Talk:Builds/Archive 3

From GuildWiki

Contents 1 Name of the "good build" category 2 Guildwiki testing guild! 3 Change rate of featured build 4 Untested Section 5 Uncle Xeer wants YOU 6 "Guildwiki" guild ad 7 Skill update template 7.1 Which builds still need the template 8 Templates 8.1 See Also 9 Untested falling! 10 In-Game skill/item Templates 11 Premade section 12 Hero Builds/Teams 13 Campaign tags 14 Lower-level Arena Builds? 15 where should I add a new build? 16 Template code 17 Featured Policy 18 Alternate optional slot icon?

[edit] Name of the "good build" category

Since there was not a huge response over at Category talk:Tested builds, let me ask here again: How do people feel about renaming Category:Tested builds to Category:Favored builds. In my mind, favored would be clearer and more consistent, but renaming would involve a huge crusade with 100s of edits and rewrites, so it is not really worth it if the majority does not care (or even prefer tested). --Xeeron 08:14, 6 October 2006 (CDT)

I gotta agree: "tested" is a bit misleading. Even the unfavored builds are "tested" to a certain degree. Dividing the builds into "favored" and "unfavored" makes more sense. "Vetted" is also another possibility. — Luobailong (talk|contribs) 08:43, 6 October 2006 (CDT)

Favoured would be a good idea, I never understoof unfavoured and tested anyway — Skuld 08:55, 6 October 2006 (CDT)

Sure, I'd have no problems with that crusade. I don't really care about the name though, but if that is what people want... ~ Nilles (chat) 09:03, 6 October 2006 (CDT)

Doesn't make much odds, but favoured is a more accurate discription than tested. --NieA7 09:19, 6 October 2006 (CDT)

We already have unfavored, to it will be favored, too. I dont care about A vs E english, but it should be consistent and changing to E english would mean twice the edits. --Xeeron 09:47, 6 October 2006 (CDT)

I know. It just bugs me seeing English spellings being flagged up as spelling mistakes :p --NieA7 09:51, 6 October 2006 (CDT)

Yes please. Kessel 09:21, 6 October 2006 (CDT)

This could be easily accomplished with a bot of some sort. — Jyro X 07:36, 17 November 2006 (CST)

[edit] Guildwiki testing guild!

→ Moved to User:Not a fifty five/Testing Guild

[edit] Change rate of featured build

Upped this to 7 days. Rationale: The featured build (not the current featured build for immediate evaluation!) should only include the truely great builds and given lengthy exposure. If any part of the wiki will lead people to run better builds on their characters, it is this one, so we should allow more people to see each build. --Xeeron 16:25, 12 October 2006 (CDT)

And the featured untested build was originally designed to select the oldest builds with disputed opinions and have them evaluated as soon as possible. Please don't change it unless the build has been fully evaluated. =) — Rapta (talk|contribs) 22:47, 16 October 2006 (CDT)

What with the vast number of untested builds I think it might be a good idea if we feature more than just one untested build - maybe 2 or 3, just to try and get exposure for good builds that are otherwise abandoned? --NieA7 04:00, 18 October 2006 (CDT)

Sounds feasible to me. I know I'd like to look at more than one when I go to the builds page. Might even be a good idea for the Featured Untested Build too. I won't vote on something I can't test or am not knowledgeable about and sometimes that is what's being voted on. Best to give a little more selection and maybe speed the voting for a bit maybe (referring to recent influx of builds submited - which will only increase with NF coming out)? Vallen Frostweaver 06:50, 18 October 2006 (CDT)

The problem is that by adding more and more "featured" builds, you devaluate the value of being featured at the same time. Right now we have 3 "featured" builds (one of them is still very new, and we might discuss whether it makes sense to feature an unfavored build), I would hesitate to put any more on the builds portal. --Xeeron 06:59, 18 October 2006 (CDT)

