GuildWiki talk:Profession archetype guides

Discussion
Moved from userspace where this policy originated:

Problem I see here is that you will have to include almost all 8 skills for most guides on a play style. Basically this article is trying to take the guide articles and pull them closer to builds. However, it would probably be easier to take the existing build concept and pull it closer to a guide. Good solid play guys tend to be difficult for inexperienced players to understand and require quite a bit of experienced writing. Plus, the current guides to classes aren't actually that useful at all so this would be a huge task. -Warskull 11:41, 24 March 2007 (CDT)
 * As far as my view of it, large project (as Warskull says above) or not, it looks perfect. You have encapsuled my vision perfectly and I thank you for refining this.  100% support as is from me.  Sure it'll require more discussion and effort from the community but I see the final product as ideal and well worth it in the end.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  19:11, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

I like it, although it could of course still use some refining. Like, "a bare bones build template including only basic, necessary skills)"--does that mean no elites in the template unless required as part of the role (obviously you can't have a SS Necro without SS)? I'm all for that, it's just an example of something that should be specified. (One thing I never liked back when I was a newbie was that there are almost no builds [anywhere] that cater, for example, to getting through the Prophecies campaign, where you spend quite a bit of time [if you're not rushing] without access to elites or max armor. And the non-noobs aren't the ones that need a guide.) -- Peej 23:20, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, I think that is more a case by case decision. The kind of thing you are talking about could be part of a "tips" section, it could be part of the "variants" section.  I am not sure whether I should put this in the policy itself, but the idea is to give what is necessary to write a thorough, helpful guide, without creating a bloated page that isn't helpful due to its sheer length.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 23:23, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
 * "a thorough, helpful guide, without creating a bloated page"...
 * Do we have a distinction between bloated and just lengthy? ;) Are we trying to make a single page guide for each class or just for each role?  Because with 9 and counting roles for the ranger already, it's never going to be a small page if they're all together.  If we have one page per role instead of per class, will/can/should different classes that have the same role (aka farmer) be on one page ("Effective farming guide"), or whatever, or do we have "Effective warrior farming" and "Effective elementalist farming" and so on (currently there's a trapping guide separate from the effective ranger page, but it's a bad example because no one else has traps).
 * These seem like little details, but it makes it hard to get started if we don't at least have a general goal for what the end structure might look like in mind. -- Peej 12:16, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Ok, I tried to answer your questions on the policy page. Hope the added information answers your questions.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 04:10, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I think that covers what I can think of for now. My other ideas I guess are related more to the Profession Role Template / Style Guide than to the policy itself. -- Peej 08:22, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

Looks really good. I think it's simple enough that new players can read and understand what is going on with out overwhelming them with too much new information. Also I think it's a good prelude into specific profession guides that I think are a little bloated at the moment.... especially the monk guide. --Lania Elderfire 11:31, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

Guideline vs. Policy
Just to point out. This should be compatible with PNB and NOB, so, it is possible that rather than an actual "policy" per se, this should be more a guideline. I am not sure exactly how such a distinction should be made based on existing policy, so I am just opening up the floor for debate on the issue. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 23:23, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Sounds good as a guideline. Guides should always be stressed over specific builds. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 04:08, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

Poll
Should this be a policy or a guideline?

This should be a Policy:


 * 1) A collection of general archetypes (Runner, Spiker, MM, etc.) Listing professions, Secondaries, Useful attributes and Skills, and with a basic guideline to the concepts behind the archetype has far more potential, flexibility and encourages more innovation than any number of builds could. Supported completely. - Sunyavadin 13:04, 2 April 2007 (BST)

This should be a Guideline:


 * 1) This seems more like a guideline structure-wise, plus making it a policy would give it an odd sense of authority which wouldn't be good in this kind of thing. - -S ora267 [[Image:Spiteful_Spirit.jpg|19px]] 16:54, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

Profession Guide template
I started trying to work on one here. I think it still needs a lot of work. The more I look at it, the more it seems like we need to make a clear distinction between what is a role compared to what is an original build / role variant, but I'm not sure what the dividing factors are (some are more obvious than others, of course).
 * Seems like a good start although I would agree it needs a lot of work. Assuming this becomes a Policy, something like what you are writing could be introduced as the guideline much like the one about writing good builds.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 18:53, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

