Talk:Secondary professions for a Dervish

Vandalism

ok ,just so you know, I just reverted it, check history, someone deleted necro and added somthing about a f***ing monk

Dervish/mesmer

Considering mesmer is referred to as "a good choice for a secondary profession" for a dervish, it's only sensible that a premade build be made for it.

What? — Skuld 14:25, 29 November 2006 (CST)

Let me rephrase: In the "Dervish Mesmer" paragraph, choosing mesmer as your second profession is written down as being "a good choice for a secondary profession". However, there are no premade builds on display for a dervish/mesmer. Perhaps this could be resolved?

Well last time i visited the tested builds section there were about 5 tested dervish builds. I think a few more builds need to be vetted before we can have an example of all the professions.--Coloneh RIP 22:31, 11 December 2006 (CST)

Shouldn't there be a dervish/mesmer part in the article?

Only possibility I can think of is Mantra of Recall + self-enchantment removal. And Mantra of Recall is elite, so meh. Leeroythefeared 09:21, 29 July 2007 (CDT)

Illusion of Pain, anyone? The Paintballer (T/C) 12:22, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Energy tap is useful, physical resistance, the only great dervish farming build is a d/me and the warrior is considerd good for 2 skills i think it should be added

Channeling, good for energy management even with a low investment in inspiration *Nods* Born to Mes 20:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Those skills, while useful, don't have any synergy with Dervish skills or weapons, and are more for general melee classes, so they shouldn't be included. Yes, this page IS useless... Leeroythefeared 08:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Dude, illusion of weakness. you want to talk about synergy? Its a constant enchant that only ends when your hp dips really low and has no upkeep. synergy? yes. its the only skill in the game that compares to faithful intervention. the article says they dont go well together. change it pls. (76.123.132.25 20:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC))

Did I say no to Illusion of Weakness? Leeroythefeared 01:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for revert- i messed up, i thought he'd posted it on the actual page, not the talk page. ----Warwick (Talk) (Contr.) 20:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Mistakes happen --Gimmethegepgun 20:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Dervish/ranger

Any IAS works with VoS, and apply poison isn't terribly effective with a dervish especially in PvP and to a lesser extent in PvE. It's the same as W/R with apply poison or A/R which effectiveness is surpassed by other combos. --Lania Elderfire 02:37, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

Understand the AOE of a Scythe. Heket's Rampage combines best with VOS. Solus 02:43, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

VoS is a crappy elite anyway, why make a guide just to make a crappy elite shine the brightest? --Lania Elderfire 02:44, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

It's like the notes skuld removed about how some dagger worked really well with Glimmering Mark sins... who cares? Bad elite, bad advice. -Auron 02:46, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

Like on the page for Elementalist secondaries, let's try to not violate GW:1RV. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 02:48, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

What about Symbiosis, everyone?

^^ Symbiosis is better applied by a different ranger so dervish can put more points in the attributes that he is using enchants from anyway a pet is generally a useful edition to have and troll ungent is useful if fighting against enchant strippers

dagger assassin

• Daze doesn't need to be extended, if you need more than, say, 8 seconds of daze to get a kill, you're doing something wrong.

• Golden skull strike is a bad elite compared to temple strike.

• You miss out on crit strikes and runes/headgear for something unneeded.

• You will run out of energy fast, or have a shitty combo with something like lead -> skull -> dual.

Now explain why it should be there.

— Skuld 10:45, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

• It's a pressure build
• Read variants of the build
• Great self heal and an effective IAS
• Zealous Renewal

Solus 10:48, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

It is terrible pressure, its a dagger assassin, your self heal is based around autoattacking, zealous renewal sucks. — Skuld 10:49, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

And that's your opinion. Solus 10:51, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Not so, I present:

• The cookie-cutter assassin builds
• A melandru derv

gogo! — Skuld 10:56, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

If your only concern was to delete the content regarding the D/A, why remove it all? The build was vetted by GWwiki, if the build is viable, the information is viable. Solus 10:58, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

I couldn't care less if the queen vetted it. — Skuld 11:02, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Dear god!!!! What is wrong w/ some of these notes O.o... why even metion a derv w/ apply? Readem (talk*contribs) 19:39, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

I've deleted it 500 times. Satisfied? — Skuld 19:41, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

Ty Skuld, I was just about to do that myself :D. Those notes were retarded in more ways then one. Readem (talk*contribs) 19:43, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

