User talk:Skuld/Archive 19

Mo/D Vermin Farmer
I've adjusted the build for much greater speed. Runs without mistakes take me about 9 minutes now. Could you please revote?--Gobla 07:07, 16 January 2007 (CST)

Double Decapitate Build
I posted this build yesterday, it was marked for deletion by Rapta last night (gmt -2) and was deleted tonight. Is it possible for me to just see the last build comments, if any, since the last one I saw was another user requesting for it to be tested and not deleted? If possible, please? --FatherOfMir 15:33, 11 January 2007 (CST)

Terra Tank
Skuld can this build be revoted on? i redid the page so it focus' on the 10 min smite run build.--&mdash; Hyprodimus Prime   17:53, 7 January 2007 (CST)

Thank you Skuld :D--&mdash; Hyprodimus Prime   21:10, 7 January 2007 (CST)

Need Two Builds Deleted
Can you delete these two builds (I am the author of both): Build:D/R Ranger's Vow and Build:D/R Grenth's Ranger. I have decided neither concept can be salvaged and rather than having them rot away in unfavored (although the first hasn't been voted on yet) I would prefer they merely be deleted. Thanks. Defiant Elements 18:04, 7 January 2007 (CST)
 * They would be deleted as per author requested, but I would like to note that unfavored builds could be used for reference anyway. Also, I prefer the D/R over the R/D personally.. but that's just me. Better rune spread, better armor (well, not really), regen, and Dervishes wielding bows looks kinda nice =P --Silk Weaker

Deleted Derv Doppleganger solution
Stated reason for deletion, "it was in the article." If you use f4, or read what you are deleting, you'll see none of the items were in the page nor are currently in the page. Nothing describes how to beat the doppleganger in 3 hits. Seeing how you have a derv in game, it would appear you are pulling that info off wiki so it doesnt get nerfed.

"3 hit kill in 9 seconds. Wearying Strike, Crippling Sweep, Reaper's Sweep, Chilling Victory, and any signet that wont hurt you (rez etc). Strike 1st with Reaper's Sweep, followed by Chilling Victory, and lastly Reaper's Sweep for the 3rd and final killshot."

Please feel free to point out where any of that info is in the existing wiki.


 * The article is for general descriptions of strategies, not "use these skills". I find it amusing that you think I would care whether a strategy for beating one dumb boss was removed/fixed. &mdash; Skuld 16:29, 8 January 2007 (CST)

Actually I find it amusing that you dont know the content on the page http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Guide_to_defeating_doppelganger

Has a majority of skill lists on it.


 * For a start that seems a poor build, why on earth are you applying weakness to your self? You do realise it reduces your damage dealt by 70% (or similar, i'd have to check)? You could deal a huge chunk of dmg by using mystic sweep and precasting some useless enchantments like conjure flame, conjure frost, aura of restoration. A note saying take high damage scythe attacks and a deep wound skill would be fine. I haven't looked at the page in a while, but I did spend a good deal of time stripping all the "use x x and x" strategies down to suggestions &mdash; Skuld 16:36, 8 January 2007 (CST)

Again, you didnt read what you deleted. The fight is over in 3 hits. Yes its a poor build, only 3 hit kill of a dopple I know of. So you deleted it b/c it includes skill lists, which the page does. Then you deleted it b/c its a "poor build" but kills the mob faster than any of your approved builds. So in essence you deleted something you didnt understand?


 * Again, I haven't looked at the others, just saw the one added in recent changes, saw it to be poor and removed it. Using the poor quality of the others, if you belive them to be so, is not a reason to keep this one &mdash; Skuld 16:44, 8 January 2007 (CST)


 * Skuld is right, while a 3 hit kill of the doppleganger is useful information, it is certainly not a build and does not belong in the build namespace, nor is it deserving of a full build page and writeup. We don't have a category for "Doppleganger Builds" and as that would be the only useful purpose of the build, what category would it go in?  The appropriate place for this information is in the Guide to defeating doppelganger page, in a format that matches the other suggestions.  Is that a fair compromise? -- BrianG 17:36, 8 January 2007 (CST)