Also, I had another idea which is probably too much work and too hard to define: Team Guides, where you could just say "Take a team of Role X, Role Y, Role Z and use it this way" (focusing on the player interaction instead of having you try to process 64 skill icons on a single page), because a large part of the game does involve playing along with other people, which seems forgotten when focusing on specific roles/builds (for example, if you have a so-called Battery role on your team, that totally changes what you can do in terms of any other role's setup, since you don't have the same energy management issues). ;) -- Peej 09:31, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Well... I think I would agree that that is simply to hard/vague to implement. On the other hand, to take your example of a Battery Necromancer.  What you could do is write something in the "Tips" section on the "Effective Battery" page or whatever that: Casters in the party needn't worry as much about energy when a Battery is around.  That helps define the role of the Battery and also gives that sense of a role in team play as well.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 18:52, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

Dissent?
Aside from Warskull, everyone seems to think this would work well as a Policy or at the very least a Guideline. Are there any major criticisms? (This also counts as a Recent changes bump) Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 23:33, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 * A vote or a poll? -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 00:03, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Sorry... meant a poll.

I am gonna add a Poll to gauge people's feelings:

Poll
Should this be a policy?

Yes:
 * 1) As a guideline, yes. The "policy" should be something like PNB, which would contour to this guideline nicely. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 02:10, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * So is it safe to assume you would vote for "Guideline" in the above poll? Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 02:11, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Most likely. I'm waiting for good arguments to be brought up in favor or against; but my first-glance take on it is "yeah, it'll work." -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 02:31, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) Yes please. It doesn't replace anything though it helps ease the builds wipe thingy that's going on and it should help others to understand and create what is expected of their character profession commonly. --[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  07:41, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) Well, in regards to Sarah's comment below, yes I'd ideally prefer to still have build pages for PVE builds, but considering the direction policy is heading here (NOB), it seems something like this policy is our only option to maintain some form of PVE build guidance for new players. However even if the builds wipe was not happening I still think this is a good idea to improve the understanding of the roles each profession should perform. -- BrianG 11:08, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 3) Absolutely. GrammarNazi 00:45, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 4) Already said yes I thought... Readem (talk *contribs ) 22:08, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 5) As already said, it would help users understand what's expected of their character. –Ichigo724[[Image:Ichigo-signature.jpg]] 22:12, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 6) Yes yes yes!!! --Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 01:41, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 7) A collection of general archetypes (Runner, Spiker, MM, etc.) Listing professions, Secondaries, Useful attributes and Skills, and with a basic guideline to the concepts behind the archetype has far more potential, flexibility and encourages more innovation than any number of builds could. Supported completely. - Sunyavadin 13:06, 2 April 2007 (BST)

No: ]] 11:51, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) some playstyles do not blend well with abstract guides, and people will always clamor for more specific instruction. as cool as these articles would be (and are, if you count the effective guides) they're not a substitute for a solid build page. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 00:30, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Well.... this doesn't say to get rid of builds... in the implementation part it says that effective/well-known PvE builds will be kept. The idea is that original builds are going to be moved to the userspace anyways, this just allows for greater documentation.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 00:42, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) No --[[User:Sigm@|Sig mA
 * I struck this as per the user's request on his talk page: see . Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 23:28, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Clarification
Before too many people vote, can we highlight that this guide/policy does not preclude user space builds (and in fact even complements them quite nicely? -- Peej 11:20, 29 March 2007 (CDT)


 * If the current build section is going away, this seems like a good replacement on the PvE side. It still seems a little cloudy on the user space builds, though. I could use a little clarification. For example, I posted this D/N build back in January. It's a more esoteric build, and wouldn't be suitable for the Dervish Professional Role page, so it would go on my user page. I've got that. Now, is the PR page going to have links to every user Dervish build that exists, and if so, how will those be organized? This build was pretty "controversial", but was vetted. With no more vetting procedure, wouldn't a user build linking page have to include every build posted, and wouldn't that be more clutter than before?
 * Well... it would be cluttered, yes. What I would say is that we would probably have a Guide page and then a link at the bottom to a category page to which users could affix their builds.  Again, it would be cluttered, but it would have all the other benefits of NOB and PNB.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 23:26, 29 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Also, I posted the build here, but I got the bulk of it from a different forum - I certainly didn't create it, and never claimed to have done so. Would sticking a build on a user page be seen as a claim of authorship, or is that something each user would be in charge of clarifying?--Hee Haw 18:20, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I would say that the user would be responsible for clarifying that. <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 23:26, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

