Category talk:Profession combinations

Something that just occored to me that if I was looking at various combinations of classes, it might be useful to see what sort of builds I could use with it. I have no idea how this would happen, but does anyone think that a 'tie in' of sorts with Builds might be a good idea, that links to possible builds with that profession combination? --AlexMax 23:50, 25 May 2006 (CDT)

Moved Comments
Sounds like a good move, so when any more are added, it'll self-update. Less work when future expansions come out. Good idea, whoever posted the tag. -Auron of Neon 01:34, 24 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Correction: good idea, skuld. -Auron of Neon 01:35, 24 May 2006 (CDT)

Just monk, mesmer and ranger to go but i'll leave those for now or recentchanges will become unusable ;) &mdash; Skuld  09:35, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

Delete list
W, R, Mo, N, Me, E, A, Rt, D, P

Warrior

 * Ranger
 * Monk
 * Necromancer
 * Mesmer
 * Elementalist
 * Assassin
 * Ritualist
 * Dervish
 * Paragon

Ranger

 * Warrior
 * Monk
 * Necromancer
 * Mesmer
 * Elementalist
 * Assassin
 * Ritualist
 * Dervish
 * Paragon

Monk

 * Warrior
 * Ranger
 * Necromancer
 * Mesmer
 * Elementalist
 * Assassin
 * Ritualist
 * Dervish
 * Paragon

Necromancer

 * Warrior
 * Ranger
 * Monk
 * Mesmer
 * Elementalist
 * Assassin
 * Ritualist
 * Dervish
 * Paragon

Mesmer

 * Warrior
 * Ranger
 * Monk
 * Necromancer
 * Elementalist
 * Assassin
 * Ritualist
 * Dervish
 * Paragon

Elementalist

 * Warrior
 * Ranger
 * Monk
 * Necromancer
 * Mesmer
 * Assassin
 * Ritualist
 * Dervish
 * Paragon

Assassin

 * Warrior
 * Ranger
 * Monk
 * Necromancer
 * Mesmer
 * Elementalist
 * Ritualist
 * Dervish
 * Paragon

Ritualist

 * Warrior
 * Ranger
 * Monk
 * Necromancer
 * Mesmer
 * Assassin
 * Elementalist
 * Dervish
 * Paragon

Dervish

 * Warrior
 * Ranger
 * Monk
 * Necromancer
 * Mesmer
 * Assassin
 * Elementalist
 * Ritualist
 * Paragon

Paragon

 * Warrior
 * Ranger
 * Monk
 * Necromancer
 * Mesmer
 * Assassin
 * Elementalist
 * Ritualist
 * Dervish

Profession Combinations; Take 2
Check the new profession combinations including Assassins and Ritualists in Category:Profession combinations and lift them to wiki levels. --Xeeron 22:10, 30 March 2006 (CST)

I'm finishing up on this task - most of it has been done over the last two months. --Ifer 9:07, 18 July 2006 (GMT)

with nightfall on the horizon, there are no fewer then 90 of these articles, most containing little or no useful information. consider Necromancer_Elementalist. can we start phasing these articles out? --Honorable Sarah 10:12, 25 July 2006 (CDT)