 * It was never an article in the build namespace. It was simply an extra paragraph in Guide to defeating doppelganger.
 * Not sure why you find that particular piece of information so bad to have there, Skuld. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the point of that article is to give different ways to quickly and easy kill the Doppleganger, and that's what that three hit combo does. Why is it worse than tips like "An easy way to kill the Doppelganger is to pump as many points into Smiting Prayers and Divine Favor as possible, and bring only Scourge Healing, Orison of Healing, Mend Ailment, and Guardian" or "Equip Soothing, Shelter, Shadowsong, Pain, Bloodsong and Dissonance with your Communing attribute as high as possible", or "The Unsuspecting Strike, Wild Strike, Horns of the Ox, Falling Spider and Twisting Fangs attack chain with high Critical Strikes and Dagger Mastery attributes can defeat the Doppelganger in about 5 or 6 seconds"?
 * IMHO, the note perfectly belongs to be on that page, is helpful information, and fits within the context of the information that the guide is supposed to provide.
 * (ps. I find it amusing that you think I would care whether a strategy for beating one dumb boss was removed/fixed <--- If you don't care, others do. Also, careful with the reverts on that page. GW:1RV).--Dirigible 17:52, 8 January 2007 (CST)
 * It seems you have decided not to respond to this. So be it. Waiting for a few more hours, in case you are going to support your reverting, and then will readd the information to the Guide to defeating doppelganger page, since there's two of us that believe that the information is more than suitable for that particular article. --Dirigible 10:05, 9 January 2007 (CST)
 * Dude i've just logged on :-/ &mdash; Skuld 10:06, 9 January 2007 (CST)
 * Ok, does a note saying "take high powered scythe attacks (e.g. eremite's attack, reaper's sweep, etc, etc) and you can usually kill him before he kills you" ok? Don't leave the existing one in, as weakening yourself on the first blow is kind of dumb, and don't make out that is the only way to kill him imo &mdash; Skuld 10:09, 9 January 2007 (CST)
 * You know what sucks? The fact that the timestamp used in the signatures after each comment is not the same as the one in the timestamps in the history pages. Was checking those to make sure you hadn't just logged on, and got all confused by seeing a page worth of contribs after the time I posted that comment up there. Sorry about that. :P
 * Just made an edit to Guide to defeating doppelganger. That looks ok to you? (I guess Wearying Strike isn't even needed at all, since you're using Reaper's Sweep for the deep wound, and other skills like Victorious Sweep do the same damage as Wearying Strike. --Dirigible 10:42, 9 January 2007 (CST)
 * Isn't victorious a double edged sword? how much HP does the dopple have? Pious has a long recharge and isn't so great &mdash; Skuld 10:45, 9 January 2007 (CST)
 * Dirigible, I assumed (since this is Skuld's talk page) that we were debating a build deletion, thanks for the clarification. I agree that the info should be placed in the article. If there is any dispute about what it should say or how specific it should be, that should take place on the talk page for that article in case others would like to express an opinion. Looks fine to me though. -- BrianG 10:51, 9 January 2007 (CST)
 * The mirror has 500 health, if I'm not mistaken. So, as long as you get to deal the first hit, Victorious is not a real issue. And about the recharge on Pious, it also should not be important, since the mirror is dead by that time. I just tried him twice with only Reaper's Sweep, Victorious, Banishing and Pious Assault on my bar, and the guy just drops dead. I bet you could even Power Attack him to death, he's too easy. =\ --Dirigible 12:09, 9 January 2007 (CST)

(From Thom)
Re: disrupting Dagger--I'm bad at formatting and copy/paste things haphazardly. Insert non-formatted text here

Mo/Me IW solo UW
I was looking at some of the untested builds, and I noticed an accusation that a build had been copied without the author's consent. Just figured I would bring it to the attention of an admin. Defiant Elements 16:47, 8 January 2007 (CST)


 * Deleted it, need to get permission from the author else write the walkthru etc in our own words &mdash; Skuld 16:51, 8 January 2007 (CST)


