Talk:Builds/Archive 1

Link doe Build Maker
I editted the link for the build maker, just so i don't have to copy and paste the text --Jamie 19:49, 27 February 2006 (CST)

The new Builds portal
I'm loving it, of course, and I like the changes Xeeron made to my original template idea. The way I see it, there's now two tasks remaining: Okay, so maybe that's not strictly two tasks, but I digress. --Bishop (rap|con) 15:28, 13 May 2006 (CDT)
 * 1) First of all, we need to decide what we're going to do about those tags. The discussion currently takes place in three different locations, I sugges that we either simply only discuss it on this page, or consolidate all the discussion into a completely separate page.
 * 2) Once that is done, regardless of the decision, we need to re-categorize the builds that need it, adding tags for Factions-only builds, etc.
 * 3) And finally, we need to expand on, or create a new, article that describes and documents this very process, and makes it easy for "newbies" to create and submit new builds or build ideas for community approval. In fact, we could even create a blank build-template for easy cut'n'paste use, or similar.
 * Needs to be decided fast indeed.
 * Just mostly done, we just need to do the Factions/Prophecies thin
 * there is a very old absolutly not up to date article about this in the link above that we could link and use. --Xeeron 19:31, 13 May 2006 (CDT)

Just to get the ball rolling, I have replaced all the in-testing cat tags on the builds that were also marked for deletion through your scheme with tags instead. I haven't touched the delete tags themselves -- because there's still no consensus -- and I've also tried to avoid tagging builds that were marked for deletion for other reasons (I don't think we should never delete builds, just never in bulk. If a build is merged or otherwise mangled, deletion may be the correct option). What this means is that my idea of how to organize builds is now implemented in full. Now we just need the proph/factions tags. --Bishop (rap|con) 21:35, 13 May 2006 (CDT)

"Builds by campaign"
FYI, I don't think this will work well the way it is. Eventually you'll have 10 chapters, and a build might use skills from 3 chapters. So the useful sorting mechanism will be "show me all builds containing skills from this campaign or these campaigns", not "show me builds that use ONLY skills from ONE campaign". Eventually there will be so few single-campaign builds that I don't see it worth maintaining.

Also, I don't know if this was considered, but there are Core skills and Chapter skills. So if things were done the way it is displayed now, you have to include the chosen chapter AND all core skills in a given build. Otherwise you'd just be crazy talk.


 * Well currently, builds can be using either prophecies skills only, factions skills only or both. And we have categories for all 3 types. It might get more complicated with further chapters, but I think it will be ok to rename Category:Dual builds into Multi campaign builds then and lump all builds using more than one campaign together.
 * Core skills are part of both factions and prophecies, so (and I think this is natural to use) Factions builds can consist of all skills comming with the game "Guildwars: Factions", which includes core skills. Technically, a build consisting of core skills only would belong in both the categories (factions and prophecies) but why worry about special cases? --Xeeron 08:53, 16 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I must say, I love the new Build portal. I thought I'd chime in here and agree that the Builds by Campaign section will be difficult to manage.  Even more problems arise when optional skills are from a different campaign.

Rate-a-build

 * Tested:


 * Unfavored:

I'll start slapping on a vote like the above onto new builds. Should be making vouching more clear. Please note that we need no "keep" vote anymore, since builds are no longer automatically deleted if found unworking. --Xeeron 11:43, 17 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Are we allowed to vote on builds we created ourselves? --Rapta 18:06, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Oh, and numerically, how many votes for "tested" over "unfavored" are needed in order to make a build official, and moved to the "Tested" category? --Rapta 18:13, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
 * As far as I know, three supporters including yourself were enough to consider a build "tested". If there is discord about wether the build should be "unstubbed", I think we should chose whichever position gets more votes (if more than three). --Nilles 04:47, 21 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Haven't we been following the policy that three tested votes are required to move a build to tested and you /cannot/ vote your own build as tested? Kessel 00:23, 16 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I put up a response in my talk page. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 13:29, 16 July 2006 (CDT)

The usage of build votes for "Tested" are now way off-par. The comments we're getting are something like "well, I tested a completely different build, but I'm going to give this one a Favoured vote". For example, look in Talk:Me/A Illusionary Daggers. This goes to everyone who's voting. If you're using a variant of the build that is not the main build itself, and not under "Variants", and you're using that comment to Vet the build, please, reconsider your vote. &mdash; Rapta   (talk|contribs) 13:41, 22 July 2006 (CDT)

