User talk:Mister abc/ParaThumper V2

Needs IAS --Rickyvantof 11:15, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
 * srry my mistake, confused soldier's fury with something else.--Rickyvantof 11:19, 1 April 2007 (CDT)

No IAS, no anti-block things, why Generic Ressurect if in RA there aren't many allies and this build isn't viable in GvG? - (Abedeus) 14:03, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Is it just me or is people forgetting that Soldier's Fury gives 33% IAS? Mister abc 14:13, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Ow, I was looking at original Parathumper build, he had both IAS and double adren. Still, no anti-block and not very viable in GvG. - [[Image:Zealous_Vow.jpg|19px]] (Abedeus) 14:32, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
 * It's a even tradeoff. The original thumper must upkeep Aggresive Refrain, which could be costly. This one does not need to upkeep anything costly expect "Lead the Way!". The original one has double adren, this one has better IAS. The oringinal hates kite, this one hates blocking. The original one causing burning once per 11 sec, this one whenever you got 4 adrenaline. And lastly, this one can spam GftE better. I think this one is easier to pilot and maintain though, since one good blind or something like it can cost you your IAS for the rest of the battleon the original one. Mister abc 16:29, 1 April 2007 (CDT)

this is almost exactly like the parathumper build I made that got unfavored Caramel Ni 16:30, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Hmm... You're right I just went on Unfavored builds and it's there... Maybe merge them or something? And I doubt whoever unfavored it actually played it, as the main pressure comes from the long daze, which works wonders in a good group or 1 monk arena. Also, the constatnt 68 damage isn't a badie Mister abc 20:00, 1 April 2007 (CDT)

This is probably one of the worst-written pages I have ever seen on GuildWiki... I mean, "Who cares, as long as it's good?" What... The... Hell... Also, get over yourself, your build is just a blatant rip-off of other builds, it isnt better than the "other build on wiki"... Please leave all opinions out of the article itself, at least unfounded opinions that don't really mean much. I say delete it, as it is just a copy of previous, unfavored parathumpers. Soulcatcher 23:13, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Did I miss something? This is in his userspace which means it can't be deleted unless he wants it to be... he can post whatever he likes in his userspace (assuming it doesn't violate site policy).  Also, @Soulcatcher, be careful not to violate GW:NPA since you are kind of close to doing so.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 23:25, 1 April 2007 (CDT)