PvXwiki
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
PvXwiki
PvXwiki
2,430
pages

Talk: Community Portal

Back to page
Sign in to edit

Farm Build Merges[]

→ moved from Build talk:Any/Me Dragon Moss Farmer
Alright, if we are talking about combining pages, then what do you think of the following...
1 Build:Me/A Vaettir Farm with Me/A Dragon Moss
2 Build:A/Me_Vaettir_Farm with A/Me Dragon Moss with Build:A/Me_Icy_Dragon_Sword_Farmer
3 Build:E/Me_Obsidian_Flesh_Caster_Farmer with Build:E/Me_Obsidian_Flesh_Vaettir_Farmer with Archive:E/Me Obsidian Flesh Beach Farmer and maybe Archive:E/Me_Obsidian_Flesh_City_Farmer
4 Archive:D/any_Diessa_Chalice_and_Rin_Relic_Farmer with Archive:D/any_FoW_Farmer with Archive:D/any_Plains_Farmer with Build:D/any_Focus_of_Hanaku_Farm
5 Archive:R/any Hard Mode Spike Trapper with Build:R/N_HM_Stygian_Veil_Trapper
You could even argue the 55 monk builds...
6 Build:Mo/any_55hp_Farmer with Build:Mo/A_55hp_Vaettir_Farmer with Build:Mo/W_105hp_Halcyon_Farmer
And maybe somehow combine these monsters...
7 [[Build:Me/Mo_105_Bahnba_Shockfoot_Farmer]] with [[Build:Me/Mo_55_Beetle_Farmer]] with [[Build:Me/Mo_55_Johon_Farm]]
And maybe these with the ones above or their own separate page???
7.5 or 8 [[Build:Me/Mo_Arbor_Earthcall_Farm_HM]] with Build:Me/Mo_Bazzr_Icewing_Farm with [[Build:Me/Mo_Elsnil_Frigidheart_Farm_HM]] with [[Build:Me/Mo_Eshekibeh_Longneck_Farmer_HM]] with [[Build:Me/Mo_Moteh_Thundershooter_HM_Farm]]
And make this just a Rt General Spirit farmer... Archive:Rt/Me SoS Forest Farmer
It would take a lot of work to combine these. Even though many of these have similar builds, it may still be difficult to combine onto single pages.Typhloman (talk) 01:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Now I think that the whole farming section is a mess. 1) Merge. 2) Merge. 3) Merge the first two, check whether the third one works as a general anti melee build and keep the specialized fourth build separate. 4) Merge all. 5) Keep general and specialized farm separate. 6) Keep separate. 7) Merge all echo builds, keep Eshekibeh separate. Possibly merge the visions of regret builds if their damage and survival strategies can be aligned a bit more. That said, we have to check all Me/Mo Johon farm builds and imo just remove all but the best one. If it's not visions of regret, the other visions build can easily be kept separate. If it's echo, it is a major variant of the echo bar (see Template:Variantbar, WIP). 8) Keep specialized, but we have to consider moving Build:Rt/any Signet of Spirits Farmer to Rt/any or make a redirect which shows up in the categories. Right now, under Rt/..., there isn't a general spirit farming build which is an issue. Also consider merge with Archive:Any/Rt Norn Fighting Tournament Farmer.
Those are just my opinions. If we actually do want to merge some of these, which I'd think to be the right thing to do, it doesn't have to happen within a couple of hours. It makes sense to wait for more opinions on this and progress with the variantbar template. --Krschkr (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
The way you did the Farming Areas section in Build:E/Me General Shockwave Farmer is how I imagine most of the redundant farming builds you mentioned can be merged. Except, maybe, that the line Optionals: ... may be replaced with the variantbar template when it's ready. Do you think that's an adequate approach? --Krschkr (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the Variant bar template. I think this format works pretty well though, even with the Optionals: ... line in there temporarily. I think it's suitable enough to go through and merge everything.Typhloman (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Would you like to comment on Build:Me/Mo 55 Beetle Farmer/Merge Draft? It's supposed to deal with most of the 105hp mesmer farming builds. I also intend to make a page for the IMS hero later so farming builds can simply link to that instead of listing it everywhere time and again. --Krschkr (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I like the set up. Its very similar to Build:E/Me General Shockwave Farmer with the new templates. However, I think having the traditional Attributes and Skills bar and the Variant Bars together are a little bit confusing. Especially with the two Optional sections. I think we would need to choose one or the other. For this case, I would just show the variant bars with the dropdowns. Also, I think the mini skill bar in the Farming Areas should include the option to download the specific template used for that variant. Typhloman (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Found another set that might be able to be combined. Build:Me/A Zelnehlun Fastfoot Farmer and Build:N/A Zelnehlun Fastfoot Farmer. I think the N/A can become Any/N and just become a variant of the Any/Me. For the sprinting skill, just take Mindbender Mindbender over Drunken Master Drunken MasterTyphloman (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Give me some respite from the first merge draft! And to be honest I'll probably have to deal with the recent popping up of the second, third and fourth triple energy surge team build first... --Krschkr (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
That one was a monster all right. I am just posting them here as sort of a list for the future. I will get to some of them as well. Typhloman (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
After testing both successfully in game to make sure they work, I made a merge page for the two Zelnehlun Fastfoot builds here... [[Build:Any Zelnehlun Fastfoot Farmer]]. I am not sure of the naming convention for it but I think it will work. The build is pretty specific to farming this boss. I moved over the two videos from the other pages but they will need to be updated. I will work on that tomorrow. Typhloman (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Would you mind if I move the parts of this talk which are about general merging to the community portal talk? --Krschkr (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I think that would be a good idea. This build page turned more into a chat room anyway. Can you post the link too? Typhloman (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Check out the mini skill bar used for Arbor Earthcall. Is that like you imagined it? It has mouseover support and a template code. --Krschkr (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd say the more famous (or "A list" farms) should have their own pages. These are the ones that people still actively do today and everyone has at least heard about them, things like Vaettirs, UW, FoW, Raptors. For instance merging 1) should be completely fine as long as Vaettir stays in the page name. As for 2) I'm not sure about merging the IDS page because it's the only build on PvX that can farm this item and IDS can still go for 5-10e which isn't bad. I think it deserves some exposure. 3) Merge the first two with Vaettir in the page name, not sure about the other two. 4) I'd suggest keeping the Plains and FoW farmers on their own pages whilst merging the other 2 into a general purpose page where we could add all the other VoSilence farms that are missing from PvX. 5) Keep separate. They are in different rating ranges, have vastly different usages and even skill bars. 6) I was about to suggest a merge between the 55hp and the Halcyon one simply because I don't think Halcyon on its own is worth a page, but with 6 skills being different I'd say they should remain separate. Best course of action could be finding more farms to add to the Halcyon one and just simply making it into a more general purpose page. 7-8) Boss farm pages are excellent candidates for merging. Create one page for each elite and merge the corresponding builds there. If however there are cases where only the elite is different, merge them into the same page (like Elsnil and Eshekibeh). --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