 * On the topic of IW stuff. you stated that VoS is bad for the same reason IW is.  I am guessing that is because of IW's lack to use attack skills for utility (plus IW puts a cap on total damage, you could argue that VoS does too, but it actually raises the cap on total damage when you consider that it multiplies the effects of orders and any damage buff or armor penetration).  The VoS Archer has changed and now includes a skill that allows the build to cripple on every attack.  This change was made possible because Mystic Regen was removed in favor of Signet of Pious Light.  Vital Boon + SoPL is actually more powerful and cheaper self healing than Mystic Regen.  The boost in energy management allowed Harrier's Grasp to become consistently usable now.  The build can also heal others, to a limited degree.  If your vote was cast due to utility restrictions on the build, you may want to take a second look.  At any rate, thanks for voting and your input in the first place.--[[image:Windjammer Icon1.jpg|15px]] Windjammer 02:09, 9 January 2007 (CST)
 * No, the lack of deep wound, disruption etc that regular weapons offer, stuff like VoS, IW etc cut this out. &mdash; Skuld 09:51, 9 January 2007 (CST)
 * :( Crips, heals, and good damage from a bow arn't enough?--[[image:Windjammer Icon1.jpg|12px]] Windjammer 13:48, 10 January 2007 (CST)
 * 'fraid not &mdash; Skuld 13:52, 10 January 2007 (CST)
 * LOL. whateva.--[[image:Windjammer Icon1.jpg|12px]] Windjammer 04:00, 11 January 2007 (CST)

R/A Degen Spammer
Could you tell me what else is needed? It's a full build, with an rune set and a weapon, with the usual skill usage, bla bla. What am I missing?--Lord Oranos 23:55, 9 January 2007 (CST)(forgot to sign)


 * For a start "I'm sure everyones seen this, but I never saw it made for Gwiki, so I decided to write up the version I use" <-- this, it's meant to be an article, not a forum post &mdash; Skuld 02:49, 10 January 2007 (CST)


 * Ah, sorry about the personal comments, Ill remove them, is the build ready to be tested otherwise?--Lord Oranos 15:55, 10 January 2007 (CST)


 * Ok, changes made, took out personal comments, anything else?--Lord Oranos 15:42, 11 January 2007 (CST)

B category?
We need your help here. Thanks.--  Vallen Frostweaver  09:44, 10 January 2007 (CST)
 * Thanks. I need a brain transplant... --[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  10:06, 10 January 2007 (CST)

Proposal for redesigned Build Page
Skuld, I've done up a proposed redesign of the front page of the build section, to work together with Barek's [Build talk:Main Page/redesign templates|redesigned template tags]. The proposal can be found here: Build Page Redesign Proposal 1. I figured since you are such an important part of running of the builds section, I'd better find out now whether you think this general idea is good or bad. Do you think it would be an improvement over the current build page? Is this the most intuitive way to organize things? Its just a rough outline for now, the main thing I think still needs to be improved is the layout for the "tested" and "untested" links by category. I don't like how the text doesn't line up and I'm thinking a better layout is needed there, maybe tables? Any help or feedback would be appreciated. -- BrianG 12:51, 10 January 2007 (CST)
 * Not sure about GvG builds. if its any good, ppl won't post it, if it is posted then most likely it won't be up to scratch &mdash; Skuld 14:01, 10 January 2007 (CST)
 * Yeah I see your point, but this might make it easier to "document" popular GvG builds in this area. Either way, the categories were just created to match the category templates that Barek is working on (see link above), which were chosen simply to match all possible play areas.  Aside from any issues with how useful a certain category might be, what I really want to know is, do you think its a good or bad idea to switch the build page to this sort of "builds by category" style?  Do you think a master list would still be needed for all untested and tested builds?  Or maybe a master list for all PvE and one for all PvP? -- BrianG 14:18, 10 January 2007 (CST)
 * No idea, sorry >.< &mdash; Skuld 14:31, 10 January 2007 (CST)
 * Okay, fair enough. Maybe keep your eye on the pages in question and let me know if you think of anything.  Thanks. -- BrianG 14:53, 10 January 2007 (CST)

RE: Lion's Comfort Notes removal.
On what grounds was the note removed for Lion's Comfort?
 * Obviousness. &mdash; Skuld 16:55, 10 January 2007 (CST)

Fair enough, though I also find that the lower activation time of Lion's Comfort is worth noting as compared to Healing Signet. What do you think about the two skills?


