Talk:Henchman skill bar contest

Lol

Just thought there should be a section titled this. Karate Jesus 15:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You must be psychic! I'm considering whether to put a small version of the skill bar in the table as well... ~Celestia 15:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, for the love of god please do. Also, link it to the PvX version (I think PvX has a version of every one except for the Rit bar). Karate Jesus 15:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Should really "" the original in the tables, too. -- FreedomBound 15:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

:D Karate Jesus 15:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added the skill bars to the GvG winners so far, but it's a lot of text to include and I'm not sure how much it'll slow down the page. Also skills haven't been separated between PvP and PvP yet... Continue or abort?! ~Celestia 16:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I say continue. It looks good so far. But you forgot to link the PvX versions :D Karate Jesus 16:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. The only problem (except for the huge size) would be I haven't splitted the skills between PvP and PvE versions yet. ~Celestia 17:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

What must be added to notes...

• Most of these builds are either on PvX wiki or were apart of the hero meta, thus breaking the "Originality" rule. Feel free to thwap Anet for breaking their own rules. Haru 18:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As much as I, and many, MANY other people would like that, you are likely to be reverted and blocked by A.net fanatics. Titani Ertan 21:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

None of the sysops are anet fanatics, but yes, that other stuff would happen. ~Shard 03:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Read moar edit summaries. Titani Ertan 07:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What?

I'm sorry but WTF are anet thinking with most of these builds. They are more or less ALL on PvX and qouted from the actual rules: Originality: Entries must be the submission of the contestant and cannot be taken from any other source. is PvX not a source? Also, ANet say mindblast is OP and primal rage wars and all, then what goes and wins a hench bar ... great going there. I know no one will use these hench and is a pointless rant but its more of the principal of what won than anything else. --CAJOS talk 23:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

^See my header above says same thing.^ Haru 03:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

they must be really confident in there AI.--96.245.86.39 20:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In the links section, can I add a link to each PvX build?

Please? Karate Jesus 13:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Do it... at worst, you'll get reverted. I don't think it counts as vandalizm. And even if it does, you don't get banned for 1 vandalizm. Titani Ertan 14:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Just leave it. We get the point, the builds aren't "original". Build a bridge and get over it...~Celestia 14:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, Celestia....Regina said (on GWGuru) that they're going to have the winners sign agreements that state that they thought up the builds themselves....that is actually a pretty big deal considering that the license on PvX should probably counter that agreement....possibly making anyone who signs that liable....Just saying. It is a big deal :/ Karate Jesus 14:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

My advice: Let the baby have it's bottle.

Arenanet probably won't do anything to correct this. I doubt there's much, if at all, PvX can do. ~~000.00.00.00~~ 14:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Shh! I know there's nothing we can do. I just really want to fuck with Anet for all this. Karate Jesus 14:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if that didn't disrupt the wiki as well. --pling  14:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Well since the start it seems you just want to discredit the builds that won. Let's see...>In the links section, can I add a link to each PvX build? , >Also, link it to the PvX version, >It looks good so far. But you forgot to link the PvX versions :D, >Shh! I know there's nothing we can do. I just really want to fuck with Anet for all this. and now this. It seems you don't care about the licenses, you just want to try and crack a 'funny' while you're here. ~Celestia 14:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Punishment exists for action not for motivation. That's why law is based on conventions and not morales. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 20:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the policy on PvX called PvX:OWN, nobody owns any of these builds. Their randomizing hat to draw names out of did the work...or was it their randomizing dartboard? Haru 21:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding a small controversy section to generalize the outcry that happened as a result of the contest. Linking to pvx isn't necessary for this page. ~Shard 21:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of just slapping something like this in the links section: Contestant Inspiration Haru 21:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. -- Wyn talk 21:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Really, nothing else is after what shard put in. It's truth and anything else would be more waste for Anet who will not look at it... Haru 21:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Disputed by backsword but not by reality

Anyone who isn't banned, feel free to remove the disputed tag, as I've already linked to the page with that information AND provided highlights to the sections where the exact words can be found. I'm not the only person on the planet who sees those words, am I? ~Shard 07:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, cutting up sentances and pasting them back in a new order doesn't count as a source on this wiki, Shard. Backsword 07:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Funny, cause that's not at all what I did. Read any school's or library's article on quoting sources. ~Shard 07:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You might want to follow your own advice. I can assure you that they're unlikely to say 'Alter the quotes to fit your own agenda'. Backsword 07:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not altered the quotes. I have taken them verbatim from martin's post. Oh, look, I see I used the word "made" instead of "making." I am so biased. ~Shard 07:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what "verbatim" means. The text needs to actually be in the source for a quote to be verbatim. Backsword 08:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is stupid. ANet devs said they didn't want meta gimmicks or niche builds and the winners were exactly opposite that. It has been proven that they said that already. Linking to a post on a forum by a Dev that is still on the forum and browsable by anyone is good enough proof for this silly argument. There is no dispute unless you cannot read the developer's post, in which case I'll screenshot it and re-upload it on this wiki. I might even draw big red circles around the relevant text in paint so you can't miss it. Either way, this is a pointless argument carried on by a pointless troll. Just stop. Nobody cares. -Auron 07:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do. Backsword 08:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Does my minor rewording to remove possible other semantic interpretations improve the situation for you Backsword? Misery 08:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with either the current or you version. Not making false claims was after all my pointBacksword 08:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you see them now? ~Shard 08:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Titani Ertan 08:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I like how you posted that after he said he was happy with the current revision. Misery 08:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Hookedonphonicslesson1.jpg. The circled text is the same as the text I copypasted on Shard's talk. Funny that I didn't have to alter quotes or anything, as they already apply to the discussion at hand. -Auron 08:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