1 hero teams[]

Do they really qualify as hero teams? Most hero team pages consist of the hero bars + whatever the player wants to run which is most of the time entirely optional (or close to it). 1 hero pages on the other hand are very much about the player who must run a specific bar of a specific profession. Wouldn't it be better to simply make them into profession pages, instead of calling them teams? --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't yet have an opinion about this, so I'll for now only drop a link to Build:Team - 2 Hero Jagged Bombers so we don't forget about it; depending on where the discussion leads it may be affected. --Krschkr (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd support the single build name formula instead of the hero team formula for all builds which are dedicated "solo" farm/run builds and meant not to be accompanied/supported by other team members. I.e. you and a hero run a dungeon for 6 leechers, it would not have the hero team formula; but if you and a hero do tanking and a bit of damage and the rest of the team is meant to contribute to the killing, like in VSF, it should be treated like a team. Sounds fair? --Krschkr (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I guess it does, although I'd probably keep anything above 1 hero and 1 player a team page. Take the AtfH comp for example, 3 heroes + the player basically takes up half the roster already, I think it might be fair to call that a team. Not being tied to any primary player profession also supports its status as a team page imo, as mentioned earlier that's something I take into consideration. I'll think about it some more but unfortunately I haven't had much time to play for a while and I'll only be able to contribute more from the 24th or so. --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Then these should be the pages we need to change:
Let me know what you think when you have found the time. --Krschkr (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

PvE: New type "quest"[]

Hey pals, please provide feedback to the new type "quest" for PvE builds. It is meant to give builds that are designed for a certain quest/mission a more fitting category than i.e. running, farming or general. I already added it to the Main Page and added a couple of builds to it:

I need to know a couple of things:

  • Do you find any missing categories/links/functionalities for the new type quest? (Currently known: Not yet featured in its own category in the downloadable build packs.)
  • Are there other builds you'd already want to add to this category?
  • Where do we draw the line between quest, running, farming, general?
    • Suggestion running: A build goes into the running instead of the quest category if it is apt to run more players through the quest/mission/dungeon, i.e. Build:A/D Bloodstone Caves Runner and other solo dungeon builds.
    • Suggestion farming: A build goes into the farming instead of the quest category if it is meant to complete the content repeatedly for strict farming purposes rather than enabling the player to just beat it, i.e. Build:Team - 7 Hero AFK Glint's Challenge Farm.
    • Suggestion general: A build goes into the general instead of the quest category if it is meant to complete content repeatedly for general gameplay purposes, i.e. Build:Team - Frostmaw Auraway (would also apply to non-SC teams!) and other dungeon/elite area team builds.
  • Does it even make sense to have this category in the first place, given it has such a narrow focus?

I'm very interested to see where this new type is going to lead. I see a great opportunity for specialized builds added for particularly difficult quests, most notably the titan quests and some cases of winds of change quests. If the PvX community decides that this new type should be dropped again (for reasons you may provide) I'll return the currently affected pages to their previous categories. --Krschkr (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Builds designed to receive high scores in challenge missions should probably go into the quest rather than the general or farming category. Right now there is no such build in PvX, but we could add some. --Krschkr (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Minor suggestion, but maybe it'd be better to call it Questing instead of Quest (as we have Farming and Running instead of Farm / Run). --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I fear that would make people think that this is a category for questing, as in doing general quests. I thought about calling it Special, but I don't think that would be an improvement either. --Krschkr (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Hmm haven't considered that. Although they might think the same of "Quest" too since the keyword is the same. Still, one glance into the category and they should realize what it's about. I think we should go for "Questing" because of consistency. EDIT: On a second thought, how about "Quests"? As in, this section contains builds for a very specific set of quests? --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 07:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Do you think that Quests is a lot better than Quest? --Krschkr (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Content we should add?[]

Most quests don't need their own build page as the general teams are able to handle them well enough. Some more things we should probably cover with build additions:

  • Eternal Grove without splitting (spirit of life and two MMs, making it fairly easy – the most important part of the page would be the usage section). WIP, to be added soon. --Krschkr (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • All titan quests except for Denravi.
  • The final confrontation perhaps? I have an adjusted triple energy surge template I used to carry other people through the quest with, so if we decide there should be a team for just that quest I can offer to add that. Added. --Krschkr (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • When Kappa Attack!

Borderline stuff which imo doesn't need its own page:

  • General WoC. As soon as we add a team for warning the angchu as a caster player the three common roadblock quests (Cho/Angchu/Haiju) are covered. With cautious playing the other difficult quests such as What Waits in Shadow and Architect of Corruption should be doable and with sufficiently offensive teams Raid on Shing Jea Monastery and Finding Jinnai should be in scope of general teams aswell.
  • Galrath.
  • War in Kryta. That said, the range of party size 6 teams currently featured should definitely be extended.