Made the template. Usage is. &mdash; Rapta   (talk|contribs) 01:45, 26 July 2006 (CDT) The idea of voting for your own build is stupid, it should be left up to everyone but the creator. That's like being a judge of a competition that your child is in.-Onlyashadow 13:44, 25 August 2006 (CDT)

Moved
I moved build to builds, its not as though it's a definition any more Skuld  00:14, 1 June 2006 (CDT)

Builds Page Look
Please look into changing the outline of this page. It looks like the Main Page and can confuse people to think they're in a different site or the main page was changed. Something as simple as re-arranging the boxes to be stakced on top of each other or something. I can do it myself, but I thought I'd let you guys know first. --Karlos 12:57, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * You could add one more category for this page. Alliance Battles builds do not usually work on PvP, so my suggestion is that you could add category: Alliance Battles Builds --Nhaska 05:33, 8 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Hmmm what is so wrong with looking like the main page? I doubt that anyone would mistake this for the main page: They need to follow some link here and it says so pretty clearly at the title. I always very much liked the main page layout, why not use something that works and looks good here? --Xeeron 06:38, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Actually, I'll admit that the first time I came to it, I was confused for about half a second; then I read the text and knew where I had reached. But then my mind works off of imagery more than actual text (which is why I like the use of skill icons, but that's an unrelated issue).  After that first time, I knew what to expect and haven't been confused sinse, so I really see no need to change this article's layout. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:06, 16 June 2006 (CDT)

Featured Build
Went ahead and changed the featured build thingy as quite frankly I was bored of seeing the AoE Smiter there :p I generated a random number between 1 and 47 and slapped up the build corresponding to that number. I'm sure there is a more elegant and superior method, but it's 1am and heavy thought is beyond me. GregPalo 19:02, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Draw conditions and many nerfs saw off that build :p &mdash; Skuld  02:31, 12 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Speaking of which, is there even any good ranger builds out there any more (beyond the Bunny Thumper which is not really a ranger)? I know lots of people swear by rangers, but in the current metagame it feels baseless. Monk, warrior, ele, necro. That's the lineup you want for 12v12. On the battlefield they feel more like gnats than bona fide opponents ("Oh noes! You have poisoned me! I shall die in 2 hours if I am not careful!"). I'm asking because a) I want to understand why people still say rangers rock when I see the opposite and b) because I have a ranger and it might be fun to actually try something that didn't feel like she was useless. :) -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 03:03, 12 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Rangers have suffered a lot of nerfs. But, rspike is still very formidable. Touch rangers still dominate RA (and I expect this will be nerfed soon). Cripshotters still have a solid place in GvG. Resolve and Martyr trappers are still hugely popular in HA. Rangers still have some of the best caster shutdowns in the game (BHA, Choking Gas, Incendiary Arrows). ABs are an aberration in PvP terms as they are geared towards builds that can churn the most mindless meat the fastest. – 70.20  ( &#x260e; ) 2006-06-12 09:35 (UTC) 04:35, 12 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Good points. I guess I am not organized enough to ever have participated in any real HA or GvG. I mean, I've done a few of each, but certainly no high-end. One thing, though, is that when I look at replays of the really high-end games, there's hardly any rangers either. Or maybe I just fail to notice them. -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 11:18, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

I guess a good way to determine new featured builds would be placing a new featured build there whenever a build makes the jump to Category:Tested builds. --Xeeron 09:27, 13 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Well, I would actually look at the bottom of the page, and see which builds have been looked at the least number of times, and pick from those, to increase their popularity, or at least get people to become more familiar with them. --Rapta 16:18, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

I made a page listing past featured builds, from the most recent ones to the earliest ones. Just wanted to do this so it would take less scavenging through the History page than if it was to be done by anyone later on. :P --Rapta 21:49, 22 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Nice idea --Xeeron 03:22, 23 June 2006 (CDT)

I just wanted to say that the feaured build feature on the build portal was a great idea.--betaman 03:03, 23 June 2006 (CDT)

Wow, the Explosive Creation build must be popular, to be Featured twice. XD Or is this the fault of the recent bugs, or Skuld's random number generator? OR... is it because it's still awesome after the huge skill update on the 13th?
 * Fixed. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 22:10, 18 July 2006 (CDT)

I do not know when was the featured build updated, but can an I offer ? Foo 16:17, 28 August 2006 (CDT)

Move to Builds portal
Discuss. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 12:09, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Build and Builds being completely different pages is not good design. There will be unintented links to the wrong one.
 * Builds portal is more descriptive of what the current Builds actually is.
 * The name "builds portal" is only a suggestion.


