| rdfs:comment
| - As stated in the earlier archive, this isnt very good. I see the hex removal category...waht if I had ALL hex removal? NOW I GET FAVORED FOR HEX REMOVAL!!! WOOTNESS! The whole point of a good build is that it has ALL of those elements, not just ONE (like my hex removal joke).Cheese Slaya 01:18, 15 May 2007 (CEST) -Cheese, be nice. But other than increasing the number of sorting categories, I don't see how this is a different vetting system than what we have now. This is an example of a good organizational system, not necessarily a rating/vetting system. Shireen 01:56, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
|
| abstract
| - As stated in the earlier archive, this isnt very good. I see the hex removal category...waht if I had ALL hex removal? NOW I GET FAVORED FOR HEX REMOVAL!!! WOOTNESS! The whole point of a good build is that it has ALL of those elements, not just ONE (like my hex removal joke).Cheese Slaya 01:18, 15 May 2007 (CEST) -Cheese, be nice. But other than increasing the number of sorting categories, I don't see how this is a different vetting system than what we have now. This is an example of a good organizational system, not necessarily a rating/vetting system. Shireen 01:56, 15 May 2007 (CEST) If this was changed to make all monks based on have Hex Removal, Condition Removal, healing or damage reduction. --Image:User Frvwfr2 signature.jpg frvwfr2 (talk)(contributions) 02:42, 15 May 2007 (CEST) This just doesn't work as a policy that can be applied to every build out there. What would the Ranger cats be? Damage? Rangers suck at damage (not talking about R-spike the team here). Utility? Self-Survivability? Just what does it take to make a good Ranger? The answer is any number of things. There is no static formula you can use to create a good build. There is no single, good example of how a Ranger, or any other class, should be played. Toucher anyone? - Image:Kowal.jpg Krowman (talk • contribs) 02:51, 15 May 2007 (CEST) That's one of the things I'm stating. The other is that you shouldn't be favored on categories, as say we made a type of good condition removal builds quick reference thingy. If this policy was implemented a build with all condition removal and no form of unconditional healing, survivability, hex removal, etc we wouldn't want the build to be there, but the thing is, with this policy - it would be there.Cheese Slaya 05:31, 16 May 2007 (CEST) Cheese, either you don't understand the policy or I don't understand you, but EVERY BUILD NEEDS EVERY POINT LISTED TO BE FAVORED *sigh* . The other thing you clearly don't get is that we wouldn't just implement a "hex removal monk" or "condition removal monk" catagory if that isn't needed; if such builds aren't usefull in the current meta. Catagories are based on the needs of the community, if people don't need monk bars with 8 hex removal skills, we wouldn't create an catagory that would favore such builds. Because of this, you hex removal build would never be favored. Anyway, to answer krowman: There would be 2 catagories (or 3, more about that later) of ranger builds, the first would describe the ranger we all know, the one that interrupts stuff, spreads conditions and can split. The other would describe every single build that only uses its ranger primary to use expertise; to decrease the cost of it's secondary skills, like thumpers, touch rangers and packhunters. An eventual third catagory would be beast masters (although these could be listed as expertise based builds). It should be noted however that there would be no specific catagory for pure spike rangers, since these are only usefull in pure ranger spike builds (in which case you need to post the whole build, and not a certain part of it that can't be used alone). A list for rangers would be:
* Ranger (all)
* Distracting shot (all)
* The ability to interrupt a skill at least every 5 seconds (pvp)
* Condition spreading (pvp)
* Ability to defend base; must have a self heal and condition removal (Gvg)
* Damage (pve) [and pve only]
* Expertise based builds
* Pressure (all)
* Ability to evade a large part of the anti-pressure methods Offcourse, you do have a point that it's sometimes not that easy to make a formula of a good build, but I wouldn't say it's completely impossible. Back to Shireen: it is indeed true that this ystem can be used in combination with another rating system. --SuiraCLAW 12:43, 18 May 2007 (CEST)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)