I thought this was here to mention possibilities, not exactly the absolute best build? --Deathwing 20:40, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

Lets put mending in. Thats a posibility, and certainly isn't the best build! — Skuld 13:18, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

Sounds like a plan. Maybe not everyone likes running the build they copied from Observer Mode. --Deathwing 13:37, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

Maybe not everyone likes running pointless, junky builds? There's a difference between observer-quality and "works well," and an even bigger difference between "works well" and "works in PvE." If you can't respect those differences, kindly refrain from writing secondary profession articles. -138.86.163.139 13:40, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

If they don't want to run a useless junky build, and if they think that is, then they won't run it? Its far from the best, I'll admit, but maybe they prefer to run mending instead of something else. If it "works" why not list it? --Deathwing 13:44, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

Because anything works. Go [1], nay, AFK the campaign...— Skuld 13:47, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

User:Auron of Neon/PvE <--- -Auron 13:49, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

So then why not list stuff? If they are starting right off the bat in PvP, their build is the least of their concern. --Deathwing 13:50, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

Ok, why list any random shit, and not the best possible options? — Skuld 13:52, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

Because maybe someone doesn't want to run your best possible build? We could just paste your build on here for them to run. --Deathwing 13:53, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

They can run what they want, but im putting out the best stuff. Encouraging people to run subpar shit is retarded. — Skuld 15:03, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

What's retarded, Skuld, is when you express your opinion as fact - something that I've noticed that you do with great regularity. Moments ago, you deleted a note on the basis that "spreading poison with melee = dumb." That's an opinion, Skuld - and we don't delete things based on personal opinion. Regarding the note, despite Apply Poison's expensive cost, it can work with some builds such as a high energy/mysticism Dervish. As well, the idea of poison + a snare or Reap Impurities IS worth considering. For that reason, you should stop deleting the Apply Poison notes. Instead, allow people to make their notes, and simply add a qualifying, perhaps parenthetical statement, after the fact that warns against the high energy costs. I think you should stop policing the page and editing based on what you think is "retarded" or "subpar shit."--Ninjatek 12:24, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Scythes are slow swinging beasts which you need to run up to, to hit with. If it works out that your foes are actually bunching up to get scythe AoE, you'd get more damage out of another attack than -4 degen. If you're not spreading poison at all and just hitting one for -4 degen... well... — Skuld 12:27, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Let's just list Skuld's dervish builds on here, since everything else is "subpar shit". Or even better, we could just have every page that mentions dervish redirect to Skuld's dervish build so there is no confusion, and people won't accidently use a skill that Skuld doesn't approve of. --Deathwing 12:50, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

I don't think that would be a good idea. — Skuld 12:52, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

I wouldn't be opposed to that, Deathwing. Be careful what you wish for. -Auron 12:58, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

There are two points here, Skuld, and you're trying to pick the one that's most convenient for you to address. One is the arguable effectiveness of using Apply Poison with a Scythe. The other is your policing of the page. I'll expand on both:

First off, with any method of attacking multiple foes it is generally encouraged that one try to spread conditions, steal health, inflict critical hits, or otherwise maximize the damage output. You're suggesting that it's "dumb" or "retarded" to apply poison on a scythe and attack one enemy - and I would agree with that concept, but not your word usage. It would be similar to barraging a single enemy ad infinitum. Some players are not educated enough gamewise to know better, others are. But with groups, the story may very well be different. Someone may wish to spread poison while a teammate uses toxicity, or spreads bleeding, or burning with Mark of Rodgort or Anthem of Flame, etc. There are a lot of possibilities - all of which encourage people to test out builds for themselves and actively participate in the construction of builds. Rather than entirely disqualify apply poison on a scythe, as you wish to do, it would be better to mention it as a note, and THEN let the players decide how to use it or if they want to use it. By disqualifying the concept of apply poison on a scythe, you're saying that there is absolutely, positively, beyond all doubt - ZERO wise or applicable usage of the combination. And that is a very bold statement because you're not leaving yourself any room for error.