 * Personally, I would never take lion's comfort because of it's conditionalness, many times healsig has saved from degen :D &mdash; Skuld 17:01, 10 January 2007 (CST)

I agree with you in saying that Healing Signet is very useful. After all, its function within the Warrior profession is a well-oiled machine and has seen only one major change since retail (armor). Though, I have never been a fan of Tactics besides "Watch Yourself!"...which I generally only use in conjunction with Healing Signet. Looking into Guild Wiki for other Warrior skill alternatives from Nightfall or Factions brought me to Lion's Comfort, as well as a GWiki devoid of any recommendations or advice.

Lion's Comfort is irrefutably meant to be an alternative to Healing Signet, and I'll admit that :)

But I think somebody searching for Lion's Comfort would have the immediate reaction: "Why would I ever use this?"

Sure, the condition of disabling other Signets is a put-off, but some people out there just don't need Tactics for their build.

I posted the note for people who wanted an answer to that question: "Use this if you don't want Tactics."

While it may be obvious, I stand by my thought that it still ought to be stated. After all, there is a Signet called "Hex Eater Signet" which has the following note under it - "This skill is a good counter versus area of effect hexes such as Suffering and Deep Freeze."

Sure, Hex Eater Signet's purpose is clear, but its usefulness as a Wiki page is improved by having the note there :)

Of course, this is ultimately my opinion, but perhaps I helped give some more insight as to why I added it.

Oh and lastly, having read the other comments on your page, I think its silly that people take personal offense. We're all trying to get these pages in the shape to be useful and helpful in the end :) GrammarNazi 17:18, 10 January 2007 (CST)


 * Added a "related skills" section to both pages :) &mdash; Skuld 17:56, 10 January 2007 (CST)

Oooh! Awesome :) GrammarNazi 17:58, 10 January 2007 (CST)

A/E Rodgort's Empty Palm
I'd like to get this re-voted based upon the changes made, not on past votes and comments. I'm not sure how to go about it. DefiantElements recommended posting here. It is currently in the Unfavored Builds section, since every time a move it to Untested for a re-test, folks would put it back into Unfavored. KnightSilent 22:17, 10 January 2007 (CST)
 * I would need a second opinion to confirm this, but I believe that if the build has been changed enough to warrant a revote then you may archive the original discussion and put a link to the archive on the discussion page. This should solve your problem of people thinking the vote is already over.&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]]  23:56, 10 January 2007 (CST)
 * How do I archive the discussion? I'm still pretty new to the Wiki. KnightSilent 01:57, 11 January 2007 (CST)
 * First, create a link to the archive page on the talk page (as a subfolder), like this: Build talk:A/E Rodgort's Empty Palm/Archive1 . This will create a red link, because the page doesn't actually exist yet.  Clicking this link will allow you to edit the archive page, where you can cut and paste the contents of the talk page into here and save it.  Then you can add a new rate-a-build to the clean talk page, along with any comments you would like to make about the redesigned build.  Give it a try, and if you make a mess we can clean it up.  :) -- BrianG 12:28, 11 January 2007 (CST)
 * Thanks, will do. KnightSilent 15:04, 11 January 2007 (CST)

How can I link to a category?
Hi there!

In order to fix ths page: Candy Weapons (winterdays 2006 quest link), I wanted to link to a category.. but when adding the   tag in the text, like   , this just add the cat to the page and show nothing.. how can I do that, I can't find the trick.. :s Corsaire  05:56, 11 January 2007 (CST)
 * The way to do that is like this: Wintersday 2006 Quests ( Wintersday 2006 Quests ). - Greven 06:00, 11 January 2007 (CST)
 * Yes, images and categories can be linked with the colon at the start of the link. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2007 (CST)


 * OK, the ' : ' is making the difference.. ok, thanx.. Corsaire  [[image:Corsaire_Signature.gif]] 06:06, 11 January 2007 (CST)

Deleted page/redirects
I was hoping to start adding some redirect pages so that people could get to the right page from searches even if the spellings of the searches were wrong. As such, please do not delete these pages
 * We don't redirect misspellings. Plurals and all lowercase are fine.  --Fyren 10:41, 11 January 2007 (CST)