 * most of them I'd say yes. some (W/MO, E/MO, N/MO) are good and can stay, or mabye merged (with N/Mo Minion Master?) [[Image:ST47logo.jpg|User:ST47|50px]] (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I would support completely removing all combination articles (forward them to the secondary profession article), what they are is basically opinion articles on possible build combinations which are already covered in the builds section of the wiki. Whatever we decide to do with the worst of them needs to be applied to the rest. If we decide to keep them then the bad ones will need updating. --Draygo Korvan (Yap) 10:19, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I think we should get rid of them. Just move any useful information to a suitable place before deleting. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 10:23, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * this is one of those annoying "all-or-nothing" situations, i think. we either delete them all, scavanging whatever we can to place on the primary or secondary profession pages, or we bring them all up to code. personally, i'd rather not edit all 90 + Ch4 professions in 6 months. they're not even categorised so we can easily see them all. even deleting them is going to be effort. grr --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 10:25, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * fine. let's get to work. burn them. burn them all... [evil laugh]MUAHAHA[/evil laugh] [[Image:ST47logo.jpg|User:ST47|50px]] (talk) 10:30, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Personally, I'm not crazy about removing the articles unless there's a substitute found for any relevant useful information. I see two options:
 * re-write the articles, and include within them links to example build articles.
 * delete the articles, migrating any useful information to the core profession articles.
 * I disagree with doing a mass delete campaign until it's worked out all of what's being done. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:41, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Honestly, they all suck, and most everything is in a build article if it's important [[Image:ST47logo.jpg|User:ST47|50px]] (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm not opposed to deletion; but a decision by four users in the span of 15 minutes does not constitute a community concensus, and certainly not adequate time for other interrested parties to voice opinions. Deletion may very well be the best choice; but there's no need to rush it, and to allow time for others to look at it too. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:46, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Agreed. Most are pretty useless, but some have some good stuff worth considering in them. Just because there's a specific build that covers a few of these general points doesn't mean that it's OK to get rid of the general points - if I want an overview of something I'm not going to be looking at specific builds. --NieA7 10:52, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Yea, I don't like the idea of burying the useful bits in build articles. For the useful bits, we would need to repeat the same info in each build that covers the relevant combination.  Otherwise, a user could easilly miss the info.  Much better to place it either in the core profession article, or in combo articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:59, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * as zealous as 47 is, he's correct. i've not seen one article that offered anything beyond vauge advice about combinations that may or may not work, consider Ranger_Ritualist. all those weapon skills are next attack type, excepting brutal weapon, which is too expensive to maintain, and does not stack with enchantments. suggest we leave the delete tags sit for a few days and see how many other people comment here. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 10:49, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Actually, I'm also opposed to leaving the delete tags while the conversation takes place. If an admin sees the tag, and sees no conversation in the relevant article, they could easilly delete them while the conversation is still taking place here.
 * Again, I'm not debating the value of the articles, just the process here in making a mass deletion of 90 or so articles on a decision that had little time for input. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:54, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Also, keep in mind that these articles seem geared specifically towards first time players. I remember my first character, and being confused at to what would make a useful combination to start.  While these articles may seem useless to veteran players, some degree of the content in them should be maintained in a useful summary form to help guide first-time players in seeing how profession combinations can interract.  I really wouldn't expect a first time player to read as deeply as the build articles when they're just starting out, and really do not see that as a viable location for the useful bits from these.  If they're deleted, my preference would be that the useful notes be added to the profession articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:15, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * i'd think first time player would be reading the Category:Profession guides, since those are geared twords first time player. which reminds me, i need to go guilt teeth into getting his effective mesmer guide out. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 11:25, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Actually, those guides would also work as a place to move information about useful profession combinations. As yet, they don't contain that info; but if it were added it could work.  Perhaps rather than listing each combo within the guide, just insert a small section on what that profession adds if used as a secondary? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:37, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * After looking closer, the basic profession articles would be more likely to be viewed by first time players. The profession articles are linked via the Getting Started guide.  The Effective xyz Guides are not, and even mention in the very start that they are not for beginning players. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:41, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * i think before we divide the spoils of hidden information in these articles, we should find some first. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 11:49, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * They suck because you guys already know whatever's in it and very familiar with how the wiki works and that there are builds pages here. I didn't know about builds pages when I came here. I didn't know how best to take advantage of prof combinations when I started GW and would've much preferred suggestions, tips, and ideas than outright cookie cutter builds for me to just memorize, buy, and drag to my skill bar. The problem was that I didn't even know the existence of the combination pages. And I found those before I even found the guides. I think their visibility just needs to be improved. Or we can simply combine them into one combination article for each profession; I like Barek's idea of merging them into the profession article. The target readers for the profession article would be new players or those new to the profession. The effective guides on the other hand should be geared towards those already familiar with the profession and are just looking for more ways to play better. In any case, delete or not, there has to be a clear page or section that explains how all the profession combinations would or could work. Saying all the info is already in the builds pages is inaccurate. It's not like the builds pages are very friendly to newcomers to the game and the builds pages we have most certainly do not cover all possibilities, especially not untried ideas or concepts. --Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 22:23, 25 July 2006 (CDT)