Secondly, there is the issue of you frequently deleting comments of the abovementioned nature. In the above comments, you undoubtedly exaggerate when you claim, "I've deleted [apply poison notes] 500 times." Even without exaggeration, it is clear that many users have attempted to make these notes. This indicates a community consensus that the Apply Poison notes are noteworthy. As User:Deathwing tried to tell you, it doesn't HAVE to be the best, greatest, most godly perfect build idea in order to be mentioned on the page - it just needs to be a possibility that's worth considering. This is for the community to decide, not you. And the community, according to you, has decided this and tried to post it 500 times. Keep in mind that this is a community entry, not Skuld's private blog where what he says goes. We want an Apply Poison NOTE on this page because we think it's NOTEWORTHY. This isn't the disastrous builds section where only the greatest super build ideas remain standing. This is a guide - so let it serve as one and stop deleting the notes.

If you want to keep the Apply Poison notes off this page, you're going to have to form an effective argument for BOTH of the points I've mentioned above; just picking one won't work.--Ninjatek 13:03, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Scythes. Autoattack. Attack skills that cost energy. Wasted points in Wilderness Survival that could be better spent in other attributes. The speed at which stuff *already dies*. Do we need to list every reason why its subpar? Try listing the reasons it should be used over, say, more dervish attack skills (which are every bit as AoE and more sensible to spec). -Auron 13:09, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

If the community considers apply poison scythes to be good, the community are worse than I thought. If something isn't the best, don't list it, that is just hurting new players and players who want to learn to be good. Thanks for pointing out that this isn't my personal blog, I totally missed that. — Skuld 13:11, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Auron and Skuld - All of your points can be argued against effectively. When assessing the ultimate effectiveness of a poison scythe, personal opinion, play style, teammate builds, and player preference weigh in heavily. You're going to have to do better than to simply say, "I think it sucks," in so many words. What you DO need to list are the reasons why a handful of users have kept the notes of many other users from appearing on this page. If all Wiki users have the same pull, then there's absolutely no reason why a small handful of users keeps trumping the decidedly larger community effort to place Apply Poison notes on the page. Bad information doesn't hurt new players - they will learn their way around it. What DOES hurt new players, is NO Information. Allow the note, and let people decide for themselves. The community wants noteworthy notes, Skuld, not necessarily the best of the best. The term "noteworthy" is far less biased subjective than the term "best." So let's include noteworthy comments, and let the players decide what's best for their own individual needs. Additionally, I'm capable of communicating without sarcasm because it serves little purpose aside from needlessly lengthening what is already a long discussion. I'd like for you to leave it out so that we can address the issue at hand, if you please.--Ninjatek 13:24, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Shall we stop assuming what the community wants, and start thinking about what is best for the community? — Skuld 13:32, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

"All of your points can be argued against effectively. When assessing the ultimate effectiveness of a poison scythe, personal opinion, play style, teammate builds, and player preference weigh in heavily." Right, even a Mending Whammo can work, especially if it's down to play style and teammate builds. Listing all builds that can work when combined with a great monk backline would be folly indeed, as it would have to include stuff like W/Me's using energy surge. If I was introducing someone to the Dervish class, the last thing I want them to do is use Apply Poison in a feeble attempt to match the raw DPS a... normal?... dervish would accomplish, simply by using a Derv (hell, even a warrior) IAS and scythe skills (chilling victory spam, victorious sweep spam, eremite's attack spam, etc). Rangers have to resort to using stuff like poison to kill because bow DPS is laughable. Dervish's DPS via normal scythe attacks isn't anywhere near laughable, unless they do silly stuff like spec 10 points into Wilderness Survival for a skill that will make them do less damage than they would to begin with. -Auron 13:37, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

You're missing the point, Auron. We aren't listing builds, we're listing ideas. Apply Poison with a scythe is an idea, from which can sprout many, many actual builds. Should we list ideas in the secondary profession guide so that players can experiment with them and judge their effectiveness for themselves? Yes. Should be list builds? No way. I also requested that you address the reason why a a few users have trumped what many users want. As I told Skuld, you're going to have to address both - not just one.--Ninjatek 13:46, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

"As I told Skuld, you're going to have to address both - not just one." O rly? Or what? You'll... write me off? C'mon now, enough with empty threats.