Team - CoS Spike
I edited the broken part of the concept. Could you remove the deletion tag? Defiant Elements 17:59, 11 January 2007 (CST)

I knew it!
--Midnight08 (talk|contribs) 09:38, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * teh? &mdash; Skuld 10:00, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * u cleaned the userboxes... and then just added 1... so i had ta bother u=P--Midnight08 (talk|contribs) 10:09, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * the babel one has been there for ages :s &mdash; Skuld 10:19, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * Lol looks like i misread when i checked teh changes=P oh well=P still works for u=)--Midnight08 (talk|contribs) 10:31, 12 January 2007 (CST)

strike out
Please strike out your vote on [Build:P/W ParAwegon|P/W ParAwegon] until it has been finished and moved into the untested section.-- Windjammer 14:12, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * I don't think there is much point, as long as it remains with soldier's fury its gonna be inferior to a thumper. The only semi-viable option is focused anger, and there is already a build for that &mdash; Skuld 14:15, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * That is your opinion, and all the same you are not above the rules. Strike it out or I get an admin.--[[image:Windjammer Icon1.jpg|12px]] Windjammer 14:21, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * Yes sir... &mdash; Skuld 14:22, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * He is an admin :P--- [[Image:Star-small.png]] ~Edo Dodo~ [[Image:Star-small.png]] (msg) 14:26, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * Not sure what's going on, just patrolling pages, but to Edo's comment, in this case Skuld is considered a user, not an admin. Being an admin has no bearing on content of any sort. &mdash; Gares 14:29, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * Why isn't Skuld allowed to vote? --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * He didn't put untested-build on it, I jumped the gun &mdash; Skuld 15:10, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * Because build isn't ready for testing yet.--- [[Image:Star-small.png]] ~Edo Dodo~ [[Image:Star-small.png]] (msg) 15:12, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * Ach so. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * Prolly not going to put it on untested either. Not for SF, mind you.  But energy problems, which I suspected from the beginning.  Did get the oppurtunity to do some good analysis on SF, however.  Put my findings on ParaThumper page, where somebody might find it interesting.  Check it out [Build_talk:P/W_ParaThumper#Soldier.27s_Fury_.2B_Natural_Temper|here] --[[image:Windjammer Icon1.jpg|12px]] Windjammer 03:18, 13 January 2007 (CST)

[Build:W/any Dragon Spammer]
Ok, why the hell did you delete this? Seriously, there was discussion ongoing about this. Did you even bother looking at the talk page as mandated by the Delete template? Or did you look at it and say... hey oh Rapta added the tag... ok delete?

Skuld, you are not the sole arbitrar of builds. You have administrative powers, and in my view you are abusing them by deleting whatever build suits your fancy. Sure, some builds may suck, even the vast majority of the ones you've deleted. But this build is not one of those. I implore you to reconsider your actions and tactics. - Greven 14:30, 12 January 2007 (CST)


 * It seems not. No offense meant, restoring. &mdash; Skuld 14:34, 12 January 2007 (CST)


 * Thank you for restoring it. I think I came on a little too harshly, as I was frustrated at seeing something I was responding to vanish before my eyes (and I'm lacking sleep, huzzuh), so for that I appologise. - Greven 14:52, 12 January 2007 (CST)

"bring back 8 vs 8 already T_T"
I totally agree. Any thoughts on a new arena type, or do you just want classic 8v8 HA? The problems I see is that some ppl will say we already have 8v8 -> GvG, and restoring a 8v8 HA would bring back gimmick builds like iway and b-spike. --8765 18:20, 12 January 2007 (CST)


 * skill balance more than anything imo, and gimmics will never go away as long as you can form a pug in a minute :p I dunno, classic 8 vs 8 would be nice but I wouldn't mind seeing some decent changes, no more lever adding and map removal! looking forward to next weekend to see what they're offering ^^ &mdash; Skuld 18:34, 12 January 2007 (CST)


