| abstract
| - k, let's make this final. —The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Skakid9090. 03:23, 12 August 2007 (CEST) K. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ〚₮/ḉ〛 03:43, 12 August 2007 (CEST) K. -- Armond WarbladeImage:Armond sig image.png{{sysop}} 04:05, 12 August 2007 (CEST) Still doesn't really say anything specific about profession bias. I've seen a 0-0-0 rating on a warrior farming build because a 55 could do it faster. That shouldn't happen. Bluemilkman 04:12, 12 August 2007 (CEST) IMO that's a case of unreasonable voting and should be brought up with an admin. -- Armond WarbladeImage:Armond sig image.png{{sysop}} 04:48, 12 August 2007 (CEST) /agree with Armond here. If people want a great farming build, they use the best regardless of profession. If they want a good one, they use the best of the professions they have made available to themselves. Votes such as BMM's example should be brought to administrative attention, rather than creating a new policy and set of guidelines to deal with them. Some builds will farm better than others and deserve a higher rating than them. A Para might farm ok, but it should not be given a higher (or equal) score than a tested and true farmer simply because it is a Para. - Image:Kowal.jpg Krowman {{sysop}} 09:40, 12 August 2007 (CEST) /Agree with Krowman. While I agree that BMM's example probably constitutes an unfair vote, "Profession Bias," as defined by this policy isn't altogether unfair. Some professions are uniquely suited to specific roles, while others may not be suited to that role at all, and we have to acknowledge that. I think that this is probably the kind of problem that inevitably has to be dealt with on a case by case basis. Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG *Defiant Elements* +talk 09:12, 16 August 2007 (CEST) As impractical as it may seem, common sense should dictate over this type of subject. A build that uses a different profession but accomplishes the task as best as a build of that profession could with minimal downside may deserve a good rating, but a build that does that with a larger expense may not deserve the same rating. "It's the only build that can do that" doesn't really cut it in some cases, but in other cases it can, depending on the build's overall performance. — Rapta Image:Rapta Icon1.gif (talk|contribs) 18:23, 20 August 2007 (CEST) Agreed, builds should receive fair voting, and bad votes can be struck, but this policy is unneeded. I could make the downright BEST warrior healer, and by this policy, since it's the best healer a warrior could be, you'd have to vote it well. In Bmm's case, the vote itself seemed unfair, and should have been removed. Bob fregman 06:38, 21 August 2007 (CEST) I vote in favor. Builds should be voted on their effectiveness within their class. Comparing between classes is impractical and illogical. Many people are not going to create a brand new character and spend weeks leveling it up and spend maybe what? 10-20k on skills and armor and weapons just to farm one area? Just because a build is relatively slow or has less damage output doesn't make it a bad build. If you can safely farm an area without too much hassle with the build it should be approved. Matthew Edmund 01:41, 16 September 2007 (CEST) I agree. The way the voting goes on here, builds are rated as inferior if they do not meet the effectiveness of a similar build using a different profession. I disagree with this, as I feel that if someone is looking for a Warrior farming build, they are not going to look in the Assassin category for the build. In the case that upset me, I had a Dervish build that was similar in most ways to a Monk build. But no one that wishes to find a Dervish farming build is going to search for their Dervish builds in the Monk category, and no one that wants to farm an area that has their Dervish there are going create a Monk and level him and get him to that area for farming. They will want to farm on their Dervish. Therefore, whether the job can be done similarly or even better on a Monk is mute; the person is searching for a Dervish build, not a Monk build. I think profession bias needs to be done away with. - Lord Xivor 02:00, 16 September 2007 (CEST) Awesome. If this goes through how it is, imma submit a W/Mo healer. It would get vetted too, cuz it would be the best the profession has to offer in terms of healing. :) --Teh Uber Pwnzer 02:56, 16 September 2007 (CEST) And I'll make a N/E fire nuker. Misfate 03:07, 16 September 2007 (CEST) So, if this becomes policy, I can't vote a P/R barrager lower than a typical Ranger barrager because the p/r is a para? --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 03:12, 16 September 2007 (CEST) Exactly.--Teh Uber Pwnzer 03:34, 16 September 2007 (CEST) I guess I'll have to make a R/Mo healer build. Or, even worse, a resto rit! :P --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 03:37, 16 September 2007 (CEST) Awesome, Healing Touch and Mending Touch only costing 2 energy @15 expertise! Oh, I know what your elite should be! Healing Burst!--Teh Uber Pwnzer 03:46, 16 September 2007 (CEST) The more I look at this policy, the more bullshit this policy looks. Glyph of Essence + Phoenix warriors. — Rapta Image:Rapta Icon1.gif (talk|contribs) 03:56, 16 September 2007 (CEST) You know, the sarcastic immaturity above this post does nothing for this proposed policy at all. Common sense people, common sense. Is that something that is so greatly lacking in this community? Apparently so, from the responses of the people I have read or interacted with as of late. I think it is safe to say that the idiot build ideas you laugh at up above would not be ones that would come up at all. They do not fall under the qualifications of the build vetting policies of builds that work well. I think that builds that get voted upon should be governed by the builds that work well...in their own profession class. Of course a Ranger using Mending Touch and Healing Touch would not be a viable build. It is a stupid idea. That is not even what is being proposed here. Again, COMMON SENSE PEOPLE. - Lord Xivor 07:02, 16 September 2007 (CEST)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)