Whoa, totally missed that Unfavored build listing - when did that get there? Anyway, so it makes sense to limit the featured vetted build for the prestige and reverence it may be held in but I see a lot of complaints about people not voting on untested builds lately and I think adding a couple (maybe 3 total max) to be voted on might make sense to give them more attention for voting as well as help speed the vetting/deletion of builds. If the selection gets smaller then we could easily bring it back to one. As it is though, for an example, if there's a Necro build up there I won't vote on it since I don't have or play a necro (and very limited skills unlocked for that profession). Whereas, if there was 2 or 3 builds up for voting then I would have a greater chance of being able to vote/comment on it properly (as I have one of all the other professions BUT Necro). Not that I don't go searching through the builds to vote/comment but I think this may help those that don't go searching through the untested list. So what do you think of that then? Vallen Frostweaver 07:19, 18 October 2006 (CDT)

I don't really see the point of having a featured unfavoured build (we're trying to reduce numbers, not increase them with zombie builds), but I'd certainly like to see three builds from untested listed on the front build page. --NieA7 17:43, 18 October 2006 (CDT)

If nobody objects to removing the featured unfavoured and adding a couple more featured testing I'll do it in a day or two. --NieA7 03:21, 23 October 2006 (CDT)

Go go gadget NieA7. I'm fine with that so here's some support. Vallen Frostweaver 09:58, 23 October 2006 (CDT)

Well, eliminating the featured unfavored category is good for minimizing the size of the Untested category, but the goal of the whole build section is maximizing the number of Tested builds. A single untested build doesn't create much disruption, and it at least offers some failsafe against unfairly Unfavored builds. I'd be surprised if there were a lot, though, so one featured Unfavored is a good balance. I agree that increasing the number of Featured Untested is an excellent idea. --Chris with Lime 24 October 2006, 17:18 (CDT)

I don't have a problem with featured untested per se, removing the featured unfavoured is more in response to Xeeron's comment about losing effectiveness due to having so many featured things that they're no longer an eye catch. --NieA7 12:44, 24 October 2006 (CDT)

Well, 3 untested builds on display are more of an eye catch for me and so much nicer than looking at the mass of almost 500 on the untested link. I'm still in support of more untested builds being featured for voting with ya NieA7. Just to show others, isn't this a much better eye catch? Vallen Frostweaver 13:13, 24 October 2006 (CDT)

Miscellaneous builds Premade builds - the premade, ready-to-play PvP builds available in the create-character menu, detailed and explained. Untested builds - new builds that have not yet received sufficient testing to warrant upgrading to tested status. Featured Untested Build for immediate evaluation: R/A Lyssan Fangs A/N Example Build A E/Rt Example Build B Build stubs - brand new, or otherwise incomplete builds that need more work before they are ready for general testing. You can help! Unfavored builds - builds that have fallen out of grace, either through inefficiency or that have fallen into disuse because of nerfs. Maybe you can still find inspiration among the debris. Featured Unfavored Build that may need reevaluation: Build:A/Mo Displacement of Purity

The rate of change for the features untested build was changed from 3 days (or once there has been a verdict) to once there has been a verdict on the old build alone. That has a big disadvantage: Builds might become featured that noone wants to test or noone can test. These would linger in featured forever, blocking the slot for builds that better deserve the attention. --Xeeron 04:28, 25 October 2006 (CDT)

When was that done, why was it done and where was it discussed before hand? --NieA7 05:40, 25 October 2006 (CDT)

Oh and I put featured unfavored build in for people to spot light a build they put a positive vote on while it was in unfavored, otherwise people will likely not even notice and it'll just rot there. Makes much more sense than featured untested build anyways, considering people look more frequently there. (Not a fifty five 03:57, 26 October 2006 (CDT))

Just as a note, and something that I have noticed, is there any rule dictating who changes the "Featured Untested Build for immediate evaluation"? The reason I ask is because it states "For immediate evaluation", yet twice now I have seen a brand new build popping up there. While I suppose this is an easy way to get a new build into the spotlight, it is hardly "Needing immediate evaluation" especially when some of the builds have been sitting untested for a while now...O_o --Raynejarre 17:27, 1 November 2006 (CST)

We now have 5 untested builds for immediate evaluation, to be honest it's starting to look a little daft. Did we ever come up with a set figure for the number to be featured? --NieA7 11:59, 16 November 2006 (CST)