clarification, by request these guides would:
 * 1) not be a replacement to a build section:
 * 2) *the original author explains himself that these guides would be in addition to a (reduced) build section. the presense of any build section would encourage original builds, as most original builds are posted by people who do not read the policies here-in.
 * 3) not be able to cover many of the play styles expected of them:
 * 4) *the General minion mastery guide is an example of this style of role-guide, and it covers general MMing and a little bit of bombing, and it's MASSIVE! that's two playstyles in just under 50kb.
 * 5) *how many mesmers could fit into a guide like this? edenial, skill denial, interupting, snaring, degen, and 2^9th other mesmer off the wall playstyle guides.
 * 6) not specific enough to satisfy a new player who knows nothing of a particular play style.
 * 7) * explain 55ing to someone who's never held a monk before in 1 paragraph or less, to sufficent detail that they could farm gryphions on their own. and 55 monk is one of the simpler inverse playstyles.
 * 8) not be unique
 * 9) * the effective guides already do the easy bit of these articles, that is, explaining the basic play styles, and what remains cannot be covered easily by an article like this without becomming the monstrostity that is the GMMG
 * --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 23:49, 29 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I do think Sarah raises some good points here and I agree with some of the problems. I think we should be leaning towards doing a combined Build/Guide page for each specific role, similar to the General interrupter guide, rather than lengthy general guides like the minion master guide that cover multiple types of builds.  I also feel that the defined roles should be as specific as possible, such as "SS Necro" rather than "Curses Necro".  The appropriate roles can be decided by consensus in the profession guide discussions, much like any other parts of an article are decided.  If it is important enough to mention in the profession guide, then a build/guide would be created for it.  I also agree that there probably should not be a build section so to speak, but I don't see a reason why well written build/guides should not be allowed to exist in the article namespace.  I'm also hesitant to use userspace builds as the only example builds for a role.  Sure, link a role to a category of userspace variants of that role, but we still need to have skills, attributes, runes, and equipment specified in the build/guide.  In response to her comment "the presense of any build section would encourage original builds, as most original builds are posted by people who do not read the policies here-in", I definitely agree.  But if the builds are posted as a part of the article structure, I think it will be safe from this concern.  And we wouldn't have a ready made template that encourages people to submit "roles" and their corresponding build/guides.  They would evolve naturally within the article structure.  Anyway, let me know if this doesn't make sense and I'll try to explain better. -- BrianG 12:02, 30 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I think at this point we need to just try something. Like, pick one class, write up the profession guide for it (doesn't have to be complete and fully edited, just enough to be able to discuss what goes where, how much detail any particular section should have, etc.  Then we pick two roles from that profession, a general one (like a warrior tank) and a specific one (like SS necro) and make role guides for those (obviously those are bad examples since they're not from the same profession).  Then we'll at least be able to judge how similar a guide is to a build (it seems like they will overlap, the question is how much can they and how much should we let them), we can make a simplified user build template and see how easy it is to link a few current builds to the sample roles we've made, etc.  You can start with User:Peej/PRSG if you want, or just make someone new, just whoever starts it, let everyone know so we can all work on one together. -- Peej 13:05, 30 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Not sure I'll have the time myself or I'd do it right away so I'll make a suggestion. How about the Ranger with Interruption and Barrage.  Those are two roles that fit your criteria (general and specific) and have something started for them already as well as under one profession.  --[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  14:12, 30 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I agree Peej, good idea. I think Vallen is right, why not start with Ranger, since the interrupt and barrage articles are the closest things to what I was imagining.  I could imagine a similar format working for many other roles.  Give the general idea and then list optionals for more specific usage. -- BrianG 14:38, 30 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Peej, please see Effective warrior guide. it's been done. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 01:13, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Part of the implementation would be to rethink how those guides are written. <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 01:22, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I would think the role guides would be a lot more in depth than that... -- Peej 01:23, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
 * They would... that's the whole point. 01:29, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Ummmm, yeah thats kind of along the right line, the only problem being that it links to example builds in the builds section which are going to be deleted (the dragon spammer already has and there is a red link in that page). So this policy would allow for more generic example builds for more specific roles to be posted to the article space and linked to the profession guide. -- BrianG 14:59, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Problem with the effective warrior guide is that ultimately, it is trash. If I read that I do not come out knowing how to play warrior better.  You just kind of threw a bunch of random facts at me and no play real play tips.  I don't even know how most warriors spec after looking over that.  They guide can be summed up as "pick a weapon, put some skill from that weapon on your bar, throw some tactics skills on your bar to tank, and run around."  A player won't even understand the difference between a warrior who aims for DPS and a warrior who aims to tank. -Warskull 17:56, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
 * So I just read over the general minion mastery guide, and I'd say that's a very good example of what I pictured. Just about everything in there has a reasoning behind it; there are very basic starter skill sets with links to builds underneath; there is strategy given (not just "use these skills in this order"); there are charts to help show which attribute points can make you most effective.  Yes, it's a little bit long, but so what?  If you want to be an effective minion master, you can't just read up on 8 skills in a build and then say you know everything.  This isn't supposed to be a quick starter guide to minion mastery: if all you want is a quick build setup, you'd go to the links at the bottom and see the (eventually, user-space) builds.


