Talk: Style and formatting/Builds/archive 3

A new Builds article[]

← Moved from GuildWiki:Community Portal

Since I have been unhappy with the inconsistent and complicated way we are currently displaying build articles for a while, I decided to come up with a suggestion (User:Bishop/Builds) of what I think the main Builds article should look like. The obvious assumptions are that the current article is moved to Builds (Definitions) and that that article is expanded to include further information on how we vet and sort builds; information that is currently only available on talk pages in various places.
The astute reader will also observe that I have included my suggestion for a new group of deprecated and/or weak builds, the [:Category:Unfavored builds], which I believe is a far better solution than to throw away builds that people have put time and effort into. --Bishop (rap|con) 11:33, 12 May 2006 (CDT)
Oh, as an aside, we really need to decide if we want the categories to use capitalized Builds or not, as the current state is horribly inconsistent. --Bishop (rap|con) 11:37, 12 May 2006 (CDT)

optional[]

i want it to scream "LOOK AT ME!!!". in fact, i want it to screem "LOOK AT ME!!! I'M WRONG! PUT A SKILL HERE! THE HOLLOW IS PAIN!" maybe if we put an eyejaring florescent icon the center of the white it would get people to stop using it. --Honorable Sarah

16:43, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

I was so moved by this plea that I came up with this as a possible alternative.

"Optional" Makes CoP-Baby Cry. --Black Ark 18:40, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

i was hoping for something like this

--Honorable Sarah

11:58, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

2 words: Ohh my... That's simply horrible! I'm all for transparency, except that jpegs doesn't support transparency, and if we switch file type on optional, it's just too much work to go through everything and edit.

And if I saw the CoP-baby in a skillbar, I'd assume that CoP was optional. o.o So.. What's wrong with blank? :p — Galil

12:15, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

optional is the guildwiki equivilent of "I don't care". it would be much better if every build had a full bar, then said "Replace X with Y if you need Y_Advantages." is that really hard? i'd really vote to break optional in every skill bar if i could. or at least move it to "Blank" to signify that no skill should go there, or the author doesn't know what to put. we could upload a "skill-bar grey" icon to match an empty slot on the ingame skill bar. --Honorable Sarah

12:52, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

Well, I did make it whitish so as to divorce it from CoP in that respect. And also because that icon just freaks me out, looking all blue like that. Compare

and

. Frankly, I think my version is not only distinctly different, it's the most beautiful thing I've ever seen. And not to rag on Sarah's design, but that would sooner drive me insane than urge me to add a skill or two. Would it be an option to just abolish "optional" altogether in the skillbar, and prompt the user to actually add in skills if and when they submit their build, on pain of not being able to submit at all? I don't know my wiki that well, so you tell me. And for what it's worth, I agree that a build should use at least seven slots, with a res-signet as the "filler". God, just add a res-signet to your build, it'll make everyone happy. --Black Ark 17:19, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

As .jpg does not support transparent background, and .png doesn't scale appropriately in the wiki, how about just modifying the current image to use an off-white color? A very pale yellow, brown, blue, or gray? Might take the edge off, while still allowing it to clearly show that there's an open skill slot. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:46, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

A little bit off topic; if Gravewit approves to my changes, soon enough the wiki will resize png images decently. :) — Galil

13:13, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

I can see an advantage in using resizable .png icons. I just hope users don't start uploading large .png images once they can re-size cleanly into thumbs on the articles. My understanding is that part of the recent purge of old images was to free up disk space. For larger images where image quality can stand compression and still be usable, I feel we should still enforce the .jpg preference from GW:IMAGE (note: I suppose we should move any discussion on this, if needed, to that policy's talk page if/when the changes go into effect). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:52, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

a sample skillbar

[Optional]

how many people would let that sit? someone would change it. that's the point, convince people that "optional" is to be avoided as much as possible. --Honorable Sarah 17:30, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

If you're trying to have a discussion about build style and formatting, move it to a better place. --68.142.14.106 17:47, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

Difference of opinion on basic assumptions. I do not believe that "optional" should be avoided. If a particular skill trully is optional, then let it show that fact - not try to insert an arbitrary skill that may work well with the build but isn't required for the core design purpose. But as 68.142 mentions, this should probably be discussed in the style & formatting page for builds or skills. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:52, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

Please Add Skill

I'm serious, this works. You wouldn't leave this as is. No person is that heartless. Best of all, this solution won't make the build-article look like "My First GeoCities". --Black Ark 19:51, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

Why not something like this?