I think its fair to have quite a few on display, as many testers cannot cover all professions, having multiple untested builds is a good idea. --Getalifebud 16:52, 16 November 2006 (CST)

When I changed the number of Featured Untesteds on the Builds page, I only upped the count to three. I guess I assumed that people would actually read the Talk page and not just assume it was alright to go and feature their own builds in addition to the three already featured, but it seems that was what happened anyway. Despite this setback, I feel that only featuring one untested build every three days is a little ineffectual, while three is a good middle ground between too much and too little. The addition of a direction to keep the number of Featured Untesteds at 3 could serve to avoid what happenened earlier. --Chris with Lime 13:15, 18 November 2006 (CDT)

The current build has been there for ages, since very few people can test a team build

Ages? Not really but then that's a matter of perspective so I won't say more on that, but you are correct that it is difficult to test something of that caliber in most cases and I see your point.

I would like to suggest that to further the 3 Untested builds format idea that we choose 3 different kinds. 1 misc/other build (team, uncommon, difficult to arrange circumstances for, etc.), 1 PvP build, and 1 PvE build (just to generalize them a bit). This should allow some varienty for those seeing them and cover a broader audience.

What I would like to see is an admin step in here and take charge if just a little bit. Perhaps peruse the builds and see what ones may be beneficial to place on the main build page or have a section on the talk page here where people can suggest their builds for the main page with reasons.

As an example:

==Please post untested build link and reason why you would like to see this build featured on the main build page==

• Build:R/any General Interrupter - I've been trying to clean up the Ranger builds for some time now and I feel like I'm making some serious progress. I compiled several builds into one in an attempt to please all and eliminate clutter as well. I'm sure it will be favored or at least is commonly used by a lot out there and thus easily be a good candidate as I wouldn't expect it to stay in the untested category for long - favored or otherwise - due to it's commonality and ease of use. Favoring of this build will also cause deletion of several other builds that would be considered 'merged' to this build and are archived on it's talk page.

Then an admin (or other member as it seems they are being changed regardless at times) could pick from the list or review others as they see fit if none are viable. Now, I realize it sounds like I'm trying to segway into this build being posted but as much as that may be true my motivation is for helping the wiki and not for claiming any credit for any builds in this case. I just would like to see more movement on the untested builds and I think this would be a good way of doing it. What do you think?-- Vallen Frostweaver 08:25, 27 November 2006 (CST)

I'm not an admin, but Featuring three builds of different functionality sounds like a great idea. There would need to be some sort of notice on the Build page to ensure uninformed users don't jumble the system, of course. --Chris with Lime 11:45, 27 November 2006 (CST)

/sign XD And I'm gonna put 3 featured untested in seeing as there's no real existing policy on it and so far there's a majority for it :) (Not a fifty five 14:00, 27 November 2006 (CST))

You're my hero 55. Thanks. Hope it stays in that format.-- Vallen Frostweaver 15:10, 27 November 2006 (CST)

Hehe a nice change from DIE 55!! on the wiki(Not a fifty five 15:18, 27 November 2006 (CST))

Well that's only because you take risks others don't and they are jealous maybe? Having just perused the builds i noticed you put a stubbed and untested build up there (Build:E/D Self Sufficient Mage in case you were wondering). It looks like it's unfinished at this point (should be stubbed) and needs cleaning up too. You mind puttin' up a different one?-- Vallen Frostweaver 15:21, 27 November 2006 (CST)

Nevermind. I did it meself and plopped the one above in there. If anyone has any problems with it just say so as it's easily changeable. If the build is un/favored relatively quickly then change it out in case I haven't already. I think I'm going to start picking through the builds in the area I cover and making a list of those ready for testing or are close to being un/favored so that they can shoot through the untested build feature faster.-- Vallen Frostweaver 07:57, 28 November 2006 (CST)

Just a quick question, you gave the example on how to put forward a build to be featured, so where will these proposals go?--62.252.0.12 05:49, 28 November 2006 (CST)

I actually had said where but I realize I wrote a lt in there. I was saying that they could be put on this talk page. I haven't seen anyone say yay or nay to that yet though and I was hoping for more responses. I mean, I and others could fill this page with suggestions but if no one actually refers to them for the main page then it's kinda pointless.-- Vallen Frostweaver 07:39, 28 November 2006 (CST)