Opinions? --Krschkr (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe challenge mission comps for places like The Shadow Nexus? Although they might be better suited for Farming. --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, already forgot about challenge missions again. I'd reckon that high score challenge mission builds would ideally get both tags with the exception of dragon's throat where all you're rewarded with is immortal fame. Dajkah Inlet is a fine place for farming the sunspear title (do it in the bonus week and you can get about 50k in one run) and The Shadow Nexus isn't too bad for lightbringer points either. Alas, the amount of armor remnants is limited per character. And Glint's Challenge is a very decent place for deldrimor title points – wasn't it about 6k/15 minutes due to the broken high score tracking? Now, I don't remember how good the rewards in the faction challenge missions are, but I reckon a good team could use them for farming faction aswell. I should even have some challenge mission builds lying around which I could try to refine for a build page (although they'd be for non-consumables users). Would you like to do some Glint's 3-1-4 split runs with me for build optimization? Then we could kick the challenge mission content off with a reliable 2600+ two player team. --Krschkr (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I won't have much time to play this week plus I haven't done Glint in years so might not be the best candidate for that at the moment. --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Tierlists[]

Perhaps it's an idea to have a link to some sort of tier list for builds, in place of where the "meta" link was for all the pve builds?. That way we can put only the best builds for each prof into "Great", to distinguish them from the other builds of that profession.

  • Example: currently there are no "Great" builds for Hero Elementalists. Everyone knows that eles don't compare to Mesmers, but currently it's not clear which ele build they should run, if they insist on doing so. With a tierlist, we could put Air Magic as the "Great" build, and EA and SF (both in testing atm) in "Good", to show that there is a clear difference between those builds in terms of performance.
  • Example: currently both general Dom and PI are "Great" mesmer hero builds, while I think that we can agree that Dom (specifically ESurge) is the superior choice in 98% of the cases (PI only really is useful for really difficult content, and even then I'd argue to take something else because it hinders the other mesmer damage). With a tier list we can show there still is a difference.

There are no "Great" ranger builds atm (idk why dagger spam is only at "Good"), but what if people really want to play a ranger? They don't see any "Great" build, and in "Good" there are 7 different builds. Are they all equal? Right now it is not clear. For experienced people it's easier to see the difference between Beast Master (this is actually a great build, if you are willing to put up with pet AI and micro it) and Earth Shaker. This way we can add a lot more builds, while still keeping it clear which are the best, which are good, and which builds make sense but are clearly inferior to "Good' builds.

Quick example for heroes:
  • Top tier
    • Damage: esurge mesmer, bone fiend necro
    • Support: n/rit healer, st rit, sos healer
  • A tier
    • Damage: air ele
    • Support: monk healers, emo
  • ...
Or for specific professions, let's say hero elementalist:
  • Top tier
    • Air ele
  • A tier
    • EA fire, E/Mo
  • B tier
    • SF
  • C tier
    • Earth ele
  • ...

Idk if I explained it well, but in my head it makes sense to have it, because like I said, right now it's not that easy to distinguish bad builds from good builds (in the "Good category" for example) when you aren't experienced. For me personally it's also difficult to vote on some builds, example: Hero EA Fire elementalist is actually a pretty good hero build, it's outclassed by Air ele (which I would rate the 5/5 hero ele build), but right now I have to give it like a 3/5, while it really is a great option.
I think it will make it easier for people that want to create teams of their, to give them an idea of which builds are the very best, and which builds are second choice, third choice etc etc. Curious what other people think ZStepmother (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

A tier is Great. B tier is Good. C tier is what we call Trash. The only difference between the current setup and your proposal is (1) the names, and (b) lack of "meta" for a couple of the pve categories. Imo there aren't actually enough builds in the Great category to warrant splitting them further down into top tier meta builds. -Chieftain Alex (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
The difference with my proposol and the current state is that you would have a way to point out that the Hero Illusion Magic build is leagues ahead of the 100b heroes, while right now they are all in the same category (Good). There are only 3 professions represented in "Great" hero builds (not counting that Farm Shoutbot), and even those builds aren't all equal (minion bomber, curses support, psychic instability are not on the same level at all). This makes it so all the other builds are in "Good", so they all seem equal (in the eyes of someone that isnt as knowledgable as the people currently active on pvx), while they clearly arent.
On top of that, it makes it difficult to vote on other builds, because currently you are comparing them to the best of the best: What is an air magic ele compared to a dom mesmer? I can't rate it 5/5, cause that would make it seem equal to the dom mesmer in the current system. Now I have to rate EA Fire (which is currently in testing, because of the player/hero splot) a 3/5, it's the second best damage ele build. Oh no, the rating is already too low to display it... . With the removal of the "Meta" category, it gets really difficult to distinguish the "Good, but not the best" from the "Good enough to exist, not complete rubbish" builds. Another example would be that player half-range assassin healer build (people on reddit seem to like that build), it's clearly not the best (dagger spam), it's also not a tier below (crit scythe for example). It would be an insult to the current "Good" player assa builds, but it's a build that makes sense at least (not meme tier like frenzy mending). Apparently people do like such builds, and currently there is no way of displaying them, without putting them on the same tier as other "Good" builds. ZStepmother (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Meta is meant to mean popular, not necessarily best. Some meta builds are rated "Good". It sounds like most of the proposed issues would be solved by introducing another category. >= 4.75 great, 4.25 to 4.75 good, 3.75 to 4.25 working, < 3.75 trash. This would differentiate "good but not top tier" builds (air) from "decent but not that good" builds (SF). But then you have to ask yourself...is that worth it? I feel most builds don't have enough votes to be able to categorize with such fine detail. --Xanshiz (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
We used to have a category below Good called "Other" and it was removed because it gave PvX at the time a reputation of "lolbuilds". There was some pretty bad stuff in there. Part of it may have been that no one was bothering to quality sweep that rating category ever (and allowing builds that were as low as 2.5), but there was the base problem that "Other" encompassed the range of mediocre builds. "Good" builds can be defined as ones that have a niche where they can excel and "Great" builds are usually broadly effective (also includes OP builds that don't really ever get surpassed by a "Good" build, but those used to get nerfed). When would someone run a mediocre build? If there's no situation where an "Other" build is a better option, it was decided that we wouldn't store them. It wouldn't be impossible to go back, if that's what people want. That might be a better home for melee heroes at least. The game does force you to use them sometimes and it's ok to play around with them if you're fine with their shortcomings, but I can't say with a straight face that they're on par with even "Good" caster heroes.
Changing the rating categories is something that is actually feasible now, and having an other/working category reintroduced may help better categorize certain things (like melee heroes without having to doublethink to justify them in the good category). I'd propose that working/other be 3.5 to <3.75, if we do that. Essentially, we'd have a narrow range of working/other builds allowed, a broad range for good, and a narrow range considered great (both narrow ranges being the same width makes sense to me). Existing votes that have tried to fit what we'd consider 'other' in this new system into the current 'good' will probably need to be reevaluated.
EDIT: We should probably continue this discussion on the policy page. -Toraen (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