Listing bad ideas is worse than listing none at all. I don't give a damn if we have builds listed here or not, but if all we're doing is making suggestions, at least make them worth reading/trying. Suggesting a minimal-damage preparation in an obscure attribute line is exactly like saying "hey, try lava font and other nukes on a R/E; it got me through Vizunah Square!" Same logic, same logic flaws. -Auron 13:55, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

In response to: "Shall we stop assuming what the community wants, and start thinking about what is best for the community?" And who decides that? You? Me? Neither are acceptable. Additionally, I am not assuming what the community wants. Through their continued efforts to place Apply Poison notes on the page, the community has clearly voiced it's preference. No assumption is needed, Skuld. And through your admitted and continued deletion of those notes, you (and any other responsible party) have continually deprived the community of what it clearly and unmistakably wants - a small, simple note about how Apply Poison can be used with a Scythe. We're not trying to turn the world upside down or build pyramids or write an essay on the excellence of apply poison on scythes - we just want to mention a possibility - and you won't allow us to do so. I propose the following: Allow an Apply Poison note, which is to be balanced with a qualifying statement warning of energy depletion if not managed properly. For one user, or a small group of users, to deny this type of fair and balanced note to the page would be tyrannical, and entirely unacceptable. This is a fair compromise that will satisfy many, many users, and allow you and I to bow out gracefully.--Ninjatek 13:43, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Could I get a response? Let's not be nit-picky. I've gone through the details of exactly why Apply Poison sucks on a Dervish, and what better options are. -Auron 13:45, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Scroll up, the responses are getting out of sequence. I responded, and it turns out that I'm the one that's due the response.--Ninjatek 13:47, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

The problem is its just one opinion against another, as is mending an a warrior. And there is no strict policy (as for as i know) what geos in these sections. No opinion is more valuable than anyone elses. Down to stats however it is quite inpractical on energy for the damage it produces as Auron said.--Diddy Bow 13:50, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

I think that most of the parties involved in this discussion have said what they need to say; anything further is going to become redundant as we reiterate our points. Let's leave things how they are, and I'm going to request that an administrator come in, read things over, and help us make an unbiased decision that reflects the community's interests and demands. Auron and Skuld - thanks so much for your time and thoughts.--Ninjatek 13:57, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Even if Skuld is absolutely right, the way he simply removes the note isn't constructive and won't prevent 500 different users adding the note back in the future. If a sufficiently large portion of the community is dumb, then educate them instead of going into a revert war. Simply deleting a recurring bad idea is two hundred times worse than explaining clearly why the idea is bad. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 02:51, 11 May 2007 (CDT)

Hmm, reading the above long discussion, I have a n00b question: WHY would one need to spec 10 points into Wilderness Survival for Apply Poison? At 0 Wilderness, you get a 24 sec preparation that poisons foes for 3 secs on every hit. If you aren't hitting your foes every 3 seconds or so, you probably need a run buff, a snare, or some anti-blocking options (and being melee means you shouldn't be running all over the place spreading poison, but should be poisoning the people you are focusing your attacks on). So I think the problem with Apply Poison is only that you are spending one skill slot, 15 energy, to cause your enemies lose an extra 8 health per second. It's arguably still a bad deal, but I think we can leave attribute spread out of this. Or am I neglecting something very important because I'm too n00b? -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 03:08, 11 May 2007 (CDT)

Its only worth it if you spread it, if you spread it you need a decent spec, if you don't spread it and are using a 15-e prep to poison 1 foe, another attack skill or w/e would be better. — Skuld 03:15, 11 May 2007 (CDT)

"Rangers have to resort to using stuff like poison to kill because bow DPS is laughable." Dervishes have autoattacks that do 100+ damage, therefore spreading conditions to kill stuff more slowly than simply attacking is pointless on many levels. -Auron 03:20, 11 May 2007 (CDT)

Math is fun...3 second poison. 3x4=12, 12x2=24. 24 extra armor ignoring damage every other hit. Using the scythe attack interval of 1.75 without any speed boosts, you do an extra 24 damage every 3.5 (to account for removal) seconds for 24 seconds, costing 15 energy. Ok, now 24 divided by 3.5 is 6 if you forget about the decimal, since you can't account for 80% of an attack. So given that, you do an extra 24 damage 6 times for 15 energy. This nets you 9.6 damage per energy. Let's compare this damage:energy ratio to....Pious Assault. At 16 scythe mastery this attack does a massive +31 damage for 5 energy. 31 divided by 5 and we get...6.2 damage per energy.