I now have an updated list of Ranger builds from the Untested category HERE if anyone needs to change the featured untested builds in the future. Of course there are 9 other professions but I am most familiar with Rangers and this is what I try to clean up and volunteered some responsibility for. If anything it may help.-- Vallen Frostweaver 09:19, 28 November 2006 (CST)

[edit] Untested Section

Holy crap, almost 400 builds with me gone for a month? Woah. =P — Rapta (talk|contribs) 22:41, 16 October 2006 (CDT)

Haha yeah. Its not just that you vote a lot, people have gone psycho-frenzy in submitting em lately. (Not a fifty five 22:51, 16 October 2006 (CDT))

[edit] Uncle Xeer wants YOU

If you:

• have already contributed to builds in the past,
• know how the builds process currently works,
• are willing to keep up to date with pages like GuildWiki:Builds, Talk:Builds and GuildWiki:Build vetting procedure,

apply here. --Xeeron 18:11, 17 October 2006 (CDT)

[edit] "Guildwiki" guild ad

I was wondering if I could put a link on untested builds to the guildwiki testing guild I was making. I REALLY don't want to start a precedent for advertising type links on wiki, but the guild does directly affect the site and would be beneficial. (Not a fifty five 22:34, 18 October 2006 (CDT))

Hmmm advertising guilds on the wiki is a very difficult topic, even if it is a guildwiki guild. I'd say, putting up a note on the talk page of untested is ok, but rather not on the article page. --Xeeron 04:03, 19 October 2006 (CDT)

Do it through word of mouth imo — Skuld 04:20, 19 October 2006 (CDT)

Alright :) I'll put a note in Category Talk:Untested builds

Personally, I'm okay with noting that a GuildWiki testing guild exists on the relavent article page. HammerWiki set the precedent, and it seems like a good idea. —Tanaric 14:48, 19 October 2006 (CDT)

Hmm, that's true, it couldn't get too out of hand since a build that doesn't involve guildwiki would have a hard time finding a relevent article to put it on XD. (Not a fifty five 16:07, 19 October 2006 (CDT))

[edit] Skill update template

We discussed this somewhere in the past and I feel it would be a nice feature to introduce now: A template which basically says "This build has been affected by skill rebalancing, please check whether it is still working". That would be slapped on ALL builds including skills which were changed. Then people can start going over those builds and decide whether they still work or not or need to be changed. The biggest problem with not using a template is that we will not know whether a build was already checked or not, leading to huge chaos. This makes slapping the template on builds somewhat urgent. --Xeeron 04:32, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

The Template:Update is no good? See Team - 55/SS FoW which currently has it. --Xasxas256 04:43, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

Hmmm, we could use that, however I was rather thinking about an specific template just for this update. Guess it doesnt really matter, I would just prefer the template to name the reason for the tag (skill rebalance) instead of the generic notice. --Xeeron 04:51, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

I changed the attribute slightly and made Template:NFUpdate. That way we can deal with the effects of this update separate from others (and retire the template soon hopefully). --Xeeron 04:57, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

I think we need a generic template for this and all future skill balance updates - I cooked this up quickly as a first draft: User:NieA7/Changed --NieA7 05:06, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

Xeeron I don't like yours at all, I think the way update has been used on Team - 55/SS FoW is far more elegant, it specifies the game update in question and importantly says why the build should be reevaluated. Same for yours too unfortunately NieA7. With a big update it may not be immediately obvious what needs to be looked at or there may be multiple things. There's no point in creating a template just for this update IMO, these big skill rebalancing updates occur from time to time, may as well use a template we can use again. --Xasxas256 05:08, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

Which is why the one I created is generic and links to the list of recent updates rather than a sepcific update, so I'm not quite sure what you're getting at there. I think we need a specific template to seperate out the builds from all the other pages that need altering due to a change. Anyway, feel free to alter it to something you think more appropriate, it's only a draft. --NieA7 05:12, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

Yours only says "recent update", it'd be better to have two inputs, one for the update, one for the explanation of what needs to be tested. --Xasxas256 05:16, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