2020 Anniversary Update[]

So, let's prepare for what's coming. The announcement contains this passage: "Additionally, at the Ancient Anniversary Weaponsmith, heroes can acquire a Proof of Triumph. Carrying this relic will cause an extra enemy group and boss to appear in four late-game maps—fight your way to them, and be sure to bring a Signet of Capture along to acquire a new PvE-only elite skill for each profession! If you miss this year’s celebration, don’t worry—the Proof of Triumph will continue to work when the festival ends so you can adventure with a friend to seek out the new skills." I'm quite pessimistic about this. PvE-Only Elite Skill screams power creep and imbalance. And it's not clear whether it's players only or works for heroes aswell. Once the new elite skills are there we'll have to see how they'll be implemented (one per team, players only, heroes only, players and heroes, etc.) and what this implies for the PvX content. New elite skills will bring new builds. But if there's a massive power creep (remember: PvE-Only Elite Skills) we'll have to think about how this influences the builds we have. If new overpowered abilities get introduced, will be sacrifice currently good builds that will still work, because they'll get worse in relation? If the skills are allowed for heroes, will we need a vote wipe on all hero build content? Well, let's discuss this in detail once we know details.
There's another thing, as it's rumoured that there'll be a PvP skill balance. If it comes, we'll have to check our entire PvP content for changes and unarchive a couple of archived builds and observe how the meta developes. --Krschkr (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

This is so fucking hype even I might stop slacking and contribute stuff holy shit. Personally I'll take any new meta shakeup they throw at us. Hopefully these skills will be added to create new playstyles instead of just powercreeping current ones. Like, I'd take a rit elite that makes non-spirit DPS viable any day. --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
New skills? Lol. -Chieftain Alex (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

DPS question[]

What would you guys say is a decent DPS number in PvE? Something above which a build can be considered decent. --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not the right question. Builds are not just about damage. --Krschkr (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
If you are talking about master of damage, the numbers you get there are definitely not a fair way to compare builds. An ESurge mesmer will never get high dps there, but it's still one of the best builds in pve. I think the toolbox damage meter is a good tool to compare the player's damage to the rest of the team. I agree that it's not perfect, but it's better relying on opinions (example: there are still a lot of players thinking that SF is a super strong build, or that AP is the best build you can run). A build should be rated on what it brings to the team: how much damage does it bring, how much utility, ... . In my opinion, we shouldn't compare builds from different professions either, because that's not really fair, but that doesn't seem to be the way to go on the wiki here. ZStepmother (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
There's always been some debate about whether builds from different professions can be directly compared in PvE, and no agreement has ever been reached. I personally don't think they should be, but there are limits (warrior healers are just too terrible to consider, for example). -Toraen (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if that extends for farming builds, where we have different professions which are less optimal, to farm the same content. I can think of quite a few examples where we've got build A which is for profession 1, which is slower at the exact same farming areas as build B on profession 2. -Chieftain Alex (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I think that's fine since not everyone has developed a character for every class, as long as the time differences aren't absurd. -Toraen (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Anecdotally, I get bored to tears when playing assassins and dervishes. Meanwhile this and this look really fun, and I'm going to try those. --DANDY ^_^ -- 10:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
It just doesn't really make sense to compare for example and ESurge mesmer with a Barage ranger. ESurge mesmer is one of the best pve builds there is, while barage ranger isn't even a top 3 ranger build. With ESurge being 5/5, and many other builds being a bit below that, Barage deserve like a 3/5 or even lower. I definitely agree that there should be limits tho ZStepmother (talk) 09:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Archive everything[]

Why have builds when we can just not have builds, right? --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I lived through both the first and second build wars, and what I saw there changed me. You don't know what it's like. --DANDY ^_^ -- 15:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
.. my grandpa fought in the build wars, he told me stories that still haunt me to this day. He was in the Smiter Brigade when their unit was ambushed by Izzy the Merciless. Many good builds were killed that day, their templates never to be recoverd. Respect, man. --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I found a fossil[]

"Anyone can join the discussion at #pvx on Gamesurge. If you don't have an IRC client, you can use GameSurge's Java applet".

Incidentally I just went on IRC to get some respite from MMO players, but it appears that this particular channel is dead and decomposed. I especially love the part about the Java applet. --DANDY ^_^ -- 19:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah could delete that bit.
I could easily create a PvX channel on the Discord used for gww + gw2w. -Chieftain Alex (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Would anyone use it? I have discord open almost all the time now (and I guess Alex is keeping watch on that server anyway). -Toraen (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

2020 meta build review[]

All builds currently tagged as meta can be found here: Category:Meta builds
Every active PvX user is invited to contribute to a list of a) builds which are currently tagged as meta but don't deserve this status anymore and b) builds which are not currently tagged as meta but have moved up in popularity by now. I propose that we collect suggestions in one table. After each suggested build every user can then post his signature to either agree or disagree with the suggestion. This will allow us to work off a bunch of builds without much discussion as long as we have consensus about them. Cases in which we have a mix of agreeing and disagreeing positions are up for discussion. In a few weeks, once a lot of suggestions have been made and a consensus is hopefully reached in cases of pages where we initially had conflicting positions, we'll change the meta status of a lot of builds at once.