 * Now, maybe you could argue that the type of person that would actually read all the way through a guide like this isn't likely to be the one that needs it, but that's a different problem. ;) -- Peej 08:27, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

Making this work
Done some thinking on how to implement things. I think the best way to do things would be to fragment the build section into PvE and PvP. PvP should be governed by a policy like No_Original_Builds with a focus on making the builds more guide like. Basically, taking the builds and cramming some useful information into them. For PvE take the profession guides, focus them better, and bring them slightly closer to a build. An effective necro guide is too big. PvE guides could be broken down into major archetypes and listed similar to the current build section. For example for monk you may have a "Farming Monk Guide", a "PvE Healer Guide", and a "PvE Prot Monk Guide." For necromancer instead of one big guide you would have "Minion Master Guide", "Blood Support Necro Guide", and a "Hex Necro Guide (your SS style stuff.)" Guides would need to be limited to what is popular (and reasonably effective) in PvE. A lot of people are going to want to post their PvE builds so there needs to be a minimum bar to stop this. Guides should be either in demand builds for groups or popular farming builds (stuff you see people asking about on forums ect. So monk farming, rit farming, and warrior farming would be big.  Some of the lesser known and more specialized farming variants like A/E shadow form/sliver armor boss farmers probably wouldn't be included (very specific applications.)  This does mean certain classes (particularly assassin) may get no PvE guides due to their low popularity.  People come to the wiki to find out how to run something they see people asking for though.  You'll also probably want a few people knowledgeable about PvE appointed to rule in on conflicts.  For example with my monk I converted two rangers into thumpers, my warrior into a dragonslasher, and massacred my way through PvE.  It worked, very well, but almost no one runs those style characters in PvE.  Thus if I insisted it should be included like the jerk I am, someone may need to rule in and say "It may or may not work, but no one in PvE asks for these things."

Furthermore, I think you don't need this policy to write the guides. A policy like this would be more for creating a PvE guides namespace and organizing the guides. You need to come up with a good way to organize them. I suggest by class. Make sure major character archetypes get their own article and not just a section of an "effective class guide." -Warskull 17:48, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Erm... yeah... that's the entire point of the policy.... you create separate guides for the roles of the profession... I really don't know what to say honestly because what you describe is the entire purpose of this policy/guideline. You get three types of guides, profession guides, "role"/archetype guides, and individual guides for successful builds, and yes, this was already a strictly PvE policy.  Yeah... what you wrote in the first paragraph is actually not a bad explanation of what we were already trying to do.  <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 22:19, 1 April 2007 (CDT)