Well then change it! I give you my permission. You may need more than 2 inputs though, loads of skills get changed in one go so it'd be perfectly possible for a build to include more than one of them. --NieA7 05:21, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

Mine has the same link as the one on Team - 55/SS FoW, but it is there automatically and does not need to be filled in by hand every time. If you are willing to do that by hand for all builds involved, go ahead, I wont argue with that, but I though it would be much faster to only add {{NFUpdate}} to the builds in question and have the link there automatically. --Xeeron 06:01, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

Well funtionality wise User:NieA7/Changed now does what I think it should (at the price of looking ugly :P ). But it looks like you're steaming ahead with yours Xeeron so that's cool. --Xasxas256 06:17, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

Aesthetics over functionality FTW! I reckon that template's going to be useful anyway. It's a fairly important new thing so I guess it needs at least a little discussion first, but I can't see why we shouldn't use it in the long run. In the short term the NF update template will be OK, if this new one is used we can swap them round later and keep it for future updates. --NieA7 06:24, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

I've noticed that Xeeron's puts pages in a special category called Category:Nightfall update, whereas User:NieA7/Changed uses the old Category:Pages that need updating, it might be worthwhile creating a new Builds that need updating cat or similar. --Xasxas256 06:30, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

Sounds good to me, builds stuff should be separated out from the rest as much as possible. --NieA7 06:33, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

I made the new template for that reason as well: Have all builds placed in a separate category from the "usual" needs updating stuff. The hope is that we can go over builds pretty quickly by looking at that list and retire the category afterwards. --Xeeron 06:37, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

Don't see why we need to retire it afterwards if we come up with a generic "build with skill updated" category - skill balances are going to happen again after all. --NieA7 06:43, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

Well its not a permanent retirement, the next skill rebalancing will come for sure, you're right about that one. --Xeeron 06:57, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

Ok I've moved it into the main namespace and called it Template:Build update. The builds with that template will now be added to Category:Builds that need updating. I've added it to the builds that were in Category:Pages that need updating. I haven't added it to any of the builds effected by this new Nightfall update. --Xasxas256 06:59, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

[edit] Which builds still need the template

I put the template on all tested and untested monk builds. Not really sure we want to look at unfavored as well. All other classes still need the template. --Xeeron 06:39, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

Went through all tested and untested Ritualist builds as well. Not a lot there, but some of the skills are in there as secondaries. --Xeeron 08:57, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

• assassin
• elementalist
• monk
• mesmer
• necromancer
• ranger
• ritualist
• warrior

So far most builds have the template for one of two reasons: They use the nerfed mesmer energy management skills, or they use AoE in PvE. Unless the energy management is critical, my guess is that most of those in there for the first reason can have the template removed pretty quickly. The AoE change however might have killed of quick a lot of builds for good. --Xeeron 08:32, 27 October 2006 (CDT)

Depends on the build I guess. Farmers will be hit hard, but nukers and suchlike in PvE groups will probably be fine. Plus the AI thing looks incomplete at the moment (did Hell's Precipice yesterday - we would've wiped at least twice if the titan's hadn't all run away then come back one at a time), it'll probably change again in a while. --NieA7 08:45, 27 October 2006 (CDT)

[edit] Templates

I guess it is obvious that we want templates for all our builds. The question is how: Someone already added a text string to E/R_Invincimentalist. If the templates are really that small, that is workable. Of course, we could also have the full files ready for download (does the wiki software allow upload of non image files?). Which do we want, text strings or files? --Xeeron 09:34, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

If possible having files to download would be less fiddly, IMO. --NieA7 09:36, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

How about links to a script that generates the text file automatically? Link to, say, http://someurl/template/AmMxiZGeD2BNqNN1hckJAA and clicking on the link would prompt you to download the text file. —Tanaric 11:46, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

If it could be done I think that would be great. --NieA7 07:14, 6 November 2006 (CST)

Can we get Special:Upload to accept .txt? — Skuld 11:52, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

Actually, why not just add a section on the Attributes/Skills template for the template code? — Rapta (talk|contribs) 22:53, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