Note: We don't have a definition of meta, but are used to go by something along the lines of "A build that is very commonly run and expected to be known by players of that area". Meta does not involve any statement about build quality, it's just a statement about popularity. Statements about the quality of builds are derived from the vetting process. --Krschkr (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Builds that are no longer meta
Build Agree Disagree
Build:W/A PvP Forceful Blow
Build:E/any GvG Mind Shock
Build:E/any PvP Invoke Lightning
Build:E/any PvP Stoning
Build:E/Rt HA Ether Prism Healer
Build:Me/any GvG Hex Spread
Build:Me/any HA Psychic Distraction
Build:Me/any PvP Power Block
Build:Me/Mo GvG Scourge
Build:Mo/Me HA Life Sheath
Build:Mo/Me HA Word of Healing
Build:Mo/Me Healing Burst Hero
Build:Mo/Me Unyielding Aura Hero
Build:N/any Minion Bomber Hero
Build:R/E HA Melandru's Shot
Build:R/E HA Magebane Shot
Build:Team - GvG Hexover
Build:Team - GvG Paragon Balanced
Build:Team - GvG Physical Spike
Archive:Team - GvG Spirit's Strength
Build:Team - HA BBway
Build:W/A PvP Backbreaker Daggers
Build:W/any PvP Earth Shaker
Build:Team - 3 Hero Discordway
Build:R/W Barrage
Build:W/any Hundred Blades
Builds that are meta by now
Build Agree Disagree
Build:Team - 7 Hero Mercenary Mesmerway
Build:Team - 5 Hero Mesmerway
Build:Team - 3 Hero Balanced
Build:E/any Air Magic Hero
Build:E/any PvE Invoke Lightning
Build:R/A Together as One Daggers
Build:W/A Warrior's Endurance Daggers
Build:A/any Shadow Theft Daggers
Build:Mo/any PvP June Healing Burst
Build:E/any PvP Lightning Surge
Build:E/any PvP Gust
Build:A/E PvP Way of the Assassin
Build:Any/N Augury Rock HM
Build:Me/A Vaettir Farm
Build:D/N Vaettir Farmer
Build:Team - 7 Hero AFK Glint's Challenge Farm
Build:Team - 7 Hero Heroic Mesmerway
Build:P/any Heroic Refrain Spear
Build:Me/any Illusion Magic Hero
Build:N/D Soul Taker Scythe

General Discussion[]

General points about the 2020 meta build review go to this sub-section. --Krschkr (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I was under the impression that for stuff outside of GvG/HA/SC, we were moving towards no meta tagging. -Toraen (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd forgotten about that discussion because there was a lack of contributions to it last year. If we can get to a consensus to drop meta altogether, perfect, that'd be the ideal solution for everything outside of GvG (no one plays HA anyway). --Krschkr (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Should what is tagged as meta be updated while a consensus is still being reached? Seems like a harmless thing to do in the meantime. --Xanshiz (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Might as well. If the meta sections end up being a good enough description of the current PvE meta, we then have a working counterpoint to the argument that they should be removed. The lack of any maintenance of the category was my primary reason for suggesting its removal. -Toraen (talk) 07:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Build-specific discussions[]

Discussions about specific builds go into this section, please. This will only be necessary if there are conflicting positions about a build or if you're unsure about a build and wish to discuss it. I suggest to make a sub-section for each build discussion using this format: 

==== {{Build|W/A PvP Forceful Blow}} ====

That way we don't get the confusing situation of discussing seven different builds below one headline. --Krschkr (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

List of builds for which I have doubts about their meta status. I'm not sufficiently involved in the respective part of the game to judge properly, so I ask for other players' opinions:
Feedback welcome, if necessary create a sub-headline if these builds need further discussion. --Krschkr (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Solo assassin for Slavers and Kath - I doubt the Slavers build was ever meta due to difficulty of use. Quick survey when Kath was daily today didn't show any solo offers. Remove meta from both.
  • ATFH was probably meta before 7 heroes were allowed (2011). Remove meta.
  • Trenchway looks pretty similar to the sc wiki build, I think that could stay as meta.
  • Frostmaw build - even during peak SC years (think I did Sc's for 2010-2015) frostmaw was an unusual dungeon to run at all, sometimes seen on ZB day. It looks like the right build though there probably isn't a meta as such.
  • Kath daggerway - Kath used to be really popular as a dungeon to do a sinway on, however I was only familiar with the spear build. Again, I didn't see any groups forming in lfg today - if it's still used I expect it's a SC guild thing. Probably remove meta too. -Chieftain Alex (talk) 09:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

N/D Soul Taker Scythe (talk · rate)[]

I think necro should probably have one meta player build. I would say Build:N/A Assassin's Promise Death Magic, but I think the soul taker setup may have become more popular post patch. --Xanshiz (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Soul Taker is strong but I don't think it's the best. It has some serious drawbacks (depends a lot on enchants and support). I'd still nominate the AP build you've linked for the meta tag. --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Adopting a new template for Farming Builds with multiple variants/farming locations[]

Following the debate on Build talk:Mo/any 55hp Farmer, iirc the template used on Build:D/any General Vow of Strength Farmer was received quite well on the aforementioned reddit discussion. Tbh it seems like the best of both worlds, you have multiple location specific farming skills/equipment/runes contained in a single page, the builds can directly be copied in-game without too many "Optional" skills, and the template itself reduces visual pollution and walls of text.

