Category talk:GvG builds

Yea, don't delete. --Theonemephisto 17:21, 25 July 2006 (CDT)

Characters I think we need
 * Shock Axe Build:W/E Shock Axe
 * Charge Sword Build:W/E Charge Sword
 * Bull's Charge Sword Build:W/N Bull's Charge Sword
 * Devastating Hammer Build:W/any Devastating Hammer
 * Backbreaker Build:W/A Death's Charge Hammer Spiker


 * Surge Mesmer (Gale and Hard Res) Build:Me/any E-Surge Mesmer (Needs Update)
 * Expel Hexes Dom Mesmer (Gale and Hard Res) Build:Me/E Expel Dom Mesmer
 * MoR Dom Mesmer
 * Illusion Mesmer Build:Me/any Illusion Spam


 * Air Stand E/Mo Build:E/Mo Air Support Caster
 * Water Stand E/Mo Build:E/Mo Hydro Support Caster (Needs Update)
 * Hybrid Flag Runner Build:E/Mo Hybrid Flag Runner


 * Boon Prot Build:Mo/Me Boon Prot
 * WoH Monk Build:Mo/Me Word Monk
 * Blessed Light Mo/Me Build:Mo/Me Blessed Light Hybrid
 * Blessed Light Mo/A Build:Mo/A Blessed Escaper
 * AoE Smiter Build:Mo/any Air of Enchantment Smiter


 * CripShot Ranger Build:R/Me Cripshot Ranger
 * Melandru's Ranger Build:R/Me Melandru's Arrows Ranger
 * Bunny Thumper Build:R/W Bunny Thumper


 * Tainted Necro
 * Curses Necro Build:N/Mo Hex Support
 * Utility Necro


 * Shock Sin Build:A/E Falling Shocker


 * Ritual Lord Build:Rt/any Ritual Lord

Some of these are already on the site somewhere, they just need to be moved here. --Vindexus 18:14, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * No need to recat, just add the appropriate categories. There is nothing inherently detrimental about an article having multiple categories. A GvG build, for instance, is by definition also a PvP build. -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 18:37, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * There is something bad about putting articles in every step along a category tree. It's confusing and unhelpful.  A build in the GvG category is a PvP build because GvG builds is in the PvP builds category.  --68.142.14.19 18:47, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Yea, I added the links to stuff that we already have just so I cna keep track of what we need to make. Looks like we got some work to do.

