Talk:Spiritway

Sway
People do not seem to realize why sway is really so good of a gimmick so let me explain. Spiritway as the build is called almost says it all. I will go through this systematically so it will make sense.

3 R/D This is perhaps the least "imbalanced/reason why this build wins" part of the reason why the build wins. Contrary to popular belief Escape is not IMBALANCED at all. Escape is a defensive skill. People only use defensive skills in their build when they do not need or have an offensive elite. A R/D simply had a free elite so they used escape. The dervish scythe attacks are balanced ok..except for Pious Assault.I would suggest no deep wound on pious unless enchant is removed. The only really imbalanced part of this build is rending touch. This skill simply allows a 2 energy enchant removal every 8 3/4 seconds. This hostility to enchants is the reason why this build wins. Yeah you can argue about pressure, Scythe Damage, and expertise being imbalanced but in the end these guys really don't put out as much pressure as even a decent hammer warrior...they're just very easy to play.

R/E and R/P trappers. If you hate sway these are the guys you should be picking on. Combining tranquility and natures renewal makes for a EXTREMELY hostile environment to enchants. This basically means that with a build with many enchants every enchantment takes twice as long to cast and maintain, only lasts half as long, and is removed every 8 seconds by rending touch. Combining these with the area condition pressure of traps makes for a high pressure prot resistant build.

Rt/Me

Is a standard expel rit. Main job is to buff the r/d with splinter and warmongers further adding to the incredible pressure this build can put out. Elite is also an anti hex elite combing well with NR.

2 N/Rt These guys are the final reason why sway wins. They are healers that don't rely on enchants. So what do they rely on? Spirits. Without their spirits their anti-spike and overall healing/condition removal suffers greatly.

End of the story..kill the spirits. If you keep NR and Tranquility as well as the rit spirits off the field you have a build that still has alot of pressure but is also very fragile and somewhat susceptible to prots.

