Category talk:Running guides

Odd. Came to this page to follow the link to Droks running. That article had been deleted, and when I came back here, the link had gone too! Freaky timing?

Anyhoo, even though it's a build rather than a guide, wouldn't it be better to have the Droks run still here, but linked to the Build:W/Mo Bold Forge Runner page? I think many people will come here for a Droks running guide - I certainly did! Snograt 06:21, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I did too! &mdash; Ali ( talk )  20:32, 18 February 2007 (CST)


 * I'm missing guides : Ascalon to LA and stops between them, and Beacon's to Droks indeed. If anyone would be so nice to add? 83.82.221.230 15:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This whole Category...
...is very counter-intuitive. There are THREE guides to running through the Northern Shiverpeaks which is totally redundant, and NO guides to running to Droknar's or any other Southern Shiverpeak areas... Furthermore the Oasis-->Augury run is poorly written or out of date & totally lacking in details on getting past the first Teleporter that gets swamped with Scarabs. And while the Ascalon-->Lion's guide is quite thorough, and makes the other 2 Lion's-->Yaks/Beacon's guides Redundant/Useless, the maps for it are frankly ugly as shit. Speaking of over-booking, the Augury-->XYZ guides could all be rolled together and filed under "Desert Tour" since that's how every Pro runner handles them. Did I mention the lack of a Droks Run? It's still Here ...Why isn't it included in the Category?. Further issues: Many of these guides use poor resolution/enlarging, use page-space poorly, and do not focus properly on Foes-Encountered or Hazard-points. --ilr(27,Dec.'08)
 * Well, since I don't really know anything about running, but you seem to know quite a bit... why don't you fix those articles up a little bit? And go ahead and categorize anything that should be in here, too.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 05:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Gettin on it... just need to finalize a new layout first after consulting some style guides --ilr[[Image:Ilr_d-small.png]]
 * Okay, here is my current plan/proposal to improve the quality of this Category:
 * Merge all redundant Guides. / Create or Expand new guides where applicable. / Adhere to a clean&clear Guide Style.
 * Provide quick disclosure at the top of each section, of the primary Foe Hazards in each Run-"Stretch"
 * ...& reduce the reader's need to view each explorable area -and- check every single Creature's skill-bar
 * Cover specific Hazard Areas or Break sections into subsection "Hazard Points". Condense all Paragraphs.
 * Put emphasis on current threats and remove/lessen emphasis on Non-Threats.
 * Reduce references to Inefficient alternate pathways unless they provide considerably better safety.
 * Reduce references to exact(cookie cutting) running builds / Generalize towards skill function instead.
 * Only include a specific skill/build if efficacy is provided through Screenshot Proof.
 * Refer all build specifics to PvX instead. / Avoid out-of-date builds/information.
 * ..And don't worry Dr Ish, I'll do all the work for now --ilr[[Image:Ilr_d-small.png]](29,Dec.'08)

Build Boxes....
I just came back from searching through GWW(the "official") and PVX... and neither of them appeared to have any kind of actual build-integrated Running Guides(or non-integrated for that matter either) which means the guides here that include skillbars in them are fairly unique. Though I also personally find them garish and distracting. One solution I'd like to propose, is to possibly keep these builds for Posterity, but condense their sizes and restrict them to a collapseable table sort of like I did with the "Hazard Key" in This Article ...I could even write a new Template for it if other people will actually use it(I've got plenty of time). And I'm offering that, because I believe the more build suggestions there are, the less Cookie-Cutting there will be. Though there are plenty of other options too like simply listing all the "running" skills in no particular order that are most efficient and applicable to the "Region"/Article itself. ...Or if someone has a 3rd option or just thinks the entire proposition is more trouble than it's worth, plz speak up. Thank you. --ilr(31,Dec.'08)
 * We have a template, if that's what you're looking for ("garish and distracting", "condense their sizes").  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 05:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Issue #2 ((input requested))
Now that 6 of the Guides have been consolidated into just 2... there's a remaining complication with the back-tracking runs between Ascalon and Lion's and it affects 3 articles that all basically Overlap themselves, creating a well of redundancy. My first question is: Why ISN'T Beacon's Perch the Central Jump-Off point for atleast 2 of these guides? ...Here's my reasoning: It has several key Skill-Quests for Prophecies lowbies(whereas Lion's Arch itself has basically None). It also serves as the main Hub for Factions and NF characters who just need to get to the Southern Shiverpeaks ASAP for Elite Skill-Caps. ... In essence, reverse Lions Arch to Beacons,  merge Lions Arch to Yaks Bend and Yak's Bend to Lion's Arch] into -->[[Beacons to Yaks, and cut Ascalon City to Lion's Arch down to Ascalon City to Yaks ...all to refocus these runs more specifically on each area they actually pass through, and to better reflect their in-game frequency ... Now assuming we were to make Beacon's the focus point, we could refine the 2 guides connecting specifically to it, and we could easily layout the actual Maps in a listed table ascending or descending their order via the direction the player is running.  IE: just kill two Birds with the same rock.  I see no reason for it to re-cover the same ground already covered by the other 2 guides.   Any Nays to this proposal? Any questions? --ilr[[Image:Ilr_d-small.png]](03,Jan.'09)