Talk:Dagger spammer

Delete

I'm against deleting this. The linked builds are rated great at pvx, which means that they will be copied. If this wiki documents the game, then "very meta" is too high a standard for deciding what build names are listed or not.

However, I think most of the details should be left to pvx. 75.36.177.101 15:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Reading material: Guild Wars Wiki:Builds. G R E E N E R 16:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I wrote this article, so I'm obviously biased. But my two cents...We already have many builds listed that are far from being very meta, some of which are no longer viable or used and are much more specific then the dagger spammer. Some examples IW mesmer Bunny Thumper Saccer Starburster Pack Hunter. All of these builds are described in some detail on this wiki. The build is not "specific", as I pointed out in my article, it's entirely based around three non-elite attacks, and the rest of the build is variable. It's commonly used (two great and one good rated build on pvx wiki). The name is understood. Now, if other people have a better knowledge of dagger spammers, edit it, but I don't think it should be deleted. Ananzi 16:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Of all the builds you could log here, I'd keep this one. It is recognised by the pve community as a very viable way to c space through all of pve :/ I've removed links to pvx to make it more similar to other build pages - probably requires more cleanup. I would however move it to Dagger spammer. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 16:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Why should it be moved to Dagger spammer? And as for the PvX links, quite a few other build pages have them. Ananzi 16:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Uncapitalized for an unofficial term, I'd assume. --ஸ Kyoshi 17:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

GWW:ULC silliness, I guess. 76.78.119.189 17:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

@anazi, are there any builds apart from imbagon that link to pvx builds? --File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 08:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Throwing my voice in with keep. This is why assassins are currently the highest dps profession in PvE; consistent ungodly crits makes for ridiculous damage output. This is the sort of thing people will hear about and go searching for. -- Armond Warblade 09:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep. We document all sorts of builds. We should leave most skill details/variations to PvX (which means that we need to include links). But outlining the basic idea? I can't really see why we wouldn't. Does that mean we open the door to just any build? No, just those that are sufficiently popular that people might come here to find them, e.g. any build rated as meta, those that set trends (even if less popular now), and a subset of great builds that draw attention. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the delete notice based on the discussion so far and the number of editors to the article. Aside from the edit summary adding the {{delete}} tag, there hasn't been any argument in favor of removal. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That elementalist bar

We're not seriously recommending that are we? 3 pips eregen and zealous daggers don't pay for the dagger chain, or even get close really. Toraen - talk 13:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't get your point. My assassin uses zealous daggers and 3 pips and manages just fine. Magamdy 13:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Assassins have crit strikes to actually regain energy. That bar on bottom of the page is an elementalist primary. Please tell me you're joking. Toraen - talk 14:14, 24 February 2016

"Please be joking" to implicitly call me stupid always does the trick for a serious discussion. It's not my build, but eles have 30 energy default (as opposed to 25 for sins) and +30 energy due Energy Storage. Seems good to me. Magamdy 17:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mean it as an insult ("it's good on x profession so it should be fine on y profession" was a common tounge-in-cheek joke on PvX). I'm sorry for not thinking that through.

Anyway, points in energy storage is not itself energy management (it's a buffer for high cost skills and overcast). That extra energy will still be depleted fast by a chain that costs 15e every 3 seconds (10e/3s after zealous and including the auto-attack between chains). All the other builds listed have a means of mitigating that cost. The ele doesn't, so it will simply run dry after a set number of chains (with no other +energy equipment, it'd be only 6-8 chains depending on what other skills are being used). That's a pretty serious flaw for a sustained DPS build. Toraen - talk 18:28, 24 February 2016

Yes, probably. Maybe the extra damage of Double Dragon would make up for this Magamdy 11:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

DD doesn't add enough damage to make up for not being able to continue by the time it runs out. It's not something this wiki should be saying is a viable implementation of the dagger spammer build, because it literally does not work as a spammer. If you want to combine DD with a melee, it's better off brought on a midline character anyway like almost all other buffs. Unfortunately, the only appropriate energy management an ele can bring to this bar is Way of the Empty Palm, which basically takes the elementalist part of the build out of the equation. We could replace the ele with a generic any/A using WotEP for casters lacking energy management options, but it's a gimmicky thing for casters to do that doesn't really use their profession at all. Toraen - talk 12:35, 25 February 2016

So this -/A caster-melee build is about as ineffective as any Spirit's Strength builds? --Falconeye (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, people use that elementalist build for MTSC and I can say it works beautifully. In general PvE you have a high enough energy pool to make it last throughout a battle and you'll regen back up before the next mob most of the time, I've never run into energy problems using that build. However, while DD is definitely a viable elite for MTSC and usually general PvE aswell, Star Burst is a perfect alternative if you're worried about energy, probably even a better elite for the build on this page. Just my two cents.

As a side note, should we add the Way of the Empty Palm version as a generic caster/Assassin dagger spammer build?

Oh, and one more thing, since when has "what's documented on PvX" been governing "what should be documented here"? They're two separate wikis. This page is just showing some basic options. Jeree95 (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I totally forgot Star Burst existed (and it's easy enough to fit casts of it between chains). My main worry with the previous ele build was that it's energy won't hold as well during wave-based encounters or other drawn out fights (making it hard to recommend for all of 'general' PvE, unlike other dagger spammers). During SCs and easier areas fights don't last long, so that's fine. The current form of this page addresses all my concerns I think. Toraen - talk 10:50, 28 February 2016

i think that's plenty enough

we now have a core build and 15 friggin' variants. No need to add more or tweak them. Build pages are about concepts and not specific bars, according to our policy.

I'm feeling inclined to leave the first sentence after the Variants header and delete the builds ... *devil* Steve1 (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

We could just list the skills that synergize especially well with dagger spammer core instead of doing the precise attribute repartition.--Ruine Eternelle 16:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Outa curiosity: How do you define synergy?

Well, naming a few interesting skills to combine DS with sounds fine. Steve1 (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with wiki policy on this (and clearly I'm too lazy to go find out), but I don't believe it should be the role of GWW to theorycraft builds. If something is actually being played out in the real world then it should be mentioned. Right now it's probably too early to tell. --DANDY ^_^ -- 16:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey Marc, I'd way cut down on teh skill suggestions tbh. Stuff like Way of empty palm is pretty standard, but otherwise I'd just mention that preofession specific builds exist for most primary professions and leave it at that. Thoughts? Steve1 (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

If you are going to scrape all professions, that's at least half of the page away, so we should as well remove all.--Ruine Eternelle 10:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Where exactly to stop is not an easy thing to decide. Wiki's policy is to only keep facts and not opinions, so we could as well just put one line on the entire page, because it is unofficial. But if we go this way why keep related Skills and synergy notes? And guides and stuff geared towards new players? I don't trust PvX for help, last time I checked most of its content was outdated, and I prefer to have all useful resources to be gathered at the same place, even though I know this is not really the wiki's purpose. -- Ruine Eternelle 10:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

You probably haven't checked PvX since 2013 then. --MostDefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 11:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)