By the way as as far as credibility goes I have played extensively with Sway teams and against them...tho I suppose anyone who is active in today's HA meta has played extensively against Sway. Ty Psychiatric Consultant 21:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
You know very well that mainspace is for documenting the game, not your opinions. Backsword 21:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is correct. Watch some matches.  If you want to write it in a seemingly more "neutral" fashion, you are welcome to do so, but that doesn't make the statement any less true.
 * Also true. If you don't think it's worth documenting, you can change it, but I think there should still be a redirect.
 * This is more debatable, but the commonly accepted definition of "lame" in the context of a Guild Wars build is one that requires little to no skill and/or effort involved to work properly. This depends somewhat upon your idea of "skill," but I think that only needing basic motor functions necessary to actually install the game in order to win Halls and farm shitters qualifies as "unskilled."  Still, it's discretionary.
 * It is a gimmick build. It in every way meets the definition of a gimmick build; in fact, spiritway is actually listed on that page as an example.  I will say that the second part of the sentence is, again, discretionary, but still largely correct.  I'm not going to bother defending it, however, and if you feel it is in violation of policy, you may remove it revert it to many "many experienced players," though there are still plenty of experienced players running sway.  Experienced doesn't mean good, it just means experienced.  I think that the bigger problem you see is my style of writing moreso than the actual content, which I attempt to make somewhat more colorful than an ordinary encyclopedia while still conveying the facts, which I justify with the statement that we are not an encyclopedia, we are a wiki for an MMO.  If there is a mission statement that says we attempt to use an encyclopedic format rather than merely documenting the game, then by all means point me to it, but if there is, that would also mean having things like citation needed tags and no opinions or advice whatsoever.  &mdash;Jette  [[Image:User_Jette_awesome.png|19px]] 23:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is more debatable, but the commonly accepted definition of "lame" in the context of a Guild Wars build is one that requires little to no skill and/or effort involved to work properly. This depends somewhat upon your idea of "skill," but I think that only needing basic motor functions necessary to actually install the game in order to win Halls and farm shitters qualifies as "unskilled."  Still, it's discretionary.
 * It is a gimmick build. It in every way meets the definition of a gimmick build; in fact, spiritway is actually listed on that page as an example.  I will say that the second part of the sentence is, again, discretionary, but still largely correct.  I'm not going to bother defending it, however, and if you feel it is in violation of policy, you may remove it revert it to many "many experienced players," though there are still plenty of experienced players running sway.  Experienced doesn't mean good, it just means experienced.  I think that the bigger problem you see is my style of writing moreso than the actual content, which I attempt to make somewhat more colorful than an ordinary encyclopedia while still conveying the facts, which I justify with the statement that we are not an encyclopedia, we are a wiki for an MMO.  If there is a mission statement that says we attempt to use an encyclopedic format rather than merely documenting the game, then by all means point me to it, but if there is, that would also mean having things like citation needed tags and no opinions or advice whatsoever.  &mdash;Jette  [[Image:User_Jette_awesome.png|19px]] 23:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a gimmick build. It in every way meets the definition of a gimmick build; in fact, spiritway is actually listed on that page as an example.  I will say that the second part of the sentence is, again, discretionary, but still largely correct.  I'm not going to bother defending it, however, and if you feel it is in violation of policy, you may remove it revert it to many "many experienced players," though there are still plenty of experienced players running sway.  Experienced doesn't mean good, it just means experienced.  I think that the bigger problem you see is my style of writing moreso than the actual content, which I attempt to make somewhat more colorful than an ordinary encyclopedia while still conveying the facts, which I justify with the statement that we are not an encyclopedia, we are a wiki for an MMO.  If there is a mission statement that says we attempt to use an encyclopedic format rather than merely documenting the game, then by all means point me to it, but if there is, that would also mean having things like citation needed tags and no opinions or advice whatsoever.  &mdash;Jette  [[Image:User_Jette_awesome.png|19px]] 23:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a gimmick build. It in every way meets the definition of a gimmick build; in fact, spiritway is actually listed on that page as an example.  I will say that the second part of the sentence is, again, discretionary, but still largely correct.  I'm not going to bother defending it, however, and if you feel it is in violation of policy, you may remove it revert it to many "many experienced players," though there are still plenty of experienced players running sway.  Experienced doesn't mean good, it just means experienced.  I think that the bigger problem you see is my style of writing moreso than the actual content, which I attempt to make somewhat more colorful than an ordinary encyclopedia while still conveying the facts, which I justify with the statement that we are not an encyclopedia, we are a wiki for an MMO.  If there is a mission statement that says we attempt to use an encyclopedic format rather than merely documenting the game, then by all means point me to it, but if there is, that would also mean having things like citation needed tags and no opinions or advice whatsoever.  &mdash;Jette  [[Image:User_Jette_awesome.png|19px]] 23:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Doesn't really matter what I or anoyone else thinks about it. It's fairly straight forwaed: we document facts, not editor's opinions. You know that. This includes stating the irrelevant, as it is a way of stating what one thinks ought to be relevant, thus opinion. Tho' I saw you edit as more humorous than Pika's.


 * You can of course redirect "shitway" here. It is fact that the term is used to refer to sway. (someone thought it was very clever alliteration). We document "suxon" et al. which is as relevbant. Backsword 00:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I did, but then somebody deleted it on the basis it was an unnecessary redirect. &mdash;Jette  [[Image:User_Jette_awesome.png|19px]] 00:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Suxon is actually a short explanation, rather than a redirect. Perhaps you would have better luck with that. Backsword 00:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe "documenting" that would be a waste of space, actually. It's a non-notable derogative term; it deserves either a footnote in an article or a redirect, but not its own article.  &mdash;Jette  [[Image:User_Jette_awesome.png|19px]] 01:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point. May say the same about "suxon". I don't think a note would be as useful; it would reuire people to find this article in order to find out that it refers to this article. Recreating the redirect seems the better option. Backsword 12:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Took out a few of the totally un-encyclopedic words and phrases in an attempt to make it more neutral. I might add a history of shitway later, as the build has been around since factions release. Cba now though. - Auron 13:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Broken Links
Both links on this page are now redundant and should be removed.--Stu 18:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)