Category talk:Builds

GodOfAtheism's (22:37, 15 May 2006 (CDT)) Me/N Psychic Vampire build has been moved to his talk page because it doesn't belong here. --Xasxas256 23:03, 16 May 2006 (CDT)

Quality check
There is a ton of possible builds out there, so I would like some kind of quality check for the builds posted here. I moved all builds into Build stubs. To move them into the proper build category, I propose a system of vouching for the build. If someone play a build and finds it to be


 * working
 * sufficiently different to other builds (not only a minor variation)

this person can leave a short note about it on the build's discussion page. Once 2 or 3 people have vouched for a build, we can move it here. --Xeeron 08:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Structure

 * Build Stubs: (All) new untested builds
 * PvP Builds: Tested PvP builds
 * Team builds: Tested Team builds
 * PvE Builds: Tested PvE builds --Xeeron 14:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I would add "Running Builds" and "Farming Builds" as much as I loath both or perhaps combine under "PVE Builds"? --Karlos 01:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I would tend to agree that running and farming builds should be added; however, as Anet's continual skill tweaks often have drastic effects on farming (and running to a lesser extent), such builds will tend to become stale fast. I have found that this is not generally the case with more balanced builds, which often improve with the tweaks. (Exceptions being builds that border on exploits, such as the pre 133% cap IWAY builds, or the spirit spammers of yore.) &mdash; Deldda Kcarc 03:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think Stubs, PvP, PvE and Team are enough Subcategories. "PvP Builds" and "PvE Builds" could be sorted by Primary Profession. You can specify what they are made for in the articel (e.g. runner). Team builds should just contain a list of "PVP Builds" and a Strategyguide/Tips Section. --betaman 10:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Changed Structure to:

Seems to be more reasonable to split up team builds into PvP and PvE ones --Xeeron 08:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Build Stubs
 * Premade Build (need to add s there)
 * PvP Builds
 * Team Builds
 * PvE Builds
 * Farming Builds
 * Agree completely. I'd suggest adding a "Team Builds" under PvE also, because people *do* go out with coordinated teams to do PvE.  (Usually it's farming, but farming can be with a group or solo, so this still seems reasonable.) --JoDiamonds 11:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What about faction farming? /ducks &mdash; Stabber (talk) 14:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Structure Two
Okay, talk revived a bit. I don't like the current structure of the Builds category. I have to go through a category and then a subcategory, and sometimes another subcategory to find some builds. Category:Farming builds is listed as a subcategory of Builds, but it's also listed as a subcategory of the subcategory Category:PvE Builds. I think it's just better left in the PvE builds category.

Second, Category:PvP Builds is messy and confusing. I understand the point of having two subcategories: one for PvP team builds (i.e. EoE Bomb), and the other for individual PvP character builds. Perhaps we could put Minion Master, ODIN, and Mo/N Offering of Blood Spike Healer under an individual build type of subcategory, similar to that of the Category:Team Builds.

A third suggestion is that, since there are so few fleshed-out builds at this point, that we don't put the builds in subcategories at all, but rather have an article page to direct them. The Builds category and the Build Stubs and PvE/PvP subcategories are fine, but I don't know if there's a way to organize categories besides being listed alphabetically. For example, if there were a way (perhaps as an article), it could be that under PvP builds, there's a simple title stating "Team Builds" with list of builds and then another title stating "Invididual Builds." Anyway, I hope that makes sense. :) Maybe I'll try to make a test example and put it here. --TheSpectator 18:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree on the farming build point. The PvP chategory will get more readable once we put in the profession names in the title (there is currently a vote about that, but putting them in seems to win). --Xeeron 18:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Could I have a link of the talk regarding the profession names in the title? I thought it out a bit and here's my main idea. Within the Build article itself, simply have two statements:
 * "For a list of PvE builds, see User:TheSpectator/PvE Builds2"
 * "For a list of PvE builds, see User:TheSpectator/PvP Builds2"
 * All builds will be categorized under Category:Builds. The problem with this, though, is that it completely eliminates the PvP/PvE Builds categories (as all builds are only categorized in cat: Builds). I'm not sure if anyone perceives it as oversimplification, but I think it is cleaner and more organized. Whenever a build is completed, simply add it to the appropriate list.  And if there needs to be a new type of build, such as "Running Builds," it can be simply added as another title and listed.  Thoughts? --TheSpectator 19:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You are not the first one to propose orginising the build in an article and only have one category. We might have to vote about that. However I am still convinced that it will be much easier to maintain, if we make true sub-categories (which ones, that we can decide, I am not fixed on some). --Xeeron 11:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I do like the idea on listing all the builds on one page, seperated by headlines. I'm thinking of slow internet users. This one page could be more for glancing over; If you want to be specfic you can type your professions in the serch box (ex. Mo/Me or W/N). I'm not sure how difficult it is to maintain a list of builds, but as they grow I see the point is validated. I agree with Xeeron with his comment on which sub-categories to pick. --Lonely Monk 07:53, 21 March 2006 (CST)