He asked for a visual aid and I supplied one. ~Shard 08:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• cast Blinding Flash on self* No I cannot see any evidence! xD M3G 08:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, is Shard happy with the current revision, given how it's no longer "verbatim"? Backsword 13:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The point of that section was to convey the contradiction between what they said they were looking for and what they actually chose, not for a bad wiki user to cry that one of the quoted words had 2 extra letters on it. The current wording is the same in its meaning and still conveys the same point, so yes, I'm happy with it. ~Shard 18:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

i know

It takes time making NPC's But for god sakes.MAKE EM ALREADY... im on the edge of my seat(My cat stole the other half) Waiting for the new henchmen!!--Neil2250Evil mantis thing commands you to feed him cookies. 20:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

They're taking their time to make sure the builds work before implementing them. Expect them by February :D Karate Jesus 21:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Because the AI cannot handle some of the builds (all assassin builds, the thumper, stuff like that) Koda Kumi 10:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a joke

My IGN is The Hero You Fear, no presentation needed...

The winning choices are to say the least a joke, all these winning bars are simply the FoTM, they have been used for years in Guild Wars, and they are posted all over the internet, especially in PVX website.

If i knew that winning bars would be that ridiculous, then i would have entered the whole FoTM bars that came across my mind, i was expecting the winning bars to be something CREATIVE and NEW, and not what we have been using since i can remember.

Once again this proves that Anet does not have what it takes to lead a game with a huge community behind it, i consider myself one of the oldest players of this game, and like me, many others have quitted this game, for constant bad choices of Anet, unfortunly i can see Guild Wars 2 being good and few months or a year later destroyed like Guild Wars was, so i already have a lvl 80 character in WoW, just in case.

Anet needs to step up, revoke this contest, and start being mature and responsible, 200 euros is Guild Wars campaigns for what? For this?— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.241.217.192 (talk) at 10:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC).

Hey, ur only a few weeks late. --Frosty 10:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

They've been in the meta for years but they're also FoTM? Please, tell me more. Pluto 11:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I will. English is a very difficult subject to understand. Pika Fan 12:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone knows that you are a shitty rit spiker from 2 years ago Hero. Might want to present that. FoTM=Flavor of the month.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.186.64.24 (talk) at 19:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC).

Did you expect something else? After all it's arenanet.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.169.206.13 (talk) at 22:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC).

I know what fotm stands for. My question revolved around the apparent contradiction in referring to builds that have "been in the meta for years" and, at the same time, calling them "fotm." Is that supposed to make sense, or is OP simply trying to make derisive, but insubstantial, remarks about the winning builds? Plz explain! Pluto 23:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop being an idiot you got the point.So stop the bickering on his wording.Lilondra 11:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Last response 21 October... guess the bickering already has stopped. --Arduin 12:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Point taken :p Lilondra 12:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

THERE OUT!

ill start adding names,other people get pages up,Quick!--Neil2250Evil Mantis Eats Ragers. 08:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Old news is old.--Underwood 08:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

there going to have to start entering they're skills on the wiki page over their --adrin 08:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I failed engrish to.--Underwood 08:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

now your just using you're jokes again --adrin 08:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrapping my head round what was just said hurt. Lyra Valo 16:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we just title every section on this discussion page "This is a joke"? It would probable be more appropriate. Karate Jesus 16:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

*THEIR Misery 16:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"This is a joke!"

"Joke? THIS! IS! GVG!" *kicks reggie down a pit*

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 16:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

*THEY'RE #______^ Mr J 16:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Depends on if they own the "out", are the "out", or just came "out". I'm thinking it's a combination of the latter 2. Karate Jesus 16:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I'm right twice. #_________^ Mr J 16:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

*THEIR ^______^ Misery 16:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

*THERE #______^ Mr J 16:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Move proposal

I oppose the move proposal. The capitalisation is as it appears on the official website. If we were to move this one due to capitilisation, then many (or all) other contests should be moved too. ~Celestia 11:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If it's title case on the official site, I vote leave it here and make a redirect. (Also, capitalization.) -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 21:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why. Our formatting guidelines say that something being written a certain way in-game (or in this case, on the website) does not necessarily mean it has to be the same on the wiki. Recent discussions have also gone in favour of reinforcing these guideline sections. "Henchman Skill Bar Contest" doesn't contain any proper nouns. I also don't see why it would be a problem to move other articles if this one is moved, but I only tagged this to get opinions first. -- pling 23:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be moved to Henchman skill bar contest 2009 ... Well, just so in case this happens again or to where it's being proposed to move, until that happens. -- riyen ♥ 07:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"2009" should only be appended when there are other contests, i.e. when a disambiguation identifier is actually needed. Since this contest is the only contest so far, it doesn't need disambiguating. It can always be moved later on if necessary. -- pling 15:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Henchmen "better" than heroes???????

this is 2 years out of date I guess. but what on earth is that last comment down there saying the naysayers had "conceded" henchmen > heroes? What nonsense is this? the 104% move speed bug hardly counts for anything, and in ALL respects that matter, how could anyone even think henchmen > heroes in any way... this boggles the mind. MeiOfTheNorth 15:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The comment isn't evaluating whether henchmen are generally more effective than heroes but about whether their inclusion in PvP is less damaging to the concept of Player-vs-Player. I would have thought that clear from the context, but I'll rephrase anyhow so it's unambiguous. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh that makes it much clearer. No it's not clear from the context I'd say, it was a bare statement that "henchmen are better than heroes". It's completely subjective anyway, so it didn't even occur to me to think that was the context intended. MeiOfTheNorth 05:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)