 * So I just talked to a.net, and I asked, "when is the next skill balancing update?" And, they said, "what's skill balancing?"
 * But seriously, a.net prides themselves on player skill and balance, but imo, they haven't improved or gotten closer to that ideal. It's all just beating around the bush. Anyways, looks like this weekend turned out to be a bust, like usual. --8765 15:21, 16 January 2007 (CST)
 * But seriously, a.net prides themselves on player skill and balance, but imo, they haven't improved or gotten closer to that ideal. It's all just beating around the bush. Anyways, looks like this weekend turned out to be a bust, like usual. --8765 15:21, 16 January 2007 (CST)

Spirit Bond
Regards my note about SB and recasting when blinking/ended. (end of 8 sec cycle) I see you removed it saying "not feasible." That is how I use SB and I can show you quite happily. I feel the note was important because how else can you use this skill? Surely not by spamming the keyboard, as 2 seconds is a long time to wait for a recharge (especially combined with a knockdown) with several Wardens hammering you? When I farm my eyes are usually on my skill icons - how is it not feasible? Thanks -- Joseph C 00:10, 13 January 2007 (CST)
 * Any answer? Joseph C 22:47, 13 January 2007 (CST)
 * I'll put it back &mdash; Skuld 04:47, 14 January 2007 (CST)
 * Cheers! :) -- Joseph C 12:19, 14 January 2007 (CST)

D/R Strengthened Rampager
I don't know why you said: "Dump the pet, it isn't doing anything." Please be fair and remove this reason or vote. LeDeni 14:09, 13 January 2007 (CST)
 * Pet increased overall DPS and cripples, like in RaO thumper build or many other builds.
 * You have already 9 in beast mastery, so this is a good choice because whatever you put instead just reduces the effectivness of this build: you cannot have attack skills anyway, you have nice self-healing, cripple, what do you want more???


 * Go try out a pet with 9 beast mastery vs a pet with a thumperesque level &mdash; Skuld 14:10, 13 January 2007 (CST)
 * It still does its job right, cripples and increases DPS of this build. LeDeni 16:05, 13 January 2007 (CST)

Looks its Me!

 * [Build:D/W Reaper's Onslaught] ~ It got favored...ehehe
 * I fought Thousand Tigers Upund ur Head in TA Twice the other day, then I fought Drew and members from [Wiki], what a coincidence eh? --Llednar 14:47, 13 January 2007 (CST)


 * Cool ^^ Still grenth > melandru > reaper's > mending > dirt > you > onslaught though :P :P &mdash; Skuld 15:25, 13 January 2007 (CST)
 * Grenth>Melandru>Reapers>Onslaught>Mending>Dirt>Me>User:Auron of Neon/W/N Two-Tanks-In-One>You

skuld....
User talk:Xeon -- Xeon 10:33, 14 January 2007 (CST)


 * ? its a useless note, I doubt someone lookin on the natural stride page wishes to find a Mo/R run build &mdash; Skuld 10:39, 14 January 2007 (CST)


 * no, but they will be looking for ways to counter the ending of this skill on them. Spell breaker was a bad example, i agree but the removal of the entire note should not happen. -- Xeon 10:44, 14 January 2007 (CST)


 * Anyway take this up with User:GrammarNazi, he was the original writer, im going to bed. -- Xeon 10:52, 14 January 2007 (CST)

W/E Mark Warrior Deleted
I don't mind if the build just wasn't good enough, but it was a solid idea, and the build works great. Just curious as to why you deleted it. - Death Queen Arabess


 * It wasn't though, the energy could be better spent on other stuff and the points on warrior attributes. Using your elite for self-preservation is generally not a good idea in a team game where you have monks. A lot of degen to one guy is not particularly useful either. You're missing out on Dragon Slash, "Charge!", "You're All Alone!" and other useful things. &mdash; Skuld 12:47, 14 January 2007 (CST)


 * If if you think of it as an AB only build, how often in AB do you have monks. Get in a PuG, and most of the time, you won't have monks, or you die and get separated from them. Self preservation is how you stay alive in AB. And as about degen not being good against a single target, I say thats bs. With a the degen from bleeding and fire, the target would be losing 18 health a second. Which is well equivalent of a sword attack every 1.3 seconds dealing its base damage, there alone, doubling your DPS. How is -9 degen not useful against a single target? - Death Queen Arabess


