Talk:Attribute point spending

restrictions are nonsense
nonzeros below 4 make sense! Try Drider's Defenses with 3, sprint and blood ritual with 4, Balthazar's Aura, Life Barrier, Guardian with 6... and you find a lot of use for the 3 in 12 12 3 builds. You can not include 12 12 3 and exclude 12 9 9 3 no more than one nonzero attribute is below 8, what a bullshit exclusion. 12 10 6 6 is one of the best combinations, mesmers like it! "total levels" makes no sense unless its hard for you to sum up to 5 numbers. "leftover points" is a waste of space. --Ollj


 * The restrictions were for filtering out the useful info to be less subjective and succinct enough to be readable. They don't mean that other builds aren't viable (I'd avoid that distinction..).  12 12 3 and 12 9 9 3 were trivial to arrive at (from 12 12 +6 and 12 9 9 +6) in the same way that your version doesn't allocate the last 5 remaining points. 12 10 6 6 could be covered by listing it as one of "other popular allocations". --Rezyk 03:18, 7 Oct 2005 (EST)

looks atm quite good, now an over all same wide of the cells would look cute --HJT 00:58, 7 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Sorry, but imho *all* the tables have to go. Listing all possible combinations of attributs for 3,4,5 or 6 skill lines is mathematical fingerwaving without any value to the reader. Either we dare to suggest a few (as in 3 to 5) combinations that we (subjectivly) think are good, or we dont list the combinations at all. At the moment there is no information on the page, just tons of numbers to get lost in. --Xeeron 09:53, 7 Oct 2005 (EST)

I'm putting up a version of the old table updated to address the recent changes and mentioned issues without blowing everything up. (I didn't see much reason to split up the table though) See what you think. --Rezyk 11:15, 7 Oct 2005 (EST)

Just a note: There's a complete guide available on GWG (http://www.guildwarsguru.com/content/attribute-point-distribution-id270.php) that illustrates the kind of insights available by scrutinising attribute spreads. Maybe that will help crystallise what this page is meant to convey. -- Serps 12:08, 7 Oct 2005 (EST)

My opinion
I'd like to add my voice to those who believe this page is a load of Charr doodoo, and if there are none, I'd like to pioneer. :) It is worthless to the user. By opening the Hero Status window and clicking the little up and down arrows, the user can see all this for himself (there are no refund point restrictions).

Think about turning this page into explaning what those different combinations mean or what they CAN do. For example, for an Air ele, 12 in Air magic is a great idea. The damage is raised so much more. But 12 in Energy storage is useless. an Air ele with a +12 focus item (or +10 staff) and air attunement NEVER runs out of energy. Now, don't get caught up in my example, think along the same lines, what are good uses/combinations for each set of distribution models? A nuker definitely needs 10+ in their "nuking" attribute. A defensive tank needs no more than 9 in their weapon attribute (just to satisfy the requirements of the weapon if even that).

Otheriwse, the only cleanup this article could use is deletion. --Karlos 15:17, 7 Oct 2005 (EST)

Derf. I'd like to point out my last edit, while harmless, was also accidental (though I'm still working on the page). I hit return accidentally (which saves the page, but I never save it that way, I always use the buttons). Whoops. --JoDiamonds 10:31, 31 October 2005 (EST)

New edit
While I like the text before the TOC, I don't particularly like the new tables or removing the "restrictions" list that described why we only have the given combinations and not all of them. Not that I liked the old table much, but I think it presented the numbers in a better way, mainly through compactness. --Fyren 15:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Attempted Some Cleanup
I like the idea of this page, in fact I found it because I had specific questions that it helped to answer. However, some of the terminology used, in particular the words "Null point" in the tables, made no sense. I changed some bits of the language to hopefully make it clearer. I'd hate to see this page deleted, I think it's useful even if still a bit confusing. - HarshLanguage 20:18, 5 November 2006 (CST)