Talk:Team strategy

Umm, Ok. Let's try again:

This page is waaay too over-ambitious. :) A single article on strategies in the game is going to be HUGE. this article should be cut up into smaller articles and guides. The section provided about specialization and covering more areas can be moved to the Build Guide. --Karlos 20:22, 10 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Much better. And, agreed.  However, I believe an article with this title has merit to discuss how strategies, in general, are used in game, without referencing any specific ones. &mdash;Tanaric 20:49, 10 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Yeah, but I don't think that's what Ollj is doing. :) --Karlos 06:21, 11 Aug 2005 (EST)

Came across this article. Sorry, but this is horrible. There are so many rules of thumb and generalisations used that in some parts the article is just plain wrong: Stuff like that does not belong in a wiki that wants to be takes seriously... --Xeeron 01:22, 25 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * "n case you didn't notice, since the secondary class almost doesn't matter"
 * "It's plain stupit to target the monks first"
 * "Conclusion:Have every primary class once and no class more often than twice in a team!"
 * "Primary class skills count 3-7 times as much as secondary class skills"


 * We are not a site, we are a wiki. If you disagree with Ollj's tactics (in which case you'll be in a lot of company), post why you believe these tactics are false. Overall, I think this article should be deleted for incoherence and incompleteness. It is natural when talking about strategies and tactics that people will differ. This is why I prefer we link to such things on external sites rather than have an "edit war" or, God forbid, a revert war!! :) That being said, there is no faulting for someone who wants to make a guide. Don't like his, make yours.. If his remains incomplete (and its hit count is minimal) we can make a case that it should go. --Karlos 08:11, 25 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * I would agree with murdering this article in its sleep. --Fyren 08:17, 25 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Well there is so much wrong with this article (and yes maybe I'll find the time to write something better). First of all of the points that I listed above are clearly wrong:

Or to cut a long list short: His article should not be called "strategy", but rather "Ollj's take on what I think is the right build" and not only do I disagree a lot with his opinion, it should not be in a wiki article. I put it in here first, because it is generally rude to undo others articles, but this one is a big candidate for deletion IMHO. --Xeeron 10:36, 25 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * Secondary classes DO matter. A lot. Several builds totally rely on the secondary class (see IWAY)
 * In 80% of the cases it makes sense to target monks
 * His conclusion is absurd. Many successful builds run more than 2 idential characters.
 * How on earth did he come up with the value of 3-7?


 * I don't think you understand my point. First of all, this specific artilce is, as I already said, incoherent lignuistically and incomplete contextually. The language is hard to read and the context intended by the author is not all there. So, it is very valid to erase it. So, stop trying to convince me it should go. You maybe unaware of my history with Ollj articles, but I find the idea that someone might think I am defending this article very funny. :)
 * In any case, my point is... That article is burried and not many people run into it. It does provide a starting point (albeit bad and broken). You rewrote it into a single general paragraph that actually offers a lot less than what was there. --Karlos 13:36, 25 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * First off, I like the new article you wrote. It is a fine basic guild to team work in guild wars. What I am trying to do is separating between the description of what a strategy is and giving examples of strategies. What the old article did in a bad way and the new one does in a better way is giving examples. I tried to make an article that simply described what a strategy is. I feel that it is important to distinguish between objective description and (subjective) Tips. Under an article "Strategy" I would expect an description. You could make tips called "basic team strategies", or even better make articles with builds and the according strategies in it. A major part why PvP is interesting in Guildwars is the fact that people come up with new suprising build ideas. All tips mentioned here help you move from total unorganisation to a basic vanilla build. But all successful build in the last month do neither go conform with the first articles conclusions, nor with your basic principles. We are not expert build designers here, so we should stop at describing what is there. If someone whats to make a guide for other people on how to create a winning build (which includes the according strategy), sure go ahead and do so. But please make it very clear that this is one possible way to make a build, there are tons of others, which is the reason I'd it to be called A Strategy (or whatever name you want, basic team strategy, what you like) and not Strategy in general. --Xeeron 16:02, 25 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Hence my point about such things preferably being links to external sites. Since you volunteered to rewrite the article into a paragraph that is so generic it provided little info, I had to turn it into an actual explanation of what a strategy would think about. Now, I am no PvP expert, but I challenge you to prove to me that modern team builds do not care about resurrection, healing or calling and just jump out there without thinking about these things. You can say they have those things hammered down and think about bigger issues, but they certainly reach some kind of consensus about those things I mentioned. You'll notice that beyond basic team work I didn't even try to pin anything down. But to say that the basic concepts in team work are disputed things with little agreement on them... I do not think THAT is an objective statement. --Karlos 16:49, 25 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Again, I like your article. And it provides new players with very good rules of thumb about team strategies. My whole point is, rules of thumb need to be presented as such, always accepting the fact that in some cases they are wrong (expample: Mass fragility spike build has no target caller). Having one target caller for the team is one strategy, not the strategy. --Xeeron 21:40, 25 Sep 2005 (EST)