Could the build template used on Build:D/any General Vow of Strength Farmer be the new universal basis for General Farming pages? It could be applied to those, for example :

Feydslynox (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

If you mean creating a variantbar for every farming spot on a page that requires a different bar, that could work. I like the concept itself and I think it looks clean. Still not a fan of merging half a dozen different, popular farming builds into one page though (like it was done to the Dervish VoS pages). Afaik that very thread was started by someone who couldn't find the builds he was looking for, precisely because they were merged. --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes from what I've seen, it's 50/50. Seems like a lot of players are having difficulties with finding the builds. I don't really care how we present them, but I do think we could perhaps make it a bit clearer which farms are available? Right now dervish seems very limitted, but if you click on the pages you see a lot of different farms. I think it might be good if we list the different farms (so example: CoF, feathers, kabobs, ...) under "Dervish", but make them all link to the "General VoStrength" page, but idk if thats possible? ZStepmother (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
We can create redirects (if there's a single build that farms something) or disambig pages (if multiple pages contain relevant farming builds). There's also PvXwiki:Farming Categorization Project which is looking into ways to provide a portal for easier searching of farms. -Toraen (talk) 09:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Low HP Elementalist[]

This is a bit of a dumb question, but could the creation of an eventual generic 55/105 Elementalist build page be justified?

We have vetted generic (very) low HP builds for every caster profession (Monk, Mesmer, Necromancer, Ritualist and even Dervish), but not Elementalist.

Now I know that, generally speaking, the Terra builds (330 and non-330) are a vastly superior alternative. The only advantage I could see right now would be the use of non-Earth Magic skills. Powerful AoE spells like Double Dragon or Glimmering Mark for example, as those two are the only (with Wastrel's Demise) DoT skills which do not cause AI scatter. Feydslynox (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Nothing stops anyone from submitting such a page, there'd just need to be some farming areas listed where it works (and ideally have compared it to doing the same area with other elementalist primary setups) to justify it. As long as it is competitive in the farms it performs, it'd be worth storing. -Toraen (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Purple meta box[]

Why was the purple background for the meta tag changed? Noticed it's now the same green as the template for great builds. Wouldn't it be better to keep using a different color for different categories? (meta/great/good/provisional) --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Because the meta tag is a statement about popularity, not quality. The quality is the important criterion and determines the template background colour. --Krschkr (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I can see Krschkr's point but I agree with Hanz that the purple was instantly recognisable. I'm not too fussed either way but you can add the colours back for your personal viewing on Special:MyPage/common.css with the following snippet:
/* Purple is back in town */
.rating-good.status-meta {
  background:#FAEEFF !important;
  border:2px solid #882265 !important
}
.rating-great.status-meta {
  background:#D8BFD8 !important;
  border:2px solid #9400D3 !important
}
--Chieftain Alex (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Stalled testing builds[]

I've put a list of all the testing builds on User:Chieftainalex/stalled vetting. Considering we only have 331 working vetted builds, I'm kind of surprised that we have another 180+ stuck in vetting limbo.

Part of this is due to our tiny community (probably with a preference for PvE) but I'm wondering if we should have a cut-off point beyond which we just say "you know what we're never going to get these vetted and they should be deleted or archived". Should we be more aggressive with the WELL tag? --Chieftain Alex (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd rather not drop builds just because they don't get much attention. --Krschkr (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I think that might hold true for some of the "more recent" 6 months in testing builds, but 2 years is quite a statement. If nobody wants to rate something, it's probably crap. --Chieftain Alex (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
For WELL I'd like to at least make sure the tag mentions (and ideally links to) another build that the tagged build is likely inferior to. If the only justification for the WELL is the time in testing, that doesn't really feel conclusive enough. Toraen (talk) 11:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
A lack of interest doesn't mean that a build is not competitive or a build article is not well-made. For example, Build:Team - 6 Hero Defend North Kryta Province allows paragon players to easily complete one of the harder quests in the game and even run it for other players. It has an exemplary video, equipment, usage (including images) and it definitely works well. It just doesn't catch a large interest (probably because it's rather specific, but we've got the Quest category partly for that reason). Removing it after 6 months or even two years of being unvetted doesn't make sense to me. Many other pages have quite some inherent merit aswell despite not receiving ratings. And as you said yourself, there simply aren't many people to vote on PvP builds on PvX, so these naturally have issues receiving their votes. --Krschkr (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

New "Creative" category?[]

Heya, days ago there was this reddit thread (here) where most of the comments were about PvX. One constructive comment that got my attention was the one from the "deleted" user at the bottom of the page. This user proposes some kind of "creative/fun/meme" category for builds that are not really optimized but fill a gameplay niche.

To be honest after the Petway debate and it being almost trashed despite being such an endearing concept, I think this tentative "Creative/Fun" category makes sense. This category could serve as a repository for effective, quirky, "fun"-based non-meta builds.

I really think an important part of the community is looking for those types of very creative builds where the effectiveness isn't that important. I'm thinking of those archetypes that were previously in the odd "Working" category, things like Crit Barrage Sin/Explosive Growth Bomber Rit/IW Melee Mesmer, of course Petway, Paraway, etc...

In this tentative category, the infobox at the top of the build pages could say something like "Beware! This is a build made for fun, it is not made to tackle the hardest content but to allow new playstyles." and the little blue square inside the infobox could be something like "PvE Creative".

