GuildWiki talk:Role guide project

Discussion
Another issue is how to pick an initial setup for each role. My vote is to go for ease of use: the easiest viable build you can create for a role should be the one on the profession page. This includes at the very least play difficulty (builds that require very precise timing aren't a good choice except when it is absolutely required, such as for interrupters), versatility (a general build should always be favored over a location/enemy-specific, if possible), and skill set (1-campaign builds being favored over multi-campaign builds, again except where required, such as for Touch Ranger). Of course, this also ties into another idea I had...I'll go write that up now. :) -- Peej 08:45, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I think you are thinking through this slightly incorrectly. We aren't going to be favoring builds or anything.  The whole point is that we make a guide.  So, that guide contains a bare bones build with the essentials and then just does a walkthrough of other options for that role based on different professions, different elites, etc.  But I don't think we want this to be a compilation of builds, strictly a guide.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 18:07, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * No, what I mean is, whoever starts the guide will need some build to put in for each of the roles, right? That build needs to come from somewhere, and the "favoring" I meant is really just "don't put really hard to use builds in the guide" essentially. ;) -- Peej 18:31, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

What's a "spirit wrangler?" 18:04, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * That's a good question - I don't have any idea either. Sounds like a failed Jeep model. :pGrammarNazi 10:29, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * From the Effective ritualist guide, a Spirit Wrangler is: "A ritualist focused on managing offensive spirits. This is probably what you want to focus on if you like doing damage, but don't want to tank. Some good spirits to take are Pain and Bloodsong, along with Dissonance, Shadowsong, and Anguish. Painful Bond can easily increase the damage of your spirits, and Spirit Boon Strike will do damage to your enemies while boosting your spirits' HP. A few healing skills can be taken as a complement." Although there's not much detail, that page attempts to explain the difference between a Wranger and a Spammer. -- Peej 10:52, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Runners
Technically, all classes can run decently. Necros are the only class that must use 2nd prof skills to actually get run boosts. With a refined build and lots of practice, I think any class can run tough stuff like droks. Of course it's much easier for a tank to run droks than a necro, but it's possible. --8765 09:46, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

Multi-profession roles
I'd list them separately, because (as someone else said), a Warrior Tank guide will/should be much different than a Dervish Tank guide (except for the basic overview part). -- Peej 23:50, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Well... at the very least we need an overarching tank or runner or farming guide to cover the basics. Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 23:51, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Why? Cut and paste the overviews, if you're that lazy. ;) -- Peej 23:52, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

