceptible to splits and can't handle the dual earth magic meta in an 8v8. I'd love to see you bring this in the monthly tomorrow and show me that I was all wrong about it. that would mean to finally see a refreshing build. --Krschkr (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually I think a solo dervish with Vow of Piety can handle a solo split Ele. Vow of Piety reduces ele damage a lot, Harrier's grasp can remove 1 blind/cracked armor, and most split Eles don't have cripple removal (or hex removal vs a MoI VoP variant). I suspect it's more of whether they have enough KD and/or enough blind (I don't see much blind on many split ele bars nowadays).
  • Regarding shielding hands, it does depend on how many copies of SH there are vs how many dervishes, secondly the dervish does not have to keep Grenth's Aura up when training a SH target (can also remove it early with wearying strike). Grenth's Aura is good for self healing and for high AL targets. So you have options depending on what the enemy build is and what they do.
  • Shield Guardians on the other hand are indeed an issue esp if the dervishes spread targets.
  • Spike damage is about 160-200 + deep wound assuming 1 adjacent derv + 2 dervishes in range (50x2+50+50). 40-50 more if the 4th derv comes within range, likely max is about 300 + deep wound if the target is caster, has cracked armor and is not on shield set (and ranger/mes doesn't help). That's assuming the dervishes don't all ball on the same target and make it obvious - would that actually work e.g. they cap then surround the flag carrier and keep whacking it? The max spike goes up in that scenario... But the rest of your team might start needing too many of those Imbue Healths... ;)
  • The team builds with AoD or lsurge might indeed be more viable. Overall I think the concept has potential and it's a matter of testing to see which variants work better vs what.
  • Lineback Potential: Tactics like enemy midliners not switching to shield sets will mean they take more damage from MoI+Gust. IIRC the last june flux MAT was won by RNE not stone spam, so the build has to handle normal Meta stuff like that as well. And for that I think the lineback potential is high vs enemy melee.
  • For the Flag Game there are other options than just those you mentioned. The players will need practice too e.g. to use MoI on themselves if their targets have Holy Veil, or on others if the holy veil is on them :). So far there does not seem to be much interest in such builds. Everyone especially the less experienced or weaker players seem to prefer meta builds. I suggest that weaker players playing meta team builds have a lower chance of winning against strong players good at the meta team builds, than if they used something different and unexpected that's not crap (maybe even if slightly inferior to meta). -- Cute Lethal Puppy (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Test result for the record: Fluxed split earth ele and unfluxed lightning surge and unfluxed mind burn (both smoldering embers and lava font) win the 1v1. Additional test: Lightning surge and lava font mind burn can kill NPCs through the dervish. --Krschkr (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. Back to the drawing board, or need lsurge for split... :) Cute Lethal Puppy (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

PvE meta

I see the use of “statistics” (I’m assuming pvx page visit counts or something similar) being used to guide meta tags on pve builds. I believe this type of stat is helpful but not definitive for determining meta tags. (Not to mention, the definition of meta for pve builds might still be poorly described.) I’m not proposing any alternative right now but thought I should express my thoughts sooner than later. Juniper real (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, although the statistics are a helpful tool they can't determine this entirely. However, they're giving a better clue right now than anything else. There are so few players around that observing what's run ingame has become more and more difficult. As the main audience of PvX are "general PvE" players the usage statistics help determining popularity at least for this content section. I.e. the dagger warrior is unexpectedly rarely frequented in comparison with warrior's endurance axe and hundred blades and therefore has a hard time qualifying as meta aswell. None of the builds that are now in meta are surprising. (Well, except for the two monk heroes, but from what I see ingame monk heroes are, for some reason, indeed still popular.) I'd personally prefer to just drop meta for general PvE entirely. Advertising builds because they're already popular isn't a good thing to do. We have the vetting system for determining build quality, and that's one of PvX's greatest strengths. We should emphasize this more by dropping the PvE meta (except for specialty items like speed clears). --Krschkr (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
ya I liked where the June 2019 general pve meta discussion was going, separating the “current” meta tags from the suggestion that those builds were superior. Given that lots of meta tags didn’t equate to “better than great”, and there was suspicion that users didn’t know to interpret meta as being synonymous with popular, downplaying meta status is reasonable. What would be even better, IMO, is combining vetting and pvx member expertise to determine superiority, and then tag those as meta considering that’s how casuals like to interpret the tag. That might be a bit much work to expect a quick transition, though, so in the meantime (or permanently) devaluing meta can improve pvx’s ability to accurately represent build quality hierarchy. Juniper real (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