This could prove very popular, it could also breathe new life into PvX (new users! new discussions! more theorycrafting !) while also preserving some very very creative and interesting archetypes, a testament to the GW skill system. It could be the little "artistic corner" of PvX, rewarding creativity. Yeah I think I'm in favor of adding something like that. What do you think? Feydslynox (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion about introducing a third category below "good" for the build namespace can be found here: Proposed reintroduction of Other. Back then we didn't end up with a consensus on how to handle this proposal, so the discussion set. You could revive it with your perspective or a new threshold suggestion.
But I'd like to drop a few words about the thread you linked. In that thread I see Shade repeating his untrue stories a couple of times. To give you some context: He posted a build here that was moved to his userspace because it did not have any gameplay merits (putting all halfrange skills in one bar did not consitute a good build) and was then temporarily banned by the administrator for personal attacks and vandalism. A major criticism against PvX has always been the lack of its content's quality, so applying its own policies for quality control is a good thing. Completely dysfunctional builds or duplicates can be sorted out per PvX:WELL, other builds are due to testing and vetting. Builds that get a good rating by the PvX users stay and show up in the appropriate categories, untested builds remain in testing and unfavoured builds get deleted/moved to the userspace/archived depending on the individual case and the voiced interests of involved parties. This way users who visit PvX can be quite sure that the builds they find when browsing the good and great categories are well-working and recommendable builds. That's what the build and guide namespaces are for. Builds that don't live up to the standard of being good, recommendable builds are better off in the user namespace, see i.e. Category:User Sandboxes. The claim that only builds approved by the administrators are allowed is simply wrong because all but the most trollish builds are sent to testing and are then either kept or discarded based on the community vote. And I stand by saying that only the most trollish builds and duplicates are cases for PvX:WELL. Unusual and weird-looking builds will always get the benefit of doubt as long as they promise to have some merit, such as Build:Team - 7 Hero Markway, Build:Team - 7 Hero MoPway or Build:Team - 7 Hero Petway. Despite repeated efforts to increase the activity in PvX less than a handful people are willing to participate in this community project, so that's why things tend to be a bit slow and stalled. Some people who dislike me personally like to project that onto me. Despite having pretty much stopped actively contributing to PvX's content namespaces for more than a year now to appease them they still don't do anything in PvX for the community, showing that all they said and say is lip-service. They won't ever do anything for the community unless they can do it in a way that benefits more their ego than anyone else. I should probably return to being an active content creator given no matter what I do or don't do, they won't be constructive. Ever. And without my contributions not much is happening in PvX.
Regarding ritualist builds, which are mentioned in one of the posts: The complaint that people only run signet of spirits and soul twisting is an issue with the meta, not PvX. Great vetted ritualist player builds for general PvE:
Good vetted ritualist player builds for general PvE:
And in testing:
We have a good variety of different ritualist builds for various purposes on PvX, people just don't play them. It's the same for all other professions: We have a bunch of good and tested builds in PvX, however people like to ignore them. --Krschkr (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

(reset) Yea I remember this discussion about the proposed reintroduction of Other. Some really good points there. I think Willarddog is right when he says that "There is clearly a c-tier group of builds that deserve a space on PvX, but I can't objectively define that as "Great" or "Good". However, I'm not sure that changing the rating threshold or reintroducing an old label is the way. What I had i mind was a bit more radical and I should have used the term "section" instead of "category".

In fact, after thinking more and more about it, here's what I propose (PvE only, ofc) :

Personal attacks are obviously dumb, and fighting over the wiki of a 16-year old ded game is... uuuh. I'm fine with PvX as is, am always really really happy to contribute but... well I can sense some kind of frustration in the Guild Wars community about PvX. I'm also sure that a lot of people are grateful to you for the work you put in here so this wiki stays alive =)

See, if Willarddog (again ^_^) didn't change his rating on Petway, a much-loved concept, the thing would have been lost to oblivion, despite its attractiveness (or would have been moved to the userspace of a not-well-known user, then forgotten). This creates frustration, and we can see that frustration, for example, on Beer_Geert comment on the Petway talkpage (here). I think this is also the core root of the Reddit thread turmoil.

I really like userspaces, they are fine sandboxes for users to experiment on but they have no visibility for members of the community and I think that's where the problem is for people. Moving builds to userspaces is the most appropriate solution for a lot of bad builds that have been submitted (mine included), but some interesting archetypes were unfortunately trashed.

Some "missing link" between personal userspaces and vetting-space might be needed, a space where users can share builds that have some merits but are not good enough for the vetting system (which is fine as it is imo).

Thought experiment : Think of it as some kind of (curated!) collective casual database. Let's call this the "Casual builds" or "Creative builds" section. This section would be located outside of the vetting system. It would allow users to have a platform to submit, share and talk about some builds that are not really competitive while still bringing something to the table. Of course for a space like this to be viable it would need to be regulated (see "known issues and solutions" just below).

People would have the option to either submit their new build into the regular "vetting" space if they feel like their build is competitive, or submit it into the "casual builds" space if their build is creative, interesting but not really competitive within the existing meta.

This could mend ties between the "numbers-crunching" part of the community and the "casual/fun/meme" part of the community ! =)

This new section could also :

Proposal1

Main page location?

Proposal2

New rating system for the casual section?

- Solve the problem with the category below "Good" and with working builds getting trashed.

- Maintain the quality level of vetted builds. I think some builds were "mercy-voted" into "Good" or "Great" so they didn't get wiped. This new section will allow some more truthful ratings when judging competitive builds.

- Clear some very creative builds with low efficiency out of the vetting space while keeping them stored in this site for people to use, and offering them visibility.

- Allowing more experimental builds to be discussed by the community. After the 15th anniversary weapons were introduced with new archetypes in mind, I think there's a big interest for semi-viable exotic archetypes with the new weapons. This is where the non-competitive ones could stay, for people to use and discuss (Axe Elementalist, Bow Rit, etc...).

- Become some kind of an accessible library, its high visibility easily allowing player access to viable alternative playstyles. "Hey, I want to play Shatterstone Water Ele!" "Let's grab the build on the PvX casual page!"

- Bring more users in, users usually on the casual side (lurkers?) who would now contribute to the site, with a lot of potential ratings, discussions opening up !

About this "Casual builds" section, known issues and proposed solutions :

- People dumping every of their own dumb builds into the section, clogging everything with visual pollution and very bad builds.

  • Solution : A new, very basic vetting system exclusively for builds submitted the "Casual builds" section. Think of two checkboxes with "Yes, this build is creative and brings something to the table, it is worth saving in the "Casual builds" section" and "No, this doesn't bring anything. Keep it to your userspace, please". Let's keep it very simple, with a threshold at the majority. If the majority votes "Yes", the build stays in the "Casual builds" section. If people vote "No", the build goes to the userspace of the OP. This way, this section regulates itself.