Hmmm, seems like Apply Poison with zero wilderness is more energy efficient than a typical dervish attack. However, Pious Assault does have more damage potential, assuming you can keep yourself enchanted after every attack. If you have an endless stack of enchantments, Pious Assault can net you 17.71 damage per second. Apply Poison will only net 6.85 damage per second. However, without an endless stack of enchantments, you can only use Pious Assault maybe 2-3 times every 15 seconds. Assuming you get 3 uses out of it, thats 93 additional damage. 93 divided by 15 is only 6.2 damage per second, which happens to be lower than Apply Poison, and less energy efficient.

I will admit, this math does not account for things such as being blocked, being kited, energy denial, enchantment removal or anything of the sort. It is based on just damage potential not possible counters to each scenario. Pointing out errors in the math is welcome though, because I would hate to think that Apply Poison is actually better than a dervish attack : / --Deathwing 07:49, 11 May 2007 (CDT)

Can you do a comparison between Apply Poison w/ Toxicidity (provided by teammate, so no Beast Mastery points needed for the D/R) vs Pious Assault w/ endless supply of enchants (provided by teammates, so no energy or recharge or casting time concerns for the enchants)? Just curious as to how the other extreme works, and too lazy to do the math.

Pious Assault: 17.71 DPS	Mysticism <3	Mysticism 3-5	Mysticism 6-8	Mysticism 9-11	Mysticism 12-14	Mysticism 15+
Damage Per Energy:	6.2	7.75	10.32	15.5	31	Free

Note: Endless enchantments = not plausible

Apply Poison +Toxicity	DPS	DPE
With removal after 3 seconds	10.29	14.4
Without Removal	12	19

Might be right, maybe not.--Deathwing 13:23, 11 May 2007 (CDT)

Also, are these secondary profession guides only for PvP purposes (or do the typical Dervish attacks all have a lot of armor-ignoring components in them?) Fighting level 30+ mobs with significantly higher armor (around 30 more?) might produce rather different analytical results comparing to killing other players. There are certain things that works well in PvP, but don't actually work out in high-end PvE due to mobs getting several unfair advantages to compensate for their inferior intelligence/build. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 09:44, 11 May 2007 (CDT)

I believe all damage from any attack skill ignores armor. Pretty sure on that. --Deathwing 11:05, 11 May 2007 (CDT)

Attack skills that do "+x damage" ignores armor (but only the +x part, not the base damage part), but not attack skills that simply deal "x damage". Also, "autoattacks that do 100+ damage" doesn't sound like using skills. If +damages from attack skills weigh in say only half of a Dervish's DPS (the other half being non-armoring-ignoring scythe damage), then as a quick approximation the scythe DPS drops by ~20% versus level 30+ mobs. Thus whether the crux of my question has been answered or not remains unclear: does a primary Dervish's scythe DPS (including using typical skills) remain approximately the same from fighting in PvP to fighting level 30+ monsters in hard mode elite missions? -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 11:49, 11 May 2007 (CDT)

The damage would drop, due to the additional armor affecting base attacks, but from using my other characters in hard mode whose dps is affected completely by armor, I wouldn't say it would be a significant difference. Someone who has played a dervish in hard mode can correct me if I am wrong. Lord of all tyria 11:52, 11 May 2007 (CDT)

D/W

May I ask why my comment about using Warrior IAS was removed? Just because Heart of Fury exists doesn't mean you have to use it. I myself find it a bit energy-intensive when using some enchant-heavy builds. 13:12, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Because Skuld doesn't use it. --Deathwing 13:14, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Skuld does use it. Skuld likes toast. — Skuld 13:15, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Yuck, Skuld uses dervish :P. Everyone knows Wars are the 1337 wnage :). Wait..my favorite char is a derv O.o...nvm. Readem (talk*contribs) 18:47, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

Admin review

Ok first up, this isn't really what an admin steps in to review. GuildWiki:Administrate users, not content is relevant here, this isn't a dispute between users. There's been the odd sarcastic remark but basically the discussion has been pretty clean and I don't think anyone is looking for me to hand out administrative action against a user, my presence here has been requested purely to review the discussion and make a decision on the content of this article.

Unfortunately that's not in my job description but I can see why you've asked for some admin assistance, this discussion is deadlocked at the moment. In the past we've used voting to get around this but we've tried to shy away from that for various reasons and it appears as though we haven't had a vote for over 6 months. So this is what I'll do, I've reviewed the article's content and read through the discussion and now I'll give my opinion on the use of Apply Poison on a D/R. This isn't an administrative edit, I'm not threatening to protect the page, I'm not warning anyone, this is just the opinion from someone who hasn't been involved in the discussion thus far. If we still cannot come to some agreement we'll look at other options but lets make sure that the ideal solution; resolution through discussion, hasn't been exhausted yet.