[edit] See Also

• Skill_Template_format
• Template:Skilltemplate

[edit] Untested falling!

only 324 now :) This reminds me of something like Apollo 13 when they're all fixated at the Carbon Dioxide levels and it finally clears and everyones all "woot!" (Not a fifty five 16:12, 26 October 2006 (CDT))

Am I awesome or what? xD — Rapta (talk|contribs) 22:50, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

Hey I'm impressed, you're clearing out untested like no mans business. Maybe we should start calling you The Cleaner! Do you think it'll catch on :P What about Rapta the Removalist or The Unfavoured One or Rockin' Rappin' Recattin' Rapta!? Go on pick one, they're all great! --Xasxas256 22:58, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

I'm flattered, really! As long as there's no "janitor" in those, it's fine. ;) — Rapta (talk|contribs) 00:34, 17 November 2006 (CST)

[edit] In-Game skill/item Templates

Should we add these to build pages? It makes it quite a bit easier to create the chracter. Looking at the files it saves, it's plaintext and is just a code representing the items (a hash or something to that effect). It's basically 20 letters that someone can make their own .txt file with, put those in and use it so there's not problem with people uploading files and such. -Apocrypha 14:05, 27 October 2006 (CDT)

look up 2 sections. --Xeeron 17:32, 27 October 2006 (CDT)

[edit] Premade section

What's the status on this? As i can see it seems they took a stupid decision and removed them. The current options works well for custom builds. But if you want to just chose one & play that's impossible now. They should reconsider their decision and add premades back in an inproved form. --Phoenix 05:27, 28 October 2006 (CDT)

[edit] Hero Builds/Teams

Could there be a section put up for hero builds and teams? The style of play would be quite different from henchies and player parties due to the level of conrol and customization, so maybe a section should be put up for hero builds. Menphis 03:45, 29 October 2006 (CST)

No thanks. They can play regular setups in most cases — Skuld 04:01, 29 October 2006 (CST)

Not true. For instance, Heroes handle boon builds (and most enchant-based builds) very poorly. You see many people running their monk heroes with standard builds... which is usually a disaster. Half-range healing spell is something they don't grasp either (they'll try to cast them even on out-of-range party members). Similarly, assassin, warriors or dervish heroes just don't chain the skills of standard builds very well, when they do it looks more like pure luck. Even the MM builds, which are rather braindead to execute, are poorly handled by necro heroes; they won't use BotM adequately, they will recast golem when there is no need to, etc. 83.159.9.78 04:09, 4 November 2006 (CST)

Hero builds are vastly different than builds set up for players. For one, you don't need or want res sigs on your heroes. Take boon prots for example. More than one form of condition removal, will run your monk out of energy very quickly. AI makes very poor use out of hex removal as they have no concept of enerygy or cast time management. They will sit and use hex removal on a player with full health while a hero at 25% gets smacked down. PowerDrain becomes a great form of E management on heroes. And condition spam/hex spam is better than E-denial against hero monks. A single dervish with Ebon Aura, will completely shut down a team of mellees as heroes tend to clump up. Learning the limitation and strengths of AI is essential to making hero builds.--128.255.55.94 09:32, 29 November 2006 (CST)

I'm not so sure about that, a hero build, at least mine, would focus on exploiting AI reactions. Which is why I use Prot's Strike, Bull's Strike, and Distracting Blow on koss, at the same time... There will be small differences, although granted, it might be over extending the wiki.--Silk Weaker 07:10, 2 November 2006 (CST)

I don't think it's overextending the wiki: with Nightfall, solo play has become prevalent in PvE, even in missions. You only very rarely see people trying to recruit groups, and when they do, the party still ends up containing many heroes. 83.159.9.78 04:09, 4 November 2006 (CST)

I disagree. While it's true, most henchies don't quite grasp how enchantment works, it's quite easy to have them play efficiently. With henchies it's not like with "real" player builds - you easily see wether or not they work after the first try, simply by or not dying. For my part I've been quite satisfied with the MM qualities of the hench. Monks do run dry very quickly, but what monk does not? Most prot spells are dealt out well enough and the hench's expertise with interruption is unmatched. Seriously, I don't think we should waste any efford on hero builds. That is for three reasons: a) like all PvE builds, they depend heavily on the situation they're used for; b) they will further clutter the untested builds section and c) builds are meant for a specific purpose. That purpose is easily accomplished by off-the-shelf build combinations with some tweaks for the purpose. I don't see any reason why we would need builds for that. ~ Nilles (chat) 04:49, 4 November 2006 (CST)