Role, not profession, guides
I didn't read the suggestion or the discussion throughly, but it seems to be built on the guides for specific professions. However, I think that we should base the idea on role specific guides like a MM guide or a tanking guide as the roles are usually not tied to a specific profession. -- (gem / talk) 20:55, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't understand why people keep saying this.... the entire point is to make role guides. <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 21:55, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeah, I agree. Role guides are what we are going for.  I just think there should be a separate article for how each profession should perform that role.  One of the complaints about the general minion master guide is that it is too long and tries to fit in too much information.  There should be a "Ritualist Minion Master Role Guide", and a "Necromancer Minion Master Role Guide".  Just as there should be a "Warrior Tank Role Guide" and a "Dervish Tank Role Guide".  If I am a warrior trying to learn how to tank, the excess information in the article trying to cover all professions that can tank is just going to make it more overwhelming.  Thats why I think that in each profession guide, it should list all the roles that profession can perform, and a link to a guide article (possibly with specific build details like optional skills, equipment etc) for how that profession could perform that role.  I'm not sure if thats exactly what Defiant Elements has in mind, (and I think the policy still needs to be more specific about structure), but personally I think thats the most intuitive and organized way to set it up. -- BrianG 22:28, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Yes, that is correct. You know, maybe we should change the name of this page....Profession Role Guides? Just Role Guides? -- Peej 22:31, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Either is fine with me, they are Role Guides that would be located within the structure of the already existing profession guides. A name change might help clarify. -- BrianG 22:46, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeah that might be better --Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 22:47, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * So what should I move it to? <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 22:58, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Profession Role Guides, IMO. That'll keep the distinction that there can be a similar role for multiple professions. -- Peej 23:04, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Sounds good to me. I think another idea we should do is to start outlining each profession and what roles we will have, then start linking to documents or builds that might already be useable or could be improved into a role guide.  Then not only will people have a better understanding of what we mean, but we can also start planning the structure and the work that is needed. -- BrianG 23:26, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I've already started these, User:Peej/PRSG and User:Vallen Frostweaver/Project_Archive/Profession Roles/Roles. -- Peej 23:31, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Ahhh sweet. That second one is just what I mean.  Sorry, I must have missed that.  I was thinking we could put that right into this article, to help people get the picture, but it is kind of lengthy.  Any thoughts? -- BrianG 23:36, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * We can probably copy it to GuildWiki talk:Profession archetype guides/Roles and link it here now. I had linked it from the original proposal page. -- Peej 23:39, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Go right ahead. The one problem I can forsee is that the pages are somewhat incomplete at this point which could theoretically reflect badly on the policy if everyone went around saying how the list we had wasn't comprehensive or something.  <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 23:41, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeah perhaps add a disclaimer indicating that it is a work in progress, and that feedback is appreciated to discuss as a community what roles should be included and develop a full list. -- BrianG 23:44, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Copied. Don't link it until it's expanded a little more, if you don't want to, although who is gonna expand if no one sees it? ;) -- Peej 23:44, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Already added the disclaimer before I saw any of these comments. "Too Slow!" <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 23:45, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Linked to the main page. <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 23:46, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

User build template
I started something here. Ideally, these would categorize builds in the userspace, and a link could be added at the end (probably) of each role page to the "builds for this type of role". -- Peej 09:09, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Comments / guideline
I've made a subpage at Profession archetype guides/Guideline that is my interpretation of how a guideline article should be written. I think this idea has great promise, but I still don't think we're there yet.

For starters, if you want this to be a guideline, all references to builds policy should be removed. This guideline doesn't dictate other wiki policy. My proposed wording reflects this.

Secondly, there's a lot of confusion in your initial proposal about the differences between professions and roles. The title of the article certainly doesn't help. I've interpreted your goal to be very role-focused, and I've written my proposal to reflect that. I think that a role-focused proposal has more to offer. If you agree with my interpretation, I suggest moving this article to Role guides.

Thirdly, the listing of "acceptable roles" found on the Roles subpage is a very unwiki idea. People should be able to create articles on any role they think exists. We can then work as a team to refine that article into something great, merge it with another article when appropriate, or, in hopefully rare cases, delete the article because it's not useful. In no case should there be any "role ratification" process. However, such a role listing would be appropriate at, say, Role guide project, where you guys work together in a systematic way to create role guides for certain common roles. I strongly support starting such a project.

Finally, I've left off the topic of organization, because your proposal makes it too tied to profession. That's not really the point. We don't need a tree-like structure here. If I write, say, effective running guide, I should probably slap Category:Warrior roles, Category:Ranger roles, Category:Elementalist roles, and Category:Assassin roles on it, since those four professions make pretty good runners. Further, if somebody makes an article called effective ranger running guide, I'd put Category:Ranger roles and Category:Running roles on it. Finally, I'd probably make Category:Ranger roles a subcategory of Category:Profession role categories, and I'd make Category:Running roles a subcategory of Category:Role categories, or something like that.

(I suck at Guild Wars, and I have no idea who's good at running these days, as I'm sure I've made abundantly clear above.)

&mdash;Tanaric 13:14, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Tanaric, I want to respond in more detail but don't have time at the moment, but I at least want to clarify something quickly. If no consensus is achieved on what is considered a valid role, what will prevent people from making up a "role" just for the purpose of submitting an original build?  I could easily decide there should be an "Invincible Elementalist Tank" role just so that I can submit my invincible elementalist tank build. -- BrianG 13:21, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * If he writes a full, narrative article on it, I have no problem letting it stand. However, the information in the article must be accurate. My gut feeling is, because writing a guide is an awful lot more work than writing a build, idiotic things like that won't come up very often. &mdash;Tanaric 13:23, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I would say a sysop can make that distinction easily. I see no need to over complicate something as a "well-known" role in the game which should be common sense.  If something new develops then it can be discussed on talk pages. --[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  13:32, 3 April 2007 (CDT)