Putting Apply Poison on a D/R is purely for extra damage, I haven't read any other purpose for it, it's not supposed to trigger anything for example, it's just to add to the overall damage. Bearing this in mind I don't believe it's a good choice because I don't see it doing increased damage compared to having more focused atts and another attack skill. I don't believe it's a particularly useful condition, I could see for example how a tanking derv with self healing enchants could use blind from Throw Dirt in PvE if it wasn't linked to expertise, but poison doesn't add much utility or damage in my opinion. --Xasxas256 19:58, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

You could claim it helps meet the condition for Armor of Sanctity, even though there are much better alternatives. But I believe the basis for the discussion was not that Apply Poison should be listed, but rather all sub-best skills should be listed. If we should list possibilities or the best possible setup. That is what I believe this was really about. I do understand that it isn't your job to make a decision on it though, but yeah. Thanks for commenting on it. --Deathwing 20:27, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

The note placed on my talk page was purely in regards to Apply Poison so that's what I responded to. No problems DW, happy to help out and we'll wait and see what Ninjatek's response is. --Xasxas256 20:36, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for the response and for your time; I know we all appreciate it. Going back through the history, one can clearly see that this issue has been dragged out for far too long. Let me apologize ahead of time for my inability to condense my remarks. I know they drag out, and I thank you for reading them and dealing with it.

I've got a couple things to say in response. First, I agree that the use of Apply Poison on a scythe is of arguable effectiveness, and largely dependent on the team's build, spirits, etc. I would point out that it can be used to trigger damage reduction from Armor of Sanctity and health gain from Reap Impurities. With Mystic Corruption, the poison can last up to 50% longer (awesome!). A Toxicity Spirit could intensify the degeneration. The constant degeneration from poison can help ensure that enemies have less health than you, thereby triggering skills like Victorious Sweep and Chilling Victory. So clearly, Apply Poison on a Scythe is indeed noteworthy; i.e., worthy of noting. By including a note on the page, we present the Apply Poison idea as a concept that the reader can choose to embrace and experiment with. Or, the reader can choose to disregard it. Either way, by including the note we would accomplish two things: One. we would be presenting an idea that encourages build experimentation and cultivation. And two, we would be committing to the page a note that many people have previously attempted to add, thereby allowing the sufficiently larger community opinion to be stated, rather than just Skuld's.

This leads me to what I said was my primary concern, which you have not addressed yet - that a small handful of users is and has been trumping the desires of the decidedly larger community effort. Skuld is entitled to his opinion on the matter of Apply Poison, but so are all the many other people who have tried to make this notation. It makes sense to me that in a Wiki environment the majority voices should supersede those of the individual - and what's happening in this case is the exact opposite. Myself and other users have expressed our collective difficulty in understanding how this behavior and these actions are permissible in a community environment.

As far as a resolution goes, I do not see either party changing their mind. And so long as Skuld persists in his instant deletions of the notes, we will never have the adequate tools to engage in a satisfactory debate. I have attempted to be the voice of reason by proposing a common-ground compromise, in which the note is allowed on the page and followed up by a qualifying statement warning of high energy use and low damage if used improperly - but this does not seem to be enough to satisfy Skuld and his camp.

As for a vote - I would definitely support that if the parties involved would refrain from voting. However, a vote has already been effectively cast by the many people who have attempted to make these notes on the page. Many of us think that that should be enough.--Ninjatek 08:49, 11 May 2007 (CDT)

I disagree with your claim that there has effectively been a vote. Most people attempting to add the note about apply poison are likely to not have considered the other side of the argument, ie that the 8 health loss per second is not worth the skill slot and etc. They were making an uninformed action. When we do votes (generally speaking), we should present both sides of the argument in a clear concise summary, allow room for discussion (and add any new stuff in the discussion in the summary), and make sure both sides of the argument and their rational are clearly and easily accessable to the people casting their votes. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 09:32, 11 May 2007 (CDT)