Ok, this is starting to look like the PvP build section - a bunch of builds that aren't really supposed to be there. Fury Scythe? C'mon, I know no one has seen that. Just because it looks like it might work doesn't mean it's built for GvG. The CC Migraine Mesmer is another one. Who uses CC in GvG? MoR Mes with Ether Lord and Wastrel's, Psychic Vampire, sorry never seen em. Stike Assassin...as a single character? Please, that is ridiculous. We can screw up the RA and TA build section, but can we please keep the GvG section clean from crap?--69.165.142.170 14:16, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
 * some of these are guesses on my part, i don't PvP much, but i'm a Librarian/Mesmer. feel free to change the categories if it doesn't work. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 14:20, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Better? &mdash; Skuld 14:24, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Much, Thank you :)--69.165.142.170 18:13, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
 * And, if you could get rid of that crap "Holy Hammer" and "Unstoppable Hammer", it would be perfect.--69.165.142.170 21:19, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
 * those are tested and favored builds. my personal distate and your violent dislike are not sufficent to remove them. sorry --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 21:41, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I wouldn't concider my dislike 'violent', but I do dislike them...and for multiple reason. First of all, you call them tested and favored. Then why do both use Heavy Blow instead of Fierce Blow? It is a widely known fact that Fierce Blow became 'favored' over Heavy Blow after the release of Factions. Also, Healing Signet is widely used over Endure Pain, and in fact, in the past couple of months, I haven't seen one top rated guild warrior using Endure. Finally, before you say the builds are 'tested', answer me why one of the builds uses For Great Justice instead of Frenzy? At 10E and 45s recharge, especially on a hammer, that skill is pathetic. "Unstoppable Hammer" is just a "Fierce Hammer" that is old, and switches out Irresistable/Bash for Plague Touch. All "Fierce Hammer" has to include is PT in variants, and you have a better "Unstoppable Hammer" thread. Sorry if I ranted on a little too much, but since IMO GvG is the highlight of Guild Wars, I think the section should be clean and noob-free.--69.165.142.170 03:27, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Using a phrase like "noob-free" screams of elitism. We don't block off areas of the site like that. This is a community and not a commune for the privileged. Any article may be continually and mercilessly edited but we don't make some kind of distinction between those who are considered "noobs" and those who are not. The writing anyone submits here should always be regarded on it's own merit, not the writer's sense of self worth. If you are indeed knowledgeable in the art of GvG then start looking through some builds that interest you and improve them, the meta game constantly changes but our articles don't always follow at the same pace, you're both welcome and encouraged to improve them though. --Xasxas256 03:41, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
 * inconsistant, yes. however, you can fix that. restart votes on builds that are not valid to get them moved to unfavored, fixed, etc. and register a login. i see enough ip addresses in my life. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 08:31, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I think what Mr.IP meant was that the builds should be noob free. We shouldn't have bad builds, and the builds he's talking about indeed pretty bad. If they were to be fixed they'd just turn into builds we already have.--Vindexus 14:18, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
 * perfect reason to restart the votes on them. mark them untested, and restart the votes with a note about the changes in the guild metagame, mechanics, whatever the reason they're not good. people like to vote builds. should have a consensus in 24 hours. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 14:28, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
 * The thing is nothing changed. Leaving aside all other faults, the two example builds are poor just because of their use of FGJ or holy strike.  --68.142.14.106 15:18, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Perhaps more pertinently, no-one uses those builds in GvG, hence they shouldn't be in this section. This section should only be used for tried and tested GvG builds that are a common fixture, not builds that work well in RA or HA.--Spawn 16:35, 4 August 2006 (CDT)
 * If we care about it being a common fixture, then the current voting process isn't quite enough. There already might be a problem if someone submits a build with multiple categories and people don't think it fits all of them.  Do they vote favored or unfavored?  --68.142.14.89 11:04, 5 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm sorry if I sounded like I was trying to be better than anyone. I wasn't trying to be degrading, but it's true, the GvG section should be reserved for builds being used in GvG. That atleast ensures the builds will be decent, because I don't concider a hammer warrior with Holy Strike anywhere close to decent. Honestly, I'm completely new to any Wikis so I don't know anything about voting or re-catagorizing, but something has to be done to keep this section true to GvG. Oh, and I will get a login name (I kind of like Mr.IP. Thank you, Vindexus).--69.165.142.170 18:59, 5 August 2006 (CDT)
 * if someone submits a build in Category:GvG builds and it's clearly a RA build, i'd vote like so "Favor on the condition it's moved to Category:RA builds, Set Us Up The Bomb is great in RA, but "Move Zig!" is useless in GvG." --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 09:57, 10 August 2006 (CDT)
 * If Zig doesn't move of course e's gonna be uselessi in GvGs *groan*.--Spawn 09:39, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

Updated list. I tried to get rid of builds that were becoming unfavored or starting to lose popularity (FC Curses), just to try and keep the section up-to-date. I also added a couple builds I felt were necessary. Of course, I could have missed some or taken out ones that actually deserved a spot, so keep that in mind if i screwed up.--Berzerk (Mr.IP) 04:41, 27 August 2006 (CDT)

Needs some updating. --Lemming 02:27, 28 November 2006 (CST)

Needs some more updating. I see some obsolete/redundant/just plain bad builds in this category. I'll try to patch them up given time. --Lemming 03:58, 17 January 2007 (CST)