Sandbox if it goes.. ;) &mdash; Skuld 11:01, 25 July 2006 (CDT)

I just left on vacation or I would still be working on the N/Rt and Rt/N pages. Personally, I'm sick of those Necros elitists lording their supposedly-superior MM skills over the Rits, and I need those pages as ammo. I want to keep them, for all of the above reasons. Those combination pages are all about possibilities, while the build pages are about certainties. There's need for both in this world. :) --BarGamer 23:16, 25 July 2006 (CDT)

Id say delete them. Detraya fullvear

I'm against deleting them. As someone who is still attempting to learn the vast possibilities of the game, the combinations articles have been very useful for giving me profession and skill combo ideas. They're easily my favorite part of the wiki. The build articles are about specific techniques, and that's fine, but as someone said above, the combinations articles are more about general, easy to understand, "you might like to try this" ideas. Also, I think they are good for encouraging people to try more offbeat combinations and to show that they can be worth playing. My first character was a melee Mo/W, and while that didn't work out as well as I would've liked, I had fun with it. -- Arshay Duskbrow


 * I support completely Barek's view on how this matter should be handled. "Fast deletion so noone can object" is not what the literal wiki stands for, and here it seems like Skuld had his shotgun ready mere 2 hours after the first posting. So please, give some time to discuss. After all, there are alternative to deletion.
 * I also like to support the argumentation of Ab.Er.Rant. I remember being very interested in these articles everytime I started choosing secondary profession. Maybe these articles weren't of high quality, but they gave an nice overview of my options. Build articles are not the same, they are by far more focused on the 	necessities of the build. Further, since Warrior Monk and the like are terms of the game, GuildWiki wouldn't be complete without a lemma of that name, maybe at least as a redirect to a section of the primary profession article, as Barek suggested.
 * There a sure lots of options other than plain deletion, so, please, keep a cool head and discuss first. And hands off from the shotgun, please, at least for a while. Thanks. --MRA 09:48, 26 July 2006 (CDT)

Wouldn't it make more sense to have secondary classes with the main ones? Have it's own section in the man article saying what skills work well together, builds for newbie players and general info about the playing styles it opens up. That way we lose 90 useless articles and instead gain 10+ (with more add ons) useful articles. After all keeping 1 article up to standard is much easier than keeping 10 of them. -- Astray


 * skuld was not involved here, except for his note about having them all queued in case the decision was delete, and the delete tags certainly served to raise the visibility of this discussion, which is their purpose (as opposed to simply deleting articles and leaving people to wonder what happened).
 * the specific issue is not with the articles worth as a concept, but as the articles worth as implementation. consider Ranger Mesmer. there is no information on this page that is not better housed on the Ranger or Mesmer profession pages, and the single line "choose Mesmer secondary for additional interrupt skills" on Ranger could eclipse the whole of the combination article in terms of usefulness to new players.
 * people ask in guild chat "what secondary should i choose for my X". invariably, my response is monk or ritualist. if you don't have a specific need for the skills of a secondary profession (say, you've a build you wish to try) then the only benefit from secondary is repeatable res.
 * at least one person commented on these pages being more useful in understanding professions then "cookie-cutter" builds. we're working on that, consider the profession guides. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 10:22, 26 July 2006 (CDT)