One big page describing the particularities of the AI would be better than having tons of build pages, which only differ from normal builds in the fact that they take care of one of these particularities. The AI doesnt like a few skills/game concepts and excels at a few others (e.g. interrupt), but apart from that everything stays the same. Much better to list it all in one place instead of having it clutter all over the wiki. --Xeeron 05:30, 4 November 2006 (CST)

Heroes have arguably become a new metagame, just like human PvE or PvP. Merely hanging out in the NF mission area, it's clear that people rarely form groups anymore, and go with heroes+henchmen. I finished NF, and my final tweaked AI builds have little in common with what a human would use: there are quite a few more signets and a wider range of energy costs (both are used more to affect skill prioritizing by the AI, as much as for their direct effects). 83.159.9.78 01:55, 6 November 2006 (CST)

We can agree to disagree. I don't think the difference are that obvious to the majority of players, and ftr. I don't think the usage of default MM build is satisfying at all (it could be so much better). Very clearly, there are lots of heroes out there using standard builds, and handling them very poorly. A majority of the game happens PvE side for a majority of players, yet the wiki build directory is cluttered by PvP-FotM builds, and builds intended to be used in some specific fashion (just look at the many "usage" sections...) that the hero AI has no hope of understanding. If anything, The PvP builds could be purged (all old FotM and builds whose skills were nerfed) to make for more room: most PvP builds are very gimmicky and work only with proper guild team support... if you don't have that support, they are ineffective (and probably contribute to griefing in PuGs, but that's another subject). Yet, these are the builds you see used in PvE, given to heroes. Somewhat conversely, there are a few heroway pvp builds that just suit the AI and with which you can wipe most organized human teams, and those AI builds aren't as effective in the hands of human players.

AI builds could be focused on standard roles, rather than mission-specific builds, like "healer", "prot", "mm", "interrupts", "fire nuker", etc. in a souped-up hench fashion 83.159.9.78 01:55, 6 November 2006 (CST)

Dunno about you guys, but my MM hero works just fine. He'll sit there for as long as it takes, keeping those minions alive. He even uses BotM and heal area in the right order! They tend to be kinda retarded when it comes to enchantments, I actually saw a hero run 1/2 a radar away to cast life attunement on a random minion of mine. Melee classes tend to use things like Vigorous Spirit on anyone low on health, rather than just themselves. Mending works really well on melee classes, however. They cast it on themselves the second you enter an area. I think that there should be a section for heros, even if it's just under the "PvE team builds" section. I'm sure that there are at least a few builds that would work really well... ~Avatarian 86 09:04, 7 November 2006 (CST)

GW Guru has a forum for Heroes & AI, there seems to be quite a few skills the AI doesn't handle well, and quite a few builds that seem to be handled well at first but actually aren't when in the heat of battle. It also seems to be very common to make every hero a x/Me and give them interrupts or skills that take advantage from the AI being server-side. Avatarian, you may want to try the MM build suggested in GW Guru by Dazzler (the first without Icy Veins): the effectiveness in-game is quite astounding compared to when you use one of the regular human-oriented MM builds. Caths 15:41, 19 November 2006 (CST)

I definetly see a demand for hero builds! I have created, tested and optimized several builds for heroes to avoid skills that they do not use well and utilize those that the AI uses just as good or even better than a human. These are special hero builds that I would never use for myself. -- 03:57, 24 November 2006 (CST)

[edit] Campaign tags

I know that there are sections for each campaign's builds, but It would still be nice to have tags at the top of the screen saying "This build uses skills from Prophesies" or "This build uses only core skills" or something like that, for the sake of the people who don't have all of them.