 * One big problems with headlines is that they are (to my knowledge) not possible in category pages. So such a page would have tobe maintained by hand. --Xeeron 18:48, 21 March 2006 (CST)

A vow to be faster with the delete tag
Might sound strange, but I have changed my stance on new builds from "give the author some time to develop the build" to "if it is not working, delete it right away". Might sound harsh and now like the usual wiki policy, but here is what I have seen on countless new builds in the past month:
 * 1) someone comes along and posts a new build
 * 2) a regular reader checks the article creation, slaps on build stub and clean up tags, since the article is lacking all the looks and style we try to maintain
 * 3) others, especially new people, move in and invest a ton of time to clean the article up
 * 4) the article looks good now, but the build is still utter crap and the original author (who most likely devised it in 5 minutes of GWfreaks editor) is never seen again, while the build rots in build stubs forever

I am the last person to disagree with new builds, but the amount of time of our contributers that is wasted by cleaning up builds that are not working is just to high, so in the future I will slap on the delete tag whenever I spot such a build right away. But I might be wrong, so please disagree with me on the talk page if you think I am ;-) --Xeeron 14:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Changing the build chategory structure?
Moved from Talk:Team - Trapper Farm Build:

This is a real problem. not just here. we can not assume that everyone will buy faction. imho, there should be "prophecies builds" with notes for extra faction skills, and vice versa. combining them everywhere will make a second-degree players, which will be the ones having only "half the game". this will be a major problem in game, [when pugs will only want ch1+2 players], so lets try to evoid speading it. 22:59, 28 March 2006 (CST)
 * I took this into account while doing the updates. Didn't you notice that I made a separate table for the Factions skills? The table is under the optional skills and is completely separate from the origianl build. I also added a text to explain that these are only optional additions for those who have Factions, so there is no possibility for misunderstanding. 00:53, 29 March 2006 (CST)
 * Quote from the text: "The core build remains the same, but some of the skills could be changed if a player has the skills from other campaigns available." 01:04, 29 March 2006 (CST)
 * Note to self, do not discuss guildwiki during UW runs. well, Bravo, Gem. now that I'm giving it the proper attention, I see things couldn't have been done better. I hope other articles will have the same consideration. :] 01:44, 29 March 2006 (CST)


 * What do you think of three new categories, "Faction builds", "Prophecies builds" and "(insert the right word) builds"? now all builds will just be flaged as Propheviess', but future ones could be of the other two kinds. 01:48, 29 March 2006 (CST)
 * Those categories are certainly needed. I think we should ask others too, but no one will propably have anything against it. And thanks for the compliment :) 03:49, 29 March 2006 (CST)


 * Some kind of notice is needed, but I dont think categories are the best way to go. Most builds will have the main build, plus some few skills that can be switched in or out, depending on what which campaigns you own. Logically, we would need to put them into both categores, making the whole category structure redundant. Apart from that, I think that the large majority of people that are interested enough to look at builds articles will own both campaigns.


 * What we could do is creating a category (next to PvE, PvP and Prebuild) called something like "beginners builds" which would consist of builds that can be used early in the game (regarding the skills needed) and divide that category into Prophecies and Factions (since no new character will have access to the other continent at the start of the game). --Xeeron 18:11, 29 March 2006 (CST)

Request for clarification
As a newcomer to GuildWars, who's using the Wiki to try to understand the game and the terminology, it would be useful to have the term "build" defined on this page.
 * It is just one click away. The Build link in the description leads to a definition. --Xeeron 07:31, 3 April 2006 (CDT)

Where is the list of build?
Well?
 * All categories are bugged now. no category lists the articles in them. Just have to wait until it is fixed. --Gem [[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 09:04, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

Organization
PvE Builds and PvP Builds need to be put under Factions builds or Prophecies builds, not there own category because that slightly defeats the purpose of having Factions builds and Prophecies builds categories.Renegade of Funk 10:00, 15 May 2006 (CDT)
 * In short: No =)
 * The purpose is having a category with all PvP/PvE build and having a category with all Prophecies/Factions builds. Most people will only search for one or the other, making all of this subcategories would make people search 2 different categories (and more once chapter 3 comes out). --Xeeron 04:45, 16 May 2006 (CDT)
 * You make valid point xeeron, but i still disagree :P. Renegade of Funk 15:25, 17 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I to agree with xeeron, they are perpendicular categories. something can be blue and square, builds are prophecies and PvE. some PvE builds are core, too, but i don't think we have a core builds category. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 12:38, 5 August 2006 (CDT)

Rename template
Anyone fancy making a build-to-be-renamed template? R/any Beast Master and E/any Shocking Stoner for example, aren't the best choices of names but I can't think of anything better for them. The template could say to suggest names on the talk page &mdash; Skuld  11:55, 22 June 2006 (CDT)

Dervish/Paragon builds
what do we do with all the builds that require nightfall until the NPE? the problem is only going to get worse. i though about commenting out the existing categories and putting them all in a "C3 builds" category so they are out of the way. at the NPE or release we could uncomment all the old categories and remove the c3 category so they fall right back into the proper places. ideas? --Honorable Sarah 13:46, 8 August 2006 (CDT)