Chiming in to say that I'm a fan of the combination descriptions. I like reading what kind of combos people come up with. For example, I saw an Elementalist Assassin in TA, a quick read of the wiki later and I knew what I was probably up against, and how to counter it. If some people don't like them, then don't read them, but I think they're a good place to store general (rather than build specific) synergies between the professions. The only sensible suggestion that I've seen so far is integrating these descriptions into the primary profession articles, although I think this will bload them a little. I will be quite sad if they go, especially as it is just the elitist players who tend to take part in these discussions. --Immure 14:42, 26 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Likewise, I feel the same. I think Astray has a good idea. We change it into 10 articles (one for each prof) with 9 subsections rather than 90 articles. It's easier to manage, compare, and especially add to/edit since we'll be expecting another 2 profs each campaign. If we keep it as is, it'll be 132 (12*11) articles by the campaign 4, versus 12 articles. We can keep the main pages on each primary profession as standalone, since they look so nice and just have a "combo" page linked in it. If we have 10 pages to edit, it's much easier to concentrate effort. And don't attack the articles simply because they don't have much in them. Yes they suck but any article would suck if no one worked on it. The state of it now agreeably makes it hard to work on so no wonder there are a bunch that have little information on them.
 * I like these pages, in general, because most people are not going to look for specific builds when comparing secondary profs, but rather tactical stuff and general combos, or just ideas to give some inspiration. I think players will enjoy playing and tweaking a build they make on their own rather than a great build somebody just told them.
 * The profession guides are very nice and well written but they tend to focus on how to play the primary. True, they aren't yet complete and some pages even lack a secondary profession section but it's a work in progress. But it wouldn't hurt to have a "combo" page. The guides are extensive but are beginning to become fairly long. I'm not saying it wouldn't work but basically, we shouldn't throw these pages away without using them in some way. --Vortexsam 02:10, 27 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I am definately against full-out deletion of these articles. Even now, when I'm starting out a new RP character, I browse through the pages looking for interesting possibilities. I would however, be open to merging these articles into the profession pages as a major subsection. I personally much rather getting some general ideas from the wiki as opposed to fully-made builds. - Lord Ehzed 09:15, 27 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I also like Astray's idea of having 1 page per (primary) class that lists all the different secondary combinations. New players that are wondering about the advantages of different secondaries can use it as a quick reference without having to flip between several articles.  --Spot 13:02, 27 July 2006 (CDT)

My apologies if I'm editing this incorrectly, but I've not done terribly many edits (except for Senji, and the Orosen's Staff articles), and I would be inclined to agree with many of the posters here - Perhaps it would be best if the Primary/Secondary articles be merged onto the Primary class pages, perhaps at the bottom of the page? That way, no information need be lost, and we may still reduce the number of pages required. Perhaps have the Primary/Secondary sections on the Primary class page suggest ways to play, and have links to Tested PvE builds? (since PvP players can find their own build easily enough, but trying to find a build that is both Tested and PvE isn't so easy without loading each page...) 124.178.195.199 23:24, 27 July 2006 (CDT)


 * When desiding on what I'm going to do with a new character I look on these and see what apeals to me the most, then I crouse through the skills and create a build. They have affected 3 of my builds in a positive way (none in a negative) and an bad tips can be ironed out. These are the first thing I look at and are much quicker than sifting through redy made builds (which creates a lack of origionality). Please leave them alone or give them there own section (guides prehaps). Sir On The Edge

I've found these articles very useful while trying to decide on a secondary profession for my characters. There just isnt enough builds listed on guildwiki to decide on which profession combination suits a player the best. I would suggest either keeping this section, or doing a major buff up of the builds section, adding at least one build of each combination so visitors can understand what their specialized combinations can achieve. There is a wide range of options while customizing your character, and Guildwiki should reflect that with a description of these options. Not everyone comes here to read up on uber items and quest walkthroughs. New players will visit guildwiki looking for help deciding on their secondary class, and what better way to help them decide than to show them all of their options? --69.231.139.182 23:16, 28 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I've been playing GW for a little bit over a year and I still find these articles to be extremely helpful when starting a new character. Granted, I don't tend to actually USE skills from my secondary, but these articles help give me ideas, and could also help inspire new effective builds. I vote NO DELETE. &mdash; Amontillado[[Image:Amontillado.png|23px]] (T/C) 18:50, 29 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I still find it amusing that the Explosive Creation build, for one, uses mostly skills from it's secondary. XD--BarGamer 19:31, 29 July 2006 (CDT)

I like having the profession combination information. When it's done properly, it's very useful for new players or people looking at a new primary profession. Yes, the current pages leave a lot to be desired, but they could be greatly improved. People look at these pages for:

1) comparative information about the strengths and weaknesses of secondaries. Here, people are choosing a secondary, and are looking for what a secondary brings to help the primary, roles the combination can play (builds), and skill combinations.  This implies that it's best to have all secondaries on the same page.