I see your point, but I think that would really clutter the build pages. Especially the untested ones. If we could agree on a way how to implement that without messing up the article.... still, there are the categories at the bottom of the page. They should do in most cases. And the campaign of the skills used is just a click away. ~ Nilles (chat) 06:19, 2 November 2006 (CST)

[edit] Lower-level Arena Builds?

Shouldn't there be builds for, say, the Shiverpeak Arena or whatever other lower-level arenas? Some that would only include skills that most players would have aquired by that point (no south Shiverpeaks elites, hint hint), etc might be nice, or maybe just lower-level builds in general.

I don't think we should. It would essentially raise the maintenance work by a multitude for builds which are not testable. ~ Nilles (chat) 05:01, 2 November 2006 (CST)

[edit] where should I add a new build?

I'm confused becouse every section actually says: "Do not add new builds to this page." Even "untested" and "stubs"...

You should add it to a new page: W/A Example Name for example. Simply create a new article by typing your desired name into the "search" bar and clicking "go". You will be prompted for what to do, then approve the creation of a new article. Insert the template from the styles&formatting page and you're good to go. ~ Nilles (chat) 08:27, 2 November 2006 (CST)

This means I just let it float around Wiki, without adding it to a particular category... Is this ok?

If you use the copy and paste the example found here, the new build will automatically be added to the appropriate category. --Xeeron 04:16, 3 November 2006 (CST)

[edit] Template code

Not sure if theis has been suggested yet but is it possible to add the .txt code to guildwiki so people can copy and paste it into a .txt file of their own to load up the build. --User:Lethorn Maeran

There are a few builds with equip and skill codes already. (Example) For the time being we have no policy on that so it's pretty much do what you want unless told otherwise. ~ Nilles (chat) 04:55, 4 November 2006 (CST)

In the long run, we will definitely have this. But there are 3 good reasons to not start that now:

• People are currently busy playing nightfall
• The PvE content on NF needs to be added (which should get a higher priority atm)
• The server is VERY slow right now

We will get around to add the templates once everything settles down and people will have more time (and responsive servers) to start crusades on the wiki. --Xeeron 05:33, 4 November 2006 (CST)

[edit] Featured Policy

Wasn't sure where to throw this discussion, so I figured I'd make a new spot. Judging by the main page's history, I've figured out that the current Featured Untested Builds are currently chosed randomly. Makes some sense, since that way builds that might never have gotten considered are getting attention. However, such a policy leaves other builds in a predicament. For example, I've tested (with great success, I'm using this build throughout most of Nightfall now that my hero is a MM) the Rt/A Offensive Promiser. If I had the authority (obviously, I don't), I would move the build up to tested right now. However, if featured builds are chosen randomly, there is no way for me to call attention to said build (except what I did right now, tricky, ain't I?)

I understand that it's difficult to have the featured builds chosen based upon a tester's opinion, due to credibility (some people are probably saying right now "Well, if VegJed thinks it's a good build, it probably sucks") but, in the interest of cleaning up the Untested section as quickly as possible (or at least keeping up with the flow) I feel the featured section should be those builds that are capable of being quickly moved out of the Untested section. Difficult policy to implement, I know, but worthy of consideration. VegJed 02:05, 16 November 2006 (CST)

[edit] Alternate optional slot icon?

For the Image:Optional.jpg used in optional skill slots, I uploaded a screen capture of an empty skill slot (you may need to clear your cache to view the image). I reverted back to the original, but wanted to toss this one out as an option as I've seen complaints periodically about the current box. I wasn't sure if that issue had been settled or not. Just something for everyone to consider, I'll let everyone else decide if you want to use it or not. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:31, 16 November 2006 (CST)

I think it's a good idea. The blank spaces make the build bars look kind of incomplete. IMO it's definitely a better option than a white square! - BeXoR 21:41, 16 November 2006 (CST)

This has already been discussed on S&F:Builds (you'll have to scroll down a little). It was mostly well received but not implemented. If the two of you don't have any objections I will upload the new version ASAP. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 06:14, 17 November 2006 (CST)

In fact, Gem said he would upload it and he mustn't have gotten round to it, so I've done it. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 06:17, 17 November 2006 (CST)

 :D there should be a "see below" pic (Not a fifty five 21:17, 25 November 2006 (CST))