Illusionary Weaponry

Flurry

Shield Bash

[Optional]

[Optional]]

[Optional]

Resurrection Signet

— Galil

20:02, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

For one thing, it doesn't change the current solution - don't get me wrong, it looks good and sensible, but it won't prompt people to actually finish their build, nor will it urge other people to add skills in lieu of the original poster. Emotional blackmail is the key. --Black Ark 20:04, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

Who says builds with optional slots are unfinished? I agree with Barek here, what if a skill slot truly is optional, as in any skill will work? I've had builds where I've had absolutely no skill to fill up my bar with so I have actually played with half a skill bar (today at the latest). So why shouldn't I be able to create an article reflecting that? — Galil

20:08, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

Just to add, I'd rather have B&W SoC-icons, but I am too lazy to edit it. :p — Galil

20:09, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

Many builds need to be variable depending on where you use them. Now it surely is a matter of taste whether you'd rather add multiple complete skill bars to the build article, to reflect all possible mutations, or one skill bar with one or more "optional" slots. I would go with the optional slots. :) --84-175 (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

I'm with Barek (and two edit conflicts later, also Galil and 84-175), optional is fine. Take this example, if you have some interrupting Ranger build which works in a variety of situations. In PvE your optional skill might normally be Favorable Winds to add damage, in RAs because Touch Rangers are so prevelent your optional skill might be Throw Dirt, in HA you might normally swap in Frozen Soil to combat IWAY and in ABs, because you often need to quickly travel from point to point, you then choose Storm Chaser. Same build, does the same interrupting role in each, but is tailored to the situation. Don't confuse having some flexibility in a build with an unfinished build. --Xasxas256 20:24, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

==Variations==

Favorable Winds is preferred for PvE, but less useful in PvP. make the following subsitutions:
- for Heroes Ascent, use Frozen Soil to prevent resurection.
- for Alliance battles, use Storm Chaser for extra speed and energy.
- for Random Arenas, use Throw Dirt to combat rangers and warriors.

easy, plus the first timer doesn't look at that bar and wonder what is supposed to go there. don't confuse indifference for flexability. ;) --Honorable Sarah

20:45, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

So how about this one then. I was gonna bomb some Charr today and found the build on a user-page. The user-page suggested a R/A with Dash and Death's Charge, but I couldn't be bothered getting them for my ranger and changing secondary just to bomb some Charr (needed Fur Squares). So, I modified it slightly and the skills I took were:

Optional

No 7th and 8th skills needed as I wouldn't have used either even if I did take them. What should I put there? Just some random skills to "fill up" the skill bar? Since no more skills are needed, and it wouldn't change anything if I did take any. — Galil

21:11, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

I don't think we're seeing eye to eye here. Gali is arguing for optional because sometimes you need less than 8 skills. Sarah is arguing against optional because you should just put the most common skill and list variations below. Black Ark (edit: and Sarah, apologies) is arguing against optional because it encourages people to submit unfinished builds. Barek, 84-175 and myself are arguing for optional because sometimes you'll have a skill that changes due to circumstanes. I don't think I forgotten anybody or put words in someones mouth (although I know I've simplified the arguemts)? But the variations/unfull skill bars is a seperate argument and usage for this skill bar, as is the unfinished builds/list variations arguments.

...So I guess it might be better to rename this, optional sounds like Gali's purpose, it's used when you don't have a full skillbar. However this is normally used for variations, perhaps variable would be a better name? We very very rarely have builds without full skill bars, so I'd suggest renaming it to variable and keep the current white picture. What you guys think? I'll get ready to cast Mantra of Flame!! --Xasxas256 00:33, 2 August 2006 (CDT)

i also think it encourages people to submit half done builds.

the argument that putting a blank spot there instead of a skill with variations is founded on the premise that the blank spot improves the ability to vary a bar, which it doesn't since you have to write a variants section anyways.

char bombing is a corner case build, since it's a level 20 ranger with access to elites going against level 7 or 8 AI foes with maybe two skills, neither of them elite. however, for the bar above, not being an expert on charr bombing, i'd say troll and antidote signet.

i still think we should break it and have a red link. no one would leave a outpost with a blank spot if they have skills to fill it, why would anyone leave a blank on a bar on a build page? --Honorable Sarah

00:56, 2 August 2006 (CDT)

I guess that makes me no one, as I have left with blank slots, especially when going out to farm. Never saw the point in cluttering things up with skills that just take up space and would never be used.

As for looks; I view the flashing monstrosity as such a severe eye sore, I would view replacing the white box with it as borderline vandalism. Forcing an obnoxious block into the wiki is not a good design solution. Develop/enforce policy rather than crippling the templates.