 * Currently the Main Page points to Build and not Builds - going to the definition and not the portal. Shouldn't it go the portal? --Arcady 12:24, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I am out of this discussion. Let the pieces fall where they may. -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 12:32, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Yea i think it should go to the builds page and not the build page. it is much more pertinent to a lot of people that way. -- coldtoiletseat92


 * I am happy with Builds. The page is called Builds, there are builds on the page, why switch to something more complicated. Builds protal will only be another complicated name that noone ever types into the search bar. Btw, the main page will point to Builds after the next update. --Xeeron 05:20, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I agree with Xeeron. &mdash; Galil  21:04, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Yupp, I also second Xeerons argument. The setup of both pages is very considerate and should be fit for any kind of user. --Nilles 21:09, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Xeeron is right about searchability being important. I recommend moving the page to "builds portal" or whatever and just leaving a redirect in "Builds". That would make things clearer and yet let users find builds by searching for them in the search box, I think. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 21:32, 18 June 2006 (CDT) )


 * Isn't the correct link Portal:Builds, not Builds Portal? --Rapta 18:12, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

Ok 2 for, 3 against moving and no new comments for 2 days, I'll remove the move note. --Xeeron 11:39, 22 June 2006 (CDT)

Hijacking a build
The build N/any_Aura_of_the_Minion_Master is a Minion Master build, using Aura of the Lich. The current version is nothing special compared to builds from the General minion mastery guide. It was meant to be deleted, but i added another rework proposal. This would change the original intention of the build, so i waited a few days for some feedback. Well, no one was interested. So, is this a sign to delete the full article? Can i rework the article, using mainly just the name? I'm still unsure due GW:DID. --Nemren 04:54, 28 June 2006 (CDT)
 * From my perspective, there is nothing bad in reworking the build. The DID policy refers to complete removing articles I think, what you want to do is simply rewriting major parts of the (abandoned) build. As I see it, that's ok. All the credits and old versions are stored in the history and don't get deleted. ~ Nilles (chat) 06:06, 28 June 2006 (CDT)
 * And as far as I know, all the Unfavoured builds are available for reworking. --Rapta 16:12, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

Builds by Class
Would it be unpopular to suggest making a "Builds by Class" category such that if, for example, one were to click on "Warrior", one would see all builds for the Warrior primary class, regardless of whether they were for PVE, PVP, tested, untested, or whatnot? The reason I ask is because I find it inconvenient to search through several subcategories of builds just to find builds for a particular primary class (Mesmer, for example). In my initial search for a build for a class, I don't care if it's tested or not, I just want to see *what's out there*. Once i go into the build, *then* it may become useful to know if it's tested or whatnot, but that's of secondary importance. And, it's all cross-referenced anyway, so really, it'd just be creating the table for "Builds by Class" and then marking all builds as "Warrior build", "Mesmer build", etc, and at that point it should be 'done'... yes? no? maybe so? --Eudas 16:44, 5 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Erm, you only have to go through 2 pages, those being "Tested Builds" and "Untested Builds". All the articles are arranged alphabetically, so they are already sorted by class anyways. So it's rather pointless to make another category. I mean, we labelled all the builds for a reason, didn't we? --Rapta 18:07, 5 July 2006 (CDT)
 * To decrease chaos. But is every build in either "tested" or "untested"? do those categories comprise 100% of all available builds? i'm interested in being able to browse builds by class for an arbitrary number of subcategories. regardless, though, i'll consider the matter dropped at this point. --Eudas 15:18, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

How to handle deleting builds.
I see a slight problem with just deleting builds outright that fail the voting. I would prefer that instead of deleting a build - we remove any catagories from the build and click the move button. Move the failed build into the original contributers namespace.