I've added two images, for reference.

Again, what this "Casual builds" or "Creative builds" section should not be :

- A place for sub-par versions of already existing archetypes. Meta/popular builds with one skill or two switched "for the lulz" would not be allowed here.

- The place for useless bad builds. Putting 8 random skills with no synergy on your bar does not make it an interesting build. This section should reward creativity and coherence.

Overall, this is, of course, just a suggestion. But yeah, I think this might be a very positive change, with the "Vetting space", the "Casual space" and the Archives coexisting, and each having a clear and defined role. I'm sure you could even announce it with big upvoted threads on Reddit or on GwLegacy ! Feydslynox (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Just came across this conversation, and imho it's a really good idea! Creativity feels even more valuable now that GW is so old and the meta so stale, it helps breathing fresh air into a game that was designed for build experimentation. -- kazerniel (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I still don't see a currently viable system that would prevent that the creative zone would clog up with builds that don't work, that no one is interested in or that are builds which previously failed to pass vetting. The most viable system I can imagine would require community input, but we're lacking an active community. We still have more than three years old pages without a first or second vote to even provide a provisional rating. (And mind you, this is the result of quite some effort, as there used to be pages from 2014 without a rating...)
What I imagine would be working with enough people: To justify that a build bypasses vetting by being featured in the creative section, there need to be at least five votes favouring that the build stays and at most half as many that say that the build shouldn't be kept.
Is this a creative build worth storing?
YES NO
This is dummy text explaining why the build is worth keeping. --Krschkr (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC) This is dummy text explaining why the build is not worth keeping. --Krschkr (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Dummy vote YES. --Krschkr (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Dummy vote NO. --Krschkr (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Dummy vote YES. --Krschkr (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Dummy vote YES. --Krschkr (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
If a build fails to get enough support or once there's more than half as many downvotes than upvotes, the build is marked for deletion. No archival.
Even with that system I don't think that the creative zone would be maintainable (or desirable), but given the activity throughout the last years I don't think we'll actually see enough participation to give a creative zone a try. Do you have half a dozen active people to get such a project started? --Krschkr (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
My impression based on Reddit comments is that there would be more activity on the wiki once people feel they can post new build ideas without them being deleted if they're not rated in the top 25%. I think that the current strict focus on performance over the interestingness of builds is actively pushing people away from participating. I skimmed the conversation from last year, when it was argued that people could just find interesting builds in userpages, but those are invisible without intentionally searching in that namespace (if a visitor even realises that userpages exist). -- kazerniel (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
We have {{Sandbox}} that can be put on userspace pages. That puts pages into a category that is featured on the main page. If we want to try a new creative category I need to see sufficient interest and promise of participation first. --Krschkr (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Since one of the goals of this new section would be to bring in new users, and considering how most of the "casual" community is on reddit, how about a reddit thread giving some publicity to PvX (reminding everyone there to contribute and rate builds) and explaining the proposed changes to gauge the community's interest? I remember a thread you made one or two years ago with the big "PvX wants you" header ! If people react negatively, then we can ditch the change and if you see a positive response, then maybe we can try this, first as an experiment, to see if this section takes off or not. Feydslynox (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Discord[]

Hey (^_^) ! Just a little question, do you think it could be worth it to have a PvX Discord ? It wouldn't be that active for sure, but might be interesting to have a place for more informal questions and discussions between users, maybe also open a door for some lurkers to get a "first contact" with PvX other than walls of text. Feydslynox (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I think a "PvX Discord" would require a PvX admin to be present and approachable on the server. It seems like, right now, I'm the only active admin and I'm not a discord user. But maybe I'm mistaken about this and Chieftain Alex is silently watching everything we're doing here. --Krschkr (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

PvE meta categories on the main page[]

Since the general and hero PvE meta build categories are basically up to date now, these should have their links added back to the main page. I'm a little too tired to mess with the editcopy now, but I'll try to make the changes to be copied over later if no one beats me to it. Toraen (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I have made the change to the editcopy: just restored all of the meta links for the PvE section for consistency. Didn't touch the PvP side since I don't know the state of that. Toraen (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
A lack of maintanability wasn't the only problem with links to the meta category on the main page, but their influence on how people use PvX. The decision was ultimately based off moving people to search builds by quality, not by popularity, and in the process have people check out more builds. Granted, only three people including the proponent participated in the discussion, but at the time there was a consensus about it. For the "vote", see here. Also, this is a related discussion. Personally, I still stand by the opinion that it's better to keep the meta links off the main page, but if more people find them to be helpful at the current time, they'll come back.--Krschkr (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Chest running builds on the PvE "running" section?[]

Hello ! I had an idea while looking at Peter Kadar's Hell's Precipice Chest run video. True, with a generic runner build many chest runs are a walk in the park, but some of them like the Hell's Precipice one are "complicated" and you'll need a real guide for it to work. Could "hard" chest runs like this one, that need a particular approach with specific skills have a place in the "running" section? Feydslynox (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Chest running would rather fall into the farming category, as you're not able to provide a service to others, just yourself. Is there any chestrun that won't yield treasure hunter points? If not, treasure hunter is an existing farming category that could be used for chestrunning builds. Else, I could add a separate chestrun category. --Krschkr (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
(And if any new weapon skin specific categories are needed, just let me know and I'll add them aswell. As a farming ignorant I'm unaware whicht skin categories would be needed.) --Krschkr (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Eeeh I'm afraid I can't answer your question about the chestrun without treasure hunter points, I don't have any real chestrunning experience :'(
I'd say a farmcat for Zodiac weapons is needed since a big rumored farm has been made public in the last few days. In fact maybe also for the other OS factions popular weapon skins. They go for a lot of armbraces if perfect so eeeh another farmcat for outcast weapons (lacerate farm yay!) and plagueborn weapons? Feydslynox (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Categories have been added. FarmCat parameters: chest, zodiac, plagueborn, outcast --Krschkr (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms
Advertisement