My inactivity

I apologize for my long absence, but I fear I will no longer be able to continue as an admin here. Other obligations have taken up enough time that something has to give. I'll be giving you the bureaucrat role (and removing it+admin from myself) so you can promote anyone you see fit to have the tools and you aren't trapped to having no new admins ever. I'm aware that bcrat by default isn't a great situation to be in, but I think you can handle it. I know I have also left unfinished work (particularly the templates) and I can't honestly say that I will be able to finish them. You may want to either revisit them with other users or just abandon them if there doesn't seem to be any need. It seems you used the merge process though, so you may want to pass that one to official policy if there's no changes to be made to it. -Toraen (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Toraen, for the countless hours you have spent for the community throughout almost ten years adminship. From what I've seen on old talk page entries your contributions have always been mediating and leading to consensus – even though the PvX community back in the days wasn't exactly tame or pleasant. That you could maintain your composure in that environment is respectable, maybe even scary. You may rest assured that I'm going to try to keep working for the best of this community project. --Krschkr (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm glad there's no hard feelings about my retirement! A lot of my apparent calm on PvX came from reminding myself that this is a wiki for an old video game, not something that is high-stakes or even has any impact at all on the rest of my life. Also, noticed you added a quest category to PvE, and I've updated the build packs accordingly. Copy my latest edit here over to the main template to get it to show up on the main page. Running the script as-is actually captures the new category perfectly fine, so I'm glad my future-proofing wasn't all for naught. -Toraen (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm grateful for what you have done, so even though I don't enjoy the prospect of being the only administrator left there indeed aren't any hard feelings. I guess you received my mail aswell. I carried over the change to the editcopy to the main page, thanks for that. Did your future-proofing go so far to be compatible with the WIP {{Real-Vetting}} template, a possible removal of the meta category and a possible reimplementation of a third build quality? We'll have to see where the discussions are going to lead to eventually, but these are some outcomes that wouldn't be surprising. --Krschkr (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
It is compatible with the Vetted-Build template in its current form (as long as you protect it and change the build editing/real vetting policies, that template could actually go into use right now if you're fine with the current meta indicator), though if you add another rating quality the script will not pick it up without a little more re-coding (it should be trivial though). Removing meta is technically handled because it would simply mean nothing gets "Meta" added to its filename. I've actually almost finished its integration with the variantbar template as well; it wasn't as hard as I thought it would be. I did notice in testing it that several builds still aren't employing it for variant templates though, which means the variants don't get saved or in the case of team builds are not distinguished properly (so it saves a 7 hero team folder with >7 builds and no indication of what's what). That will 'just' be a matter of fixing the offending build pages. -Toraen (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I guess it would already be an improvement over the current situation. But as long as we give people the option to search for builds on the main page by sorting for popularity the core issue isn't actually taken care of. That's my main qualm. About the variantbars, did you mean that the current implementation of the variantbar template is incorrect on some pages, or is the issue that some pages have variants that are not yet in the variantbar template? --Krschkr (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
It's the latter. I did check my script output for incorrectly used templates (such as missing name or position in team builds) and didn't see any such errors, which is good. The Vetted-Build template and script are pretty flexible, if discussion leads to any/all meta categories being removed from the main page, then adjusting the build tags (and thus the script output) is as simple as just removing '|meta=yes|' from any builds that have that specified in a Vetted-Build tag. Disabling the parameter in the template would also have the same effect for much less work (though it may take time to propagate through all affected pages). Adjusting the main page itself will be trickier but not too difficult. -Toraen (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit Title/Move Page of Rt/A Spirit's Strength Axe RA

Hey Krschkr, when I put Rt/A Spirit's Strength Axe RA on the website I accidently put Assassin as the secondary profession in the webpage title. Anyway you can correct this? If not, I guess we can just move the contents onto a correctly formatted page and delete the old one. Soldier198 (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I actually wanted to move that one already but forgot it. Thanks for mentioning it. --Krschkr (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
No problem Soldier198 (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)