Forum:Builds

Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Builds

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5053 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Is it really necessary to have common builds in the wikia? I mean, isn't that more subjective than objective, while the wikia should focus more on objective matters, with the subjective being more appropriate for the forums?

I mean, some of these aren't even necessarily correct. Dex for wizard is pointless, for example, and yet it's still listed there. I'm assuming it was taken from LunaCrescent's guide, which was made way back in the days when the job's capabilities weren't fully fleshed out.

All in all it just seems unnecessary, the wikia already provides the necessary stat gains for point assignments, I don't see a need for it to offer vague advice on how to go about building as well.

Discuss. AKFrost 04:31, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

I think they were added because some of these builds are very cookie-cutter (especially regarding the "cap at 28 dex"), but I don't know much about any other builds which may just be there to confuse people (or outdated ones). The way they are listed right now isn't very informative anyway.

I tend to dislike anything subjective on wikis, but that's just my personal opinion. Unless there are people who strongly believe listing them is useful (in their current state), removing them seems to be the best choice (and logical regarding the removal of most subjective things on the wiki*).

* It's not addressed here because it's next to nowhere on the wiki (well, almost), and not the point of this discussion, but skills recommendations had been added in the past but were then moved to a talk page because it's too subjective and give little information (I don't remember the discussion leading to the move, but I agree with it anyway). There's a somewhat silent rule regarding removing subjective material, but there's no clear lines regarding when they are acceptable and are not. --D. (talk · contr) 05:54, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

I think the initial intent with adding that section was to link to some of the discussions and analyses on the Aeria forums to prevent the problem we're currently having, and they weren't added due to laziness/forgetfulness D: I think as long as these builds can actually get linked to where it leads the user elsewhere for further info, the subjectiveness is fine, but the way things currently are is unacceptable. →SSF ^(talk) 08:26, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

indeed is it subjective rather than objective. but it is also a good guidance for ppls who are new to the game. if there simply are some descriptions what every build has for purpose it could be pretty good for newbies. but it could possibly be moved to a separate page and the other pages linking to it. the page could explain that they are subjective and link to forum accordingly? -- Gai (Talk) 20:28, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is then we'll get into build debates, since what determines whether a build should or should not be added to the wiki? Another problem is that most of the guides on jobs cited are... really really old and outdated. I think a link to the forums should suffice. Maybe a "look here for further info/builds" tag to it. Otherwise you risk looking like you endorse some of the builds, when it won't necessarily be correct. AKFrost 08:42, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

i've not been around that much on the aeria forum, especially not on build-related boards/topics, so i dontknow whats there. but i guess we then could keep the "common builds" header and just redirect/link ppls to some board on the forum where classes/builds are discussed and tell them to check there?

and about what would decide builds to put on wiki r the ones that's generally know to work pretty fine until later lvls. yes, obviously even that is subjective, but its a good guidance for ppls when they start. i mean, a good bm build to start with is 28 dex then rest power, but at 50~60+ u can remove the dex cuz of armors... and eventually u'll end up testing around on ur own or talking to others about builds. i just kinda wanna see some really basic build tips for the newbies until they start communicating more and getting into the game. -- Gai (Talk) 16:23, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Each job has a design (Wizard for aoes, Mercenary with tanking, etc) and certain stats will help with that design more than others, that being said replacing the common builds section with helpful stats should be enough.

Another option is to add pages for different skill builds. Though I doubt anyone will be for this idea, it's still an option.

Although these are still subjective, they aren't as subjective and having build help new players, but if they won't work a generic build guide can be made on the forum. CyberGhost42 09:12, December 30, 2010 (UTC)

If it's decided that they are to be kept, I would propose actually remove them unless they are just a bit more elaborate (one or two lines will suffice). This pretty much means removing all builds (I think, I haven't checked all pages), but the section would be left to be edited and marked as stub until there's at least one or two builds. A link to the official forums is definitive plus, but not necessary. An explanation for helpful stats for each job sounds good too.

If removing them is a bit too draconian (as I don't know how long these sections will be empty), they can separated from the (hopefully) listed ones to another subsection. They should eventually be removed.

I'm leaving this discussion up for another week. --D. (talk · contr) 00:53, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think (some of them) should be left, as they are somewhat helpful, but they should definitely be elaborated upon, to justify their inclusion in the wiki. While people can certainly experiment with builds, it's helpful to know the basic cookie-cutter builds that have been shown to be effective, even if they're not necessarily optimal, to use as a base for experimentation. It's also useful for newbies to have an idea of what stats are beneficial to a job, and while linking to a guide in the forum provides access to a lot of in-depth info on the subject, a simple build and explanation will be much less confusing for someone just starting the game.

Just a semantic point: a "recommended" or "suggested" or "good" builds category would be subjective, while a common builds category, if it is truly that, is purely statistical and therefore objective. But listing subjectively effective builds would be more useful, and more informative even, than listing statistically popular but functionally poor builds.--Asaemon 03:46, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

All jobs have a primary stat which gives the most benefits.

Fencer: POW/WIS (WIS pre-50, POW post-50)

BM: POW

Merc: DUR

MA: PHY

Hunter: DEX

Thief: AGI

Shaman: WIS

Wizard: WIS

Doctor: WIS

Musician: PHY/WIS (Human needs phy for Transfusion, Pet needs WIS to pay for buffs)

Dancer: AGI

Merchant: PHY

The secondary stat is always 103 AGI (for non-agi jobs) and POW (for agi jobs). The reason is that the 30% CD reduction from agi is the only source for CD reduction. You can make up every other combat stat but CD reduction with gear/skills/pills. Thus 103 AGI always applies.