That's a fair observation and, in fact, I think that you are correct. Let me also say that I have taken a great deal of time to do my best to make full, complete, and concise arguments in this case - but I am only seeing partial responses from the active parties. If you, PanSola, or Xasxas256, or anyone else could possibly take the time to address both of my grievances (1:Arguable effectiveness of Apply Poison, 2:User:Skuld's domineering editing of the page) then I would appreciative. Thus far, the discussions have almost exclusively encompassed the Apply Poison issue, while the second issue has been left untouched.--Ninjatek 10:00, 11 May 2007 (CDT)

Skuld's domineering editing is because he thinks this page should list what is best, as opposed to what out of the whole skill range you could use. Best in the instance of this page is how to maximise damage with as little expenditure as possible in terms of energy and time. You think that any possibility should be mentioned, even if it is not the best choice. I would side with skuld on this issue, telling people about combinations that do not work as effectively for a profession as others do seems a pointless exercise to me. Lord of all tyria 11:22, 11 May 2007 (CDT)

My response is the current version of the article (I made 4 edits to it). Instead of removing bad stuff 500 times, explain in the article why it is bad. THAT helps generate discussion, if people care sufficiently and have enough of a case, to discuss how there might be good places for it, and list them. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 11:53, 11 May 2007 (CDT)

Skuld, let it go man. People keep adding idiotic notes. If people want to add "Necromancers benefit from Physical Resistance" then all the power to them. I suggest that anyone who actually knows about skill synergy, just leave and let this page become so worthless it just gets deleted. Adding all the "Not" skills is just a waste of time as well. It will only end w/ countless GW:NPA's, and it just really isn't worth the hassle. Finally, this page is unknown to anyone it would ever benefit, so why bother? Readem (talk*contribs) 19:29, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

Frankly, Skuld adds and deletes things he thinks work. I seriously wouldn't trust people who think P/Me with hex breaker to counter sp is viable. All the information added/delete revolves around an opinion, nothing more. It's not the state the obivous that screwed this up, it's the users adding/deleting it. These articles are remenats of the builds section, that was just copied and pasted away anyway, which I don't see how it makes it better. Theses articles are useless, and frankly the users who constantly monitor and fight over them are no better. Solus 19:37, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

We don't have a page counter any more so I can't give exact numbers of how many people visit this article but it's linked from both Dervish and the Main Page (via Quick access links) so I wouldn't say this page is unknown. I'm not sure we should just give up and throw it in the too hard basket either so someone will delete it, I hardly think this is a highly controversial, wiki destroying set of articles yet. Perhaps breaking up the suggestions into things that synergise well in PvE, PvP or both may help? --Xasxas256 19:40, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

Skuld hasn't posted in this section at all, and hasn't posted in a few days in general, so from my point of view, he has already let it go and you (Readem) are beating on a dead horse. Second, this page is two clicks away no matter where you are in GuildWiki (it's on the Quick access links), so I doubt it is "unknown to anyone it would ever benefit". *I* for one came here looking for ideas on what secondary to make my Melonni, as well as my new PvE dervish later down the line. THe behavior you are promoting above ends up manifesting as an elitist attitude, which I find rather disappointing. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 19:43, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

I think we should just get rid of them, they are based around opinions. Or change the article name to something like "Current Meta-game combinations", then theres no fighting over it, it's not hard to see what the current meta-game is. Could even change it to list a few secondary skills that are used, and give a paragraph or something to explain why. I don't know, but in their current state these articles should be burned. --DEATHWING 19:44, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

So do you advocate advices for PvE be splitted into a separate article? -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 19:49, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

And as for PanSola, which I think he meant, I would come to these pages to look for various skills that might have some uses to try and make a build around it. Don't really give a damn if it was winning Halls. Was just looking for interesting ideas, but since this isn't what some people are wanting, something needs to be changed. I think maybe the articles should be seperated, such as above "Current Meta-Game Combinations" and "Interesting Secondary Skills for <insert profession here>". --DEATHWING 19:44, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

I think that if we do that though, they should no longer be considered "articles per say, but more as a fun thing to do. Merely for the fact no one can come to a concensus. Delete these, they are just not worth the trouble. And I am almost sure, that this is one of the less viewed articles. Readem (talk*contribs) 23:47, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