If a build is unfinished, it will remain in test status and eventually get deleted if no work is done on it. We already have a process for that, and last I looked, it seemed to be working. If another level of tags is needed, then maybe adding 'build-wip' for a build that's a work in progress and not ready for testing yet. Those can then be reviewed periodically, and any with a month or more of no development can be purged. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:32, 2 August 2006 (CDT)

With no points in Wilderness Survival I can't see how Troll Unguent would help, seeing as you don't have any time to cast it, and when you do, you're spamming Barrage instead since they die faster than it would normally take to use Troll Unguent. Antidote signet would be even more of a waste seeing as they don't give you any conditions. Charr bombing might be a "corner base build", but it's still a build.

As Barek stated though, I too have left outposts more than once without a full bar, simply cause if I put something there, I wouldn't use it anyway. So why try to figure out a skill to put there, that you're not going to use anyway? I'm all for the Variants-box though, since it is indeed a good idea to place it where it would make sense, but I am against removal of Optional simply cause sometimes you don't need a full bar and it wouldn't help if you did fill it. — Galil

10:19, 2 August 2006 (CDT)

I don't think "optional" slots should be eliminated or even discouraged. My argument is about the same as Barek's. Look at Me/E Migraine Mesmer and Me/N Migraine Mesmer. Neither consume corpse nor windborne is a part of the build's primary purpose. In HA, people stuff CC or windborne there because they help they can help the team a lot but the core build doesn't improve much with any other particular choice. This should definitely be [Me/any Migraine Mesmer] with an optional slot. The same could be said for a lot of mesmer builds, where gale, windborne, draw conditions, a repeatable resurrect (for GvG), CC (for HA), or something else is often a viable choice all in the same build. The actual choice comes down to the team build and not just the mesmer. Look at [Build:W/E Shock Axe]. It's tagged as RA/TA/HA/GvG. You'll often see healing signet in GvG (and I presume the same in RA). You won't often see it in HA (and I presume the same in TA). I'd swap healing signet out for optional (or split it into two articles, I guess). I'd swap out bull's for optional even though I'd personally take it most of the time. Healing signet isn't part of the "warrior with shock" build, it's part of the "warriors in GvG need self-healing to aid the ability to overextend or split without a monk" metagame (or the "RA is random and the other team will all attack you for no reason sometimes" metagame). Bull's strike is a good skill, but I wouldn't say it's clearly superior to the other choices. --68.142.14.106 11:27, 2 August 2006 (CDT)

obviously the flashing monstrosity was half joking (ok, maybe less then half, but not less then 25% joking). as i said, char bombing is a corner case. i think i left a town once without a full set of skills, but that town was presearing ascalon. i still think we should change it to "Blank" and the text to "no skill". unrelated note: i'm merging the migraine twins now. --Honorable Sarah

10:27, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

I'm going to have to agree with (damn, I'll just call you "the need to make an account person") here. Optional slots are slots that are completely situational, but are still required as they serve a purpose, such as skills that are of equal value to the main build. For example, one would argue that a good Energy-Recovery skill would be Drain Enchantment, while another would argue for Inspired Hex. The fact is, both are situational, and each have their place in specific areas, one being suitable in Enchantment-Heavy areas, one being suitable in Hex-heavy areas. Optionals (like mentioned above), are also useful in builds where skills are not completely necessary, and can do without. But a support skill can be used, not needing to specify which one as it is not completely necessary, being what the main build skillset suggests. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 18:53, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

I know this can be solved by selecting one and putting the other as a variant, but Optional skills are used in cases where there are multiple skills that are of equal value. Since we want to have a NPOV here, sometimes it is better to have an Optional Slot to avoid bias. I'd suggest, of course, that optionals are reviewed, and that they are only in builds where they are necessary. However, I completely disagree with your statement about "Optional skills = I don't care". — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 18:56, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

My opinnion: I want to see quickly what the point of a build is. I just need to know the core, the changeable skills can be read from below if I get interested. Therefor the optional slot serves a purpose. -- (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2006 (CDT)

This is what I have done with it:

Optional

Optional Slot (<this normally would have =X2 at ether end :D)

Put in one of the following:
— Reap Impurities —— Shadow Refuge —— Siphon Speed —

Reap Impurities will allow you deal more damadge while healing yourself.
Shadow Refuge will give you a stronger and cheeper self-heal than Reap Impurities.
Siphon Speed will allow you to catch up with people who run away so you can criple them.