 * Healing signet is fine for a warrior. Infact i'd go so far to say that it is better than ViM in pvp, reguardless of status. [Build:A/Mo Black Widow] is probably the build you want &mdash; [[User:Skuld|Skuld] 14:17, 14 January 2007 (CST)


 * You mentioning ViM gave me an idea, if Glads defense was replaced with ViM as your elite skill, at 10 tactics, a foe suffering from bleeding, deep wound, and fire, would heal you more than healing signet would, and give back a large chunk of your energy. Would you consider that a viable build? - Death Queen Arabess


 * We already have builds almost exactly like that though. — Jyro X [[Image:Darkgrin.jpg]] 15:48, 14 January 2007 (CST)
 * I've already looked through all the warrior builds...there are none even close to that...... - Death Queen Arabess


 * As a clarification, because I think Skuld got carried away in the finer points of your build. A build is ONLY deleted when it has received enough "delete" votes. Not because it uses an elite for defense or does not use A/Mo Deadly Doddle or whatever. Skuld, please stop doing that. If you would like to suggest an alternate way to handling crappy builds, please discuss it. Don't "Just Do It" like Nike suggests. I am reading your reasons for deleting now and I'm surprised that there wasn't even a discussion page for the build. Please Skuld, your number one priority here as an admin is to uphold wiki ideals, not to please your PvP buddies from Guru and GW Online who are making fun of the builds on the wiki.
 * I have resoted the build. --Karlos 21:11, 15 January 2007 (CST)

[Build:Me/W Fraglone]
holy skuld! can u check this build? :D i really want one wich is good >.< --InfestedHydralisk 13:26, 14 January 2007 (CST)
 * Looks awful, why not run a YAA axe warrior/monk or warrior/assassin? or a crip anguish Me/A? I'm not too impressed about bring fragility, you're gonna get 42 dmg? Wow &mdash; Skuld 13:42, 14 January 2007 (CST)

Deep Wound, Degen....omg im noob >.> --InfestedHydralisk 13:44, 14 January 2007 (CST)

You could just hit with dismember and you've already done more dmg than your hex and bunch of skills have done. Why not run a shadow prison A/Mo? more surviviable and degen aswell :-/ &mdash; Skuld 13:46, 14 January 2007 (CST)

yea well...but thats other proffesion --InfestedHydralisk 13:48, 14 January 2007 (CST)


 * Yeh, shame when my guild makes me run a healing monk instead of a healing warrior aint it. &mdash; Skuld 13:49, 14 January 2007 (CST)

Endure Pain > Defy Pain > Signet of Stamina > Infuse Health > heal yourself with some skills...tada! healing wammo --InfestedHydralisk 13:51, 14 January 2007 (CST)


 * I got a glad point with a ZB Mo/W.. reversed :p Anyway, its not getting my vote &mdash; Skuld 13:58, 14 January 2007 (CST)

man ur a tough one --InfestedHydralisk 14:07, 14 January 2007 (CST)

Toaster Team
You deleted my toaster team, and said Blood Spike.

only about 1/4 skills i choose for my build are in the Blood Spike Article. Mine isnt a blood Spike, as everyone is attacking seperate targets, and there is more degen than spike. I request permission to restore my article. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by LateToast (contribs) 19:26, 15 January 2007.


 * Sorry, it is terrible. You might get away with running crap like that in RA, but you have no way to heal or defend each other (no, slow casting miniscule lifestealing does not stand up against anything), and don't even seem to get wqhy bspike was effective - ultra-defensive, easy to win with. This is neither, and inferior to pallyway, so. &mdash; Skuld 13:35, 15 January 2007 (CST)


 * Skuld, you could always restore it to his user page if he really wants it. :/ -Ichigo724 13:38, 15 January 2007 (CST)


 * My guild and I seem to run "Crap" like this a lot. And it seems to work. And this build definately works. And as far as a individual build... this thing never loses. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by LateToast (contribs) 19:40, 15 January 2007.