Delete these and the "Effective dervish guide" et all will be infected by the corruption. Deletion of these pages don't solve the fundamental problem, they just move it elsewhere. Note that this does not mean I am against deletion. I'm just pointing out that deletion alone will not solve the problem. Children need to learn to agree to disagree, and learn to organize and document their disagreement, instead of nuking the planet because they cannot come to a consensus as to whether Global Warming is a real threat or not. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 01:13, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

delete

see Category talk:Profession combinations#why delete --Honorable Sarah 22:36, 11 May 2007 (CDT)

lol keep these guides in the humor section

XD, use Anthem of Flame to deal over 1 second of AoE Burning! Amazing synergy :O! Why didn't I think of that? Combine Mending and mystic regeneration lol...MoR with a scythe...Splinter with a scythe... this guy is prO. Readem (talk*contribs) 01:22, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

I agree, however splinter weapon causes AMAZING amounts of pressure in HA with a derv...especially at HoH where there's millions of people (believe me, if you can get 30 energy from one spell do to Channeling, you can hit 5 people with a scythe)!— Cheese Slaya (Talk) 11:01, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

Apply Poison

Since Apply Poison is an interesting topic and there can be no doubt about that, it should be noted. That note, it appears, should be mostly negative. If nothing else, nubee folks like me can see its been considered and is generally frowned upon since it doesn't provide much extra DBS. <This may explain why my Ranger isn't doing well, but I digress....> However, I'd like to point out that since the Dervish will almost always continue to target a foe until dead, there is no particular reason to invest points in Wilderness Servival since the Derve will re-apply Poison with the next attack in 2 seconds anyway.

I'm having a very hard time grasping the reasonableness of an argument that says only the best skills be noted, info that a skill is bad is useful. 72.24.193.191 23:26, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

I HAD to add a part about healing prayers on the dervish paragraph. I am extremely sick of Demmos with mending and orison. Hopefully someone will accually read and understand this Seb2net 17:40, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Nice one, whoever added the self heal-part Seb2net 17:47, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

The note about Apply Poison suggests you'd do more damage with an attack skill in that skill slot instead. I'm curious which attack skills might qualify. Mystic Sweep has a quick activation and recharge, but still only allows me to do an extra 30 damage every 5 seconds, whereas Apply Poison does 40 damage every 5 seconds. What am I missing here? --68.187.144.197 13:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably the fact that Mystic Sweep -- and several other scythe attacks -- is commonly used as part of a spike chain rather than a pressure attack every 5 seconds. -- Scottie_theNerd (argue) 17:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I did't miss that. That's a true observation, but also a non-sequitur unless you somehow tie it back to the question. The note says you can replace that one slot in the skill bar with one damage dealing skill to cause greater damage. Which skills would individually qualify for that one slot replacement? If you want to use a spike chain, that's great, but no way precludes you from also using Apply Poison. The note implies there's are better choices, though, for adding that additional damage above and beyond what you're already getting from the spike chain. Saying "this chain of skills is better than Apply Poison alone" is both obvious and beside the point. --68.187.144.197 22:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The note doesn't say anything about a replacement Dervish skill doing more damage. It says that Apply Poison is not "worth" the skill slot compared to using another attack skill, which is true. Skills that grant an immediate damage bonus are more useful to a Dervish than a preparation that causes health degen. -- Scottie_theNerd (argue) 04:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel pretty confident saying that's false, but it almost goes without saying -- all generalizations are false. Depending on your build, you may not be able to use another attack skill. Or it may be that adding another attack skill to your existing attack chain will make it unsustainable given how much energy you have, even if you're already including some energy management. And that's just the two most obvious cases where the assertion is false, I'm sure there are others. It would be foolish to think any build can be improved by dropping in another attack skill. I'm not saying adding Apply Poison is always a good idea, or even that it's ever a good idea, but the assertion currently given for why not is false. --68.187.144.197 20:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Derv/Ele

That note about tanking seems to imply or even condone tanking in PvP. Removing the note, as we all know tanks in PvP are pretty retarded (... and dubious in PvE =P). If someone disagrees, discuss here. Till then - removed. StormlordAlex 04:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

D/P

That would be more useful the other way around. Dervish has absolutely no advantage in using spears, and can easily spread blind with a scythe too (3 foes, remember? also, melee tends to clump if not nuked too much).--El_Nazgir 16:16, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

D/Ps are better with EDA than P/Ds. Scythes can theoretically hit three foes, yes, but at half the interval, and you have to walk up to foes. Spears are tossed from earshot, thu not susceptible to snares. Dervi combine block with energy management, too, whilst the Paragon has to choose. Twice the natural regen is also a big win. --- -- (contribs) (talk) 18:46, January 4, 2010 (UTC)