I personally think this is what should have to follow every optional slot but prehaps a nicer table could be made? Sir On The Edge

[:Category:PvP builds] and [:Category:PvP team builds][]

since the PvP cats have superior orginization, these two categories are only used to collect other categories. we should stop recomending people put new builds in them. --Honorable Sarah 15:01, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

For months it's said to pick the narrowest categories that apply. --68.142.14.65 15:21, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

Fixed the Category list, as well as updating the Syntax. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 18:47, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

Sorry, you broke what was originally there. Read 68.142's comment closely again. 70.20.114.124 19:20, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

My mistake. It seemed contrary to the use of [[Category:PvE builds]]. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 19:57, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

Unfavored-build template[]

← Moved from Template talk:Unfavored-build

this strikes me as wholly unnessisary. we remove unfavored builds from every category except unfavored, so anyone looking at an unfavored build will be looking through unfavored builds. why would anyone need this warning? --Honorable Sarah 10:23, 10 August 2006 (CDT)

Perhaps if following a link from another article. I certainly don't look at the category-list every time I follow a link just to see what categories the article is in. — Galil

10:25, 10 August 2006 (CDT)

I think it makes sense. If someone were to link directly to this article from another website, for example, it might not be clear that we think this build is pants :) <LordBiro>/<Talk> 11:29, 10 August 2006 (CDT)

ok, point. could we include some useful information in the template then?

this build is unfavored. this build was voted unfavored for the following reasons:
 *{{1}}
 *{{2}}

etc? --Honorable Sarah

11:32, 10 August 2006 (CDT)

Feel free to update the template. I just created it since it was referred to at [GuildWiki:Style and formatting/Builds], but didn't exist. Didn't give too much consideration into how it should look. Figured someone else more engaged in the build pages would edit it as they see fit. — Galil

11:40, 10 August 2006 (CDT)

i suppose i have to learn template syntax eventually. ok, looking into it. --Honorable Sarah

11:42, 10 August 2006 (CDT)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Template is a good start. :) Wish interwiki-links would be enabled... — Galil

11:48, 10 August 2006 (CDT)

Just to state my position on this issue, in no way do I think we need an Unfavored template, like Sarah said, all of the categories are removed, and the Unfavored builds category is added. There's really no need for explanation when a build goes unfavored; we don't like it, it's not effective, and we still don't like it. Besides, why would you go through garbage, anyways? :P — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 12:01, 10 August 2006 (CDT)

I halfly agree, though we should still let people know that we think the build in question is junk. As I've already said, not all visitors reach pages from within the categories, or even from the wiki. These users shouldn't have to scroll all the way to the bottom just to check if a build is unfavored or not. If you've ever studied media communications (not sure of the name in english), the first thing you learn is to put the information where users expect to find it. Most visitors read from top left, to bottom right. As such, they won't start looking for unfavored builds at the bottom of the page. Also, not all visitors have visited the wiki before. These most likely don't know we tag favored builds if they visit an unfavored build directly. — Galil

12:11, 10 August 2006 (CDT)

Interwiki links do work, I just think Gravewit didn't throw the default interwiki data into the database. They're nearly all just for the different language Wikimedia projects. --68.142.14.65 15:36, 10 August 2006 (CDT)

template optionally accepts unfavor reasons. people who look at the page might not be able to see why it went unfavored. if a build went unfavored because "not a good PvP build" i might be able to make a good PvE build out of it, but if it went unfavored because "core of build based around flawed usage of "Move Zig!". it doesn't work this way" i know to go look somewhere else for inspiration. i've had to ask why myself sometimes. --Honorable Sarah

12:18, 10 August 2006 (CDT)

I think this template should only be used for those builds that have a fundamental flaw or would be useless in any circumstance. I don't think this should be used for builds if they've been posted as PvE builds and failed but are still useful in PvP. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 13:27, 10 August 2006 (CDT)

Yes, with the manual "Category:Unfavored builds" box at the bottom. Besides, the only way most people reach the Unfavored builds section, is through the Builds portal. Therefore, they already know they're in the Unfavored section when they see those builds. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 13:31, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

hopefully the voting process would catch any that were just miscategorized, but there are several builds submitted as pure PvP builds that might be useful in PvE with a little work. obviously if a build is submitted as both PvE and PvP, and it's worthless in a PvP situation but works fine in PvE, it should be removed the from PvP cats and tested as any other PvE build. --Honorable Sarah

13:46, 10 August 2006 (CDT)

well i'm appling it to everything [:Category:Unfavored builds|unfavored]. consistency is a yellow bannana shoe... i think my brain just stopped. --Honorable Sarah

13:36, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

Oh dear, not again... don't worry, I'll fetch the vinegar! <LordBiro>/<Talk> 15:15, 11 August 2006 (CDT)