 * I lol'd at that last part. OMG BACKFIRE!!!!!1111111 No counter. Backfire is a pathetic skill in highranked games, and it puts one of the "toasters" (rofl) out of combat for its duration. -Ichigo724 13:43, 15 January 2007 (CST)
 * I changed my build to now include Remove Hex, you cant say i have NO hex removal now... also there is no conclusive evidence that this build doesnt work until you test it. So I recommend you test it before you LYAO, and Lol at me. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by LateToast (contribs) 19:50, 15 January 2007.
 * Sorry, mate, but Skuld's pretty much right on all accounts here. Life Transfer is a terrible elite, six copies of it don't make it better. No utility, no reliable healing, no defense, no offense (Degen does not kill; degen only works as part of a pressure build, which this is most definitely not). Vampiric Gaze works for spikes, but randomly casting it around does nothing to the other team. Vampiric Touch works on a ranger that can spam it, but on a necro with NO defense whatsoever from melee it's suicidal, and you won't have energy to use it anyways. It's just bad. --Dirigible 13:54, 15 January 2007 (CST)
 * (edit conflict) You must have healing and defense, i.e. aegis, shield of absorption. I suggest you get some more experience and read up on some of the various pvp guides, and get a basic grasp of pvp before even attempting to create a team build mate &mdash; Skuld 13:56, 15 January 2007 (CST)
 * Another one bites the dust.
 * Noone bit the dust... i copied the article into my User Page--LateToast 15:42, 16 January 2007 (CST)

A/Me Solo Sin
Please review the first vote on this build—I believe it's the build author's. --Ufelder 00:03, 16 January 2007 (CST)

Personal request to Skuld
Hey Skuld, no this is not some flaming comment on removing builds or changing things. Nah, I was just gone on vacation and I remember seeing an interesting skill layout I wanted to tinker with. The build doesn't exist anymore. I happened to have it in my watchlist, so I remember it being the A/W Shattering Aggression. I don't need the whole page or anything, could you just send me a copy of the skillbar? Thanks! (let's you go back to work on actually important things) Cyrogenic 00:55, 16 January 2007 (CST)
 * Thanks, much appreciated. I like tinkering!  Please feel free to delete this at your leisure. Cyrogenic 10:33, 16 January 2007 (CST)

Life
Do you actually have a 'life'? You are like always on Gwwiki. -- Sigm@  (talk|contribs) 02:46, 16 January 2007 (CST)
 * Lol, bitch :p A lot of spare time atm with not having much school work, can't say the same about my friends *dance of mocking* &mdash; Skuld 03:05, 16 January 2007 (CST)

But don't you have time to play, like football or sumthing? -- Sigm@  (talk|contribs) 05:26, 16 January 2007 (CST)


 * lol, a computer gamer telling another computer he's a nerd, and a third computer commnenting on the exchange. lawl. --Silk Weaker 05:48, 16 January 2007 (CST)


 * Well, I'm better than you all. I'm on a university lecture throwing a non-meaningfull comment on your non-meaningfull conversation. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2007 (CST)

What is this "life" you speak of? Foolish humans. -Ichigo724 08:37, 16 January 2007 (CST)

I am no computer gamer, I only do GWiki when I am at school or doing my homework or if I am on MSN. -- Sigm@  (talk|contribs) 10:51, 16 January 2007 (CST)


 * Go away shady, no-one cares &mdash; Skuld 10:53, 16 January 2007 (CST)

Do you agree that you don't have a life? -- Sigm@  (talk|contribs) 12:47, 16 January 2007 (CST)


 * Why is this important? - BeXoR  [[Image:Bexor.png]] 12:49, 16 January 2007 (CST)

Just curious C= -- Sigm@  (talk|contribs) 13:53, 16 January 2007 (CST)

builds on skill articles
I noticed a few days back you removed all the builds on skill articles, was there a discussion on this somewhere, just for future reference. -- Xeon 10:41, 16 January 2007 (CST)


 * Couple of bits here GuildWiki_talk:Style_and_formatting/Skills (see you posted there). Nothing official, it is not in the S&F &mdash; Skuld 10:48, 16 January 2007 (CST)


 * ok, thanks for that. -- Xeon 10:54, 16 January 2007 (CST)