Thus, my personal recommendation is that, if we were to keep job builds, to only use:

only the job's main stat (i.e. full agi for thief)

103 agi, rest job's stats (i.e. 103 agi, rest dex for hunter)

You might want to mention 28 DEX for normal attack jobs since innate ACC is lacking (though it can be made up later on with onyxes/gold def wrist).

I also think there should be a "Common Builds" Page explaining this rationale and have the job pages link to this, as well as explaining that there are other builds out there that they should look at. AKFrost 02:00, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

well, from frosts post i'd actually say we should list what stats are usually used on each job.

Thief uses agi/dex/power

Hunter uses agi/dex/power

Doctor uses wiz/agi

Muse uses wiz/agi (i dont see any point in adding phy to a muse, since hp can easily be fixed otehr ways, and would just be a waste of points)

Merc uses dura/agi/phy

and so on.... but even this would kind of be subjective, yet not as much as actually saying how u could spend the points.

BUT, as my final point. i would just say, remove the builds from wiki, but instead put in links to the forums where builds r discussed

-- Gai (Talk) 20:22, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

I'm making changes regarding my comment on "leaving this discussion up for another week"; it will be after a consensus is reached. It's always possible to go over this in the future for those who object to these changes.

"Build" as an article name works; it can be separated into different sections, e.g. "Common builds" (it's also to make linking easier). Otherwise, as for explaining why it's 103 agi, or 28 dex, a template can be made to be transcluded on all job pages as a little note (instead of rewritting it everytime). I think saying this is okay if it's actually explained that these are considered to be the most efficient use of these stats (basically, the "cap"). I don't think it's necessarily telling the reader to get 103 agi, or else they are screwed if they go lower. --D. (talk · contr) 06:03, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Talking to the career adviser and selecting 'Explanation --> Different Job Descriptions --> (Choose a job) --> Special features of a [job]' lead to a few blurbs including information on how specific stats affect specific jobs and which of those stats are generally best. Considering 2/3 of these messages are already on the job pages in the wiki, this may not be bad information to include to help players choose which stats to level for themselves instead of being forced on a strict "common build" path. A small (reworked) blurb like this paired with the existing stat charts on each job's page (where it would be a perfect place to mention any caps [e.g. 103 agility for skill cooldown]) should be more than enough to help a player decide how to build their character. 98.202.216.155 12:11, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Re: the Careers Advisor. While good in theory, even that "official" info can be considered confusing and wrong. Ex: Dancer and Wizard. →SSF ^(talk) 11:47, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

Due to recent build edits, I'm bumping this again in hopes of reaching consensus. I've linked the job forum on Hunter's section and think this could be used on all job pages, no matter what's decided for displaying other build info. →SSF ^(talk) 03:10, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

putting in links like that one on all job pages is definitely good in my opinion. and i think we should fully drop having build listed here (and just refer to the forum).

errr, i dont remember whats been written already and im too tired to do so right now, but if anything, i think we could list what points would be good to put points in and why, which would give people hints and ideas on how to build. -- Gai (Talk) 01:10, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

I thought this was never going to be resolved, heh. For now, I think your suggestion is a good compromise. We can probably have that little information regarding why it's dex and agi are capped added at some point, as well as some note that the wiki doesn't endorse them or something. --D. (talk · contr) 17:32, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

sounds like a nice idea to me. one of you two will deal with this then? -- Gai (Talk) 00:26, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

I've added the forum link notes to all job pages. Should we purge the rest of the build info for the time being or just let it sit? →SSF ^(talk) 06:54, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

i say that we should remove all the currectly listed builds and, if anyone can be bothered, possibly list what stats would be useful and why for each class. -- Gai (Talk) 00:44, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to expand that to give an explanation of the relative benefits of each stat specific to the class, beyond simply the effects of each stat to the usefulness of those effects. (Eg. for hunter, increasing magic attack is pretty much useless if none of the skills use matk; wisdom can be used to increase mp pool and mp recovery for skill spamming and AoEing, but in general does not provide a lot of value; given that hunter is a ranged class, durability and physique typically provide even less benefit; agility (for evasion + atk) and dexterity (for accuracy + crit + atk) give the greatest benefits, while power gives the largest damage increase but no other benefits. Etc.) IMO, linking to the forums as a source for more in-depth information is fine, but the wiki should be a comprehensive source of information in itself, and should at least contain an easy-to-follow summary of this analysis.--Asaemon 02:08, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

So basically, remove the current builds, list each stat effectiveness for each job, try to expand why this build works and whatnot, add the forum links on all pages, and some blurb regarding dex and agi cap with some other essential notes (this is for a template). I agree that giving the link to the official forum isn't enough, but it depends on whether contributors wants to add to the page regarding common builds. I don't play DoMO and do not follow anything regarding the game actually; I don't want to write some false information that I believe is right because it's on the official forums. --D. (talk · contr) 05:37, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

i agree to listing what all stats will do for each class, and what benefits they will give. but we should not expand the explanations too far since class builds are still individual to decide. we shouldnt really go into too detailed why we think the stats are good or bad, just what the actual bonus would be (its kinda same, but we just shouldnt go into too much detail about it). as Asae said for hunter:

• wisdom: adds mp and mp recover (not saying its useless, thats for the player to decide)
• agility: adds cooldowns and evasion (not saying this is best to use)
• dex: adds acc/macc, crit (not saying this is the best either..)

and so on. and D, the links has been added by SSF already, so thats solved. whats left to do is to make the template and start listing what the stats do on each class. -- Gai (Talk) 10:16, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see that! Well, I'll try to think of writing some notice about that, unless anyone else wants to write it (it's really open for everyone). The suggestion of listing what each stat does for each job while staying objective is totally okay. --D. (talk · contr) 23:15, February 23, 2011 (UTC)