Many builds that are submitted here are used by the player that submitted it. By moving it to the users namespace you preserve the users work on it, allows him/her to edit it more - request feedback, and perhaps resubmit it later if s/he finds a way to make it better. Now, I'm not saying that we shouldnt move builds into the unfavored catagory, but in the cases when an article should be deleted instead of moved to the unfavored cat, move it to the users namespace instead and leave a notice on the users talk page that his build article was moved due to it being rejected. --Draygo Korvan (Yap) 11:04, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
 * there are currently 138 untested builds. of those, possibly 30 of them are good enough to be considered favored builds, and perhaps 10 are bad enough to require an outright delete. i'd think the major issue of concern should be the 98 others. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 11:23, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Agreed. I would say to go with your version of the "rate-a-build", Sarah, and have Tested, Unfavoured and Delete as categories. Unfavoured builds are ones that are reworkable, but just fail to work properly at the moment. Builds that should be deleted are ones that are pointless, and stink outright. With the move to the contributor's namespace, however, that's rather pointless as most of the bad builds submitted are by inactive and/or anon users, which would be sitting there wasting server space anyways. Secondly, there's no need to have a bad-enough-to-delete build saved on this wiki anyways, since the original writer should know the build enough to use it themselves anyways. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 20:53, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Anon submitals would have to be deleted - but often a build that is submitted is actually used by that person. Instead of deleting it from mem, moving it to the users namespace lets him keep it while taking it out of the build pages by removing any cats. At least, the option should be given to the user that originally contributed whether or not he wants to keep it in his/her namespace or just wants it removed. I think deleting build articles is a bit harsh, and I have seen several members get upset over it. This would at least give the option to the user to allow him/her to keep his/her work in a place that they at minimum can link to on their profile page. --Draygo Korvan (Yap) 14:17, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

Put delete up as an option in the build vote
We had that discussion before, but it was never resolved. So let me start it here again: Do you all think "delete" should be a third option in the build vote, yes or no? --Xeeron 14:40, 13 July 2006 (CDT)
 * For the first vote, it should never be an option. For the second vote, it should be accept, unfavored (move to unfavored cat) and remove (not delete). In the case of remove, the original contributer gets the option to move the build to his/her namespace, if it is not moved in due time the page is simply deleted. --Draygo Korvan (Yap) 14:45, 13 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I like Draygo's idea. --Kryshnysh 15:33, 13 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Ditto to Draygo. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:35, 13 July 2006 (CDT)
 * i think the exact opposite. we should shoot down the blatantly bad as soon as possible, before they have time to collect the effort of users. consider a worst case build; a low-damage no-defense warrior using heal area and frenzy. however, builds that have been voted on and have much member effort behind them should be preserved.
 * as for delete vs. move: i don't think it's important to keep the glaringly bad builds. However, as long as it is out of the area where a novice user could see it and think the build is guildwiki endorsed, i'm not really concerned where it goes from there, so i'll abstain from that part of the discussion. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 15:55, 13 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Well, articles are posted on wikis so they can be edited and improved on. If there's no hope for the article (which would be the case if it was voted for deletion) then it should just be scrapped, like those "Kurdicks" and "Suxons" articles. If the original contributor wants their article, they can just write it on their own userpage, since they know the build well enough to be written in the first place. The writer submitted it so the build could be tried and if it just doesn't work, and is without hope, there shouldn't be a doubt to whether it should be deleted or not. There might end up being complaints to why the build was moved to their userpage anyways. :P &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 21:10, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

New Section: Writing your own build
Any Comments? Suggestions? &mdash; Rapta   (talk|contribs) 13:49, 16 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Looks good. That proper linking was really overdue. ~ Nilles (chat) 14:12, 16 July 2006 (CDT)

Build Requests
Please posts requests for builds you would like to see here, other users may know them and post them for the benefit of the readers:


 * Team - FoC Spike
 * Me/As PvP
 * Some TA builds would be REALLY good.. --213.105.224.11 13:41, 23 July 2006 (CDT)

Not Good Words
I have to ask a question: why do you call the unfavored builds debris?

Do you know how much time we users spend to do that "debris"?

Everyone has his own playstile, you can't judge a build only on your thinks.

This is not a blame, only a curiosity.
 * Yeh but there are more of us and there isn't much chance that everyone would miss a bad build &mdash; Skuld 09:27, 30 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I guess also the idea that some of the builds were ok but are no unfavoured because of a nerf ie what used to work really well has now become debris...that you might be able to construct something new and useful from --Xasxas256 09:36, 30 July 2006 (CDT)