No profession at all if posible
I would suggest reformatting the whole guide list so that the guides are not profession specific at all if possible. Many of the guides are non-profession specific, such as 55hp, minion master, runner, interrupter, etc. It would be rather stupid to divide the 55hp for example in 55hp monks, 55hp mesmers and 55hp ritualists as the basics for all three guides would be the same. Ofcourse there are profession specific roles, for example trapper and hammer warrior, and that's perfectly okay, but we should get rid of the idea to divide everything according to professions. It's all about the roles themselves which sometimes can be executed by multiple professions, sometimes can't. -- (gem / talk) 02:50, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * That does make sense and can help mitigate the need for more articles but in the case of something like 3 professions that can 55 a single article that is copied into each I think should still be fine. Duplication, sure, but I don't want to have to go to another page to find out about this role I want to learn about, say a Mesmer, when I'm already learning about a Mesmer's roles.
 * Now if they are all listed by links (click on the role name to learn about it for example) then it's easy enough to have all applicable professions link to the same spot but then you have to ensure the article is appropriate for all professions that link to it. Then you need to make sure you aren't being too general.  The article itself may have an extra sentance or two that explains the minor difference between a Monk 55 and a Mesmer 55 etc. --[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  08:05, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * My reasoning for splitting them on the profession archetype page is: if you're a ranger, and you want to know about being an interrupter, you want a page that will tell you to put points in marksmanship and to use a fast bow and to use favorable winds for the speed bonus, etc, that kind of thing. You don't want to read through 10 professions worth of skills, attribute spreads, and strategy to find it.  Mesmer hex interrupts and ranger bow interrupts achieve the same result, but are implemented differently.  For general role info (such as "what is a minion master?") we have pages like this one. -- Peej 08:36, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I agree that multi-profession roles should have a general page describing the role, with links to more detailed, profession-specific articles (e.g. the General minion mastery guide would be more useful if split into several articles). --Qrystal 15:14, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I already responded on the main project page discussion but as it relates to this issue I'd like to put it here too. The whole idea is to make the role guides very specific, similar to a build page, right down to equipment suggestions, runes, and possibly a partial skillbar with optionals similar to the barrage and interrupt guides that Vallen wrote. For a new player, it would be too confusing and unnecessary to try to cover these specific details for multiple professions in one article (and that is one of the complaints about the more general guides such as the minion master one). Not only that, but it would be irrelevant most of the time, as most of the people who will be needing these role guides will only need information specific to one profession.  If a new player wants to learn how to build a 55 monk, including armor, equipment, and rune details, having all those details for 3 different professions is unnecessary.  Any information that would apply to all professions for that role can easily be copied from one guide to the next. -- BrianG 15:46, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Having copied information in multiple articles doesn't work because it might be changed in one, but not in the other. My opinnion is that the guide pages should have all information that is not profession specific. Everything proession specific would be in a build article. Ie there would be a 55hp tanking guide, then there would be a 55hp monk, a 55hp rit and a 55hp mesmer build which list the possible skill variations, specific tactics etc. The build articles should also be far more larger than currently. They should not be based on one single build. Instead it should be more towards a guide which includes a list of skill possibilities, tactic possibilities etc. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 17:14, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * We can simply create a project to achieve a goal of widespread consistency checks if there ever comes a time when these Role pages need substantial, verbatim copy work done; based on this easy solution, Gem, as well as the unlikelihood of such a circumstance occurring, copying is not a significant issue with respect to time or effort, though I do see how you could see things that way.
 * As far as making broad guides that encompass several professions under one page (say, a 55hp tanking guide), this would cause an information location problem. Let me give you an example by comparison to show you why I feel that your recommendation would not help the Wiki.
 * Imagine that you're sitting in a doctor's office, about to have a specific procedure (among several possible procedures) for a condition you have. The doctor hands you a document that contains information about your condition, as well as all the possible procedures for this condition (not just the procedure you're about to have).
 * If the Roles were to be organized by broad umbrella categories as you suggest, your proverbial patients would be required to sift through irrelevant information unnecessarily. It would make a lot more sense to simply give them a document about their specific condition and procedure, would it not? :) GrammarNazi 18:18, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Okay, I added a section for multi-profession roles, just so we could better evaluate which option makes more sense. For a role that is filled by 2-3 professions, I can understand merging them, but I just get this feeling that something like "Farming Guide" could get bigger than massive, since any profession could probably fall into that role, and especially if it's not limited to solo farming.... -- Peej 08:25, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * A 'farming guide' is far too general in any case, so let's just ignore that. :)
 * GrammarNazi, in a wiki it is generally held really bad to have the same information in many places. it will cause false and contraversial information after changes to the game or the meta-game. I don't see how anything that should go in the 55hp guide would not be usefull to someone who wants to be a 55hp monk. He reads the basics in the 55hp guide and then moves to the 55hp monk guide which explains the stuff in more detail, but doesn't have to go through the basics of 55hp such as using 5 sup runes, PS and regen. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 09:57, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Gem, I understand that the situation you describe is distinctly un-Wiki, but the chances are unlikely that these pages will run into a substantial amount of information duplicated in the first place, if any at all, when separated and individualized as the author of the policy originally intended.
 * If a general 55hp guide is created as you suggest, is that not in itself a reiteration of information that will be contained in the more specific guides to follow on the same page? Additionally, if a page containing all forms of 55hp concepts is created instead of simply defining what a 55 concept is and providing links to specific Professions, we the contributors bank on an assumption - an assumption that the users won't mind filtering through other Professions before they reach their own.
 * I feel that if we adopt the strategy you describe, we will provide a document with much higher potential for confusion and decreased usability than the situation calls for. GrammarNazi 10:20, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * One possible implementation that follows both your arguments and mine, Gem, would be to categorize multi-Profession Roles in Ascending order of specificity; that is to say, starting from General and moving to Specific. By using this method, we would be able to give a brief description of what each branch's concepts are without having to rehash information. For example: Farming > General Farming//Boss Farming//XP Farming > (Professions) > (Specific avenues Professions can take). GrammarNazi 10:28, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

B/P?
Yes, I'm a newb... I had to look up what B/P means. I just wanted to mention for the sake of saying it that it would be really nice if full names could be used in this list, especially to set the precedent for when other people add things to it. --Qrystal 15:08, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Role vs Role implementation
How do we account for the fact that a 55monk (implementation) most likely is a Tank (role) or a Farmer (role) (or worse, both ;)? It makes me think that anything we think of as a big multi-profession role is probably not a role at all, but just part of the game. For example: Farmer isn't really a role of a profession, it's just a style of play (same for Runner). We wouldn't necessarily call it a role guide any more than you could say any particular profession is suited to the role of Merchant because they can sit around and sell stuff in town. I would say a 55 is a specialized type of tank, since they basically have the same goal of taking hits while not dying. Does that mean all 55 info should be in the tank guide? Possibly so, but this reaffirms my belief that guides should be separate per profession (you don't hear much about 55-warrior tanks, or non-55-monk-tanks). If we have a lot of duplicated information in the 55 guides (for example), it probably means we should put it into the 55 glossary page, and have a link at the top of the 55 guides for "general 55 information" or something. -- Peej 09:08, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Farming is definitely not a role in itself as you can farm in a zillion ways. I'm all against a 'farming guide'. Instead let's have guides for different roles that can farm like a 55hp guide etc. I think you're making this more complicated than necessary. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 10:00, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The key term used in the policy is effective farming. While there are in fact many ways to farm, there are only a handful that truly dominate above all others for each Profession. Trapping, 55hp, Sliver-Armor, Vengeful Was, etc. GrammarNazi 10:24, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The build section as it is setup now is organized into farming builds, running builds, etc. Regardless of whether the builds in those sections are any good, it does seem like a categorization that shouldn't be thrown away. -- Peej 10:49, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The categorisation may remain as it is, ie there would be a farming category (see my idea on the category listing at GW:NOB). However, 55hp etc are all different roles, not a single 'farming' role. There is no point in gathering 55hp, trapping etc in one single guide, but in different guides that are categorised. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 12:04, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
SMITING!&mdash; Cheese Slaya  ( Talk ) 22:56, 4 April 2007 (CDT)