2) comparison of a class combination: e.g. R/W versus W/R. In this case the issue is which class's primary attribute and armor helps the most. The reader has a specific combination in mind.  This argues for putting each combination on a separate page, so the reader doesn't have to page through the whole class page to get to the needed information.

3) exploring what their class combination can do. These people are looking for more advanced information about roles, skill combinations and builds, and might best be served with links to builds and teams.

Having the information on combinations on the main profession page will make the main profession page very unwieldy, since there is lot of information, and more with each new profession. Since most of the people looking at the combination pages will fall in the first case, I think a single page with all secondaries is best. Each secondary discussion should have a link to the 'flipped' pair - the R/W section a link to the W secondaries page, for example. --Daulnay


 * seems like Daulnay has summed this up rather well. so we create Secondary professions for Warriors, in this category, and move all the Warrior Blank Articles into it, and leave the old Warrior Monk and similar as redirects until we can unlink them. sounds like a good plan, what's required to proceed? --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 17:26, 30 July 2006 (CDT)

The old Profession combination posts were pretty unstructured. Just reworked Ranger_Warrior, as an example. Each Profession combination section should have, at a minimum:

can be very useful. For others, like Mo/E, it's completely unhelpful.
 * How useful the Primary attribute is for the Secondary skills. For some, like R/W and Me/Mo, the Primary


 * Comparison of the relative benefits of Primary armor vs. Secondary armor. This will mostly be AL and energy management.


 * Key builds that will not work with the opposite Primary/Secondary pair (e.g. Bunny Thumper).


 * Common/popular builds.


 * Useful skill combinations.


 * Useful skills from the Secondary.

Looking at the length of what I wrote, seems like a single page with all secondaries might get pretty long. Then again, it might not since some of the combinations will not have much. It also looks like there would be a lot of duplicate stuff: each pair of professions will have many of the same skill combinations and builds. Would we want to duplicate that for each Secondary combination page?

Perhaps it would be better to have a single page discussing each pair of professions?

Combinations as Categories
I would love to see profession combinations transformed into categories. This way, builds could be automatically listed, which is - at least for me - the most important information about a specific combination. I always choose my classes for coolness and the looks and then search for possible builds to get tips and hints from. 212.202.6.243 06:59, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

Next Steps
As there seems adequate support to keep these, I believe that for now the delete tags should be removed until a course of action is planned; or at the very least changed to being a merge tag to propose merging into consolidated articles. If a consolidated article is used, how would it be best to name/organize it? I'm think an article like "Monk secondaries" that lists potential benefits of each other profession when used as a secondary to a Monk primary. Opinions? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:28, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Seconded. Either that or "Monk secondary professions", though the latter could be a tad too long. &mdash; Galil  18:31, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I would've thought we'd be better off having pages which cover the secondary professions by primary (eg Secondary professions for Warriors, Secondary professions for Necromancers etc), rather than a page which lists the benefits for every primary profession of a specific secondary profession - that seems slightly counter intuitive, secondary is subordinate to primary by definition so why sort by secondary? Plus if we did it by primary we'd have a simple page to link to from the main profession page. --NieA7 03:29, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Ummm, who proposed an article by secondary? No idea where that came from. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:44, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
 * You did. Or rather you didn't - I took what you wrote to mean you wanted an article detailing combinations possible with Monk as secondary profession, rather than secondary combinations for a primary Monk :p --NieA7 09:15, 1 August 2006 (CDT)