Dofus 1.29:Community Portal/Class Guides

From Dofus 1.29
Jump to: navigation, search

Idea has been remake to see what was before check history record

Ok, I have been giving this a very deep thought and like it was say before its hard to compare and to administrate, what we can do is the following.

My proposal requirements are

Have a scratch zone or section a place where this guides/builds can be all there be created and develop in more freedom in terms of cooperation, in this place all the guides will created, if the guide receives good support it can be move to the actual class page, also we should create a guide template where the creator has to point out what is he going for aside from "uber ultra powerfull sram dagger build" more like "Fire explosion, pure INT cra" or "Critical dagger INT feca" or "Tear chance sadida" or "Str/Agi poison trap/dagger sram". With this we will also know if the guide is short term or long term.

Also must define the difference between the word Guide or Build as those things are difference on the content of the article also this way we will have them separate in the guide/build conglomeration page and in the class pages.

Deleting builds

  • At this point in order to delete any of this pages (long or short term builds) it will go trough a voting on the talk page that will be done for certain cuantity of days, where people will chose to "delete" or "not delete" and give their reasons on why this decision.

--Cizagna (Talk) 21:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments ideas?[edit]

I dont think we need so many number of builds/guides (14 for Sram and Osa, 20 for Pandas!?). In the end, each class has only 1-3 basically different builds and everything else is all about small modifications (do not level spell X, get spell Y at level Z) which could be easily covered with comments and talk within main build page. Also, so many builds are old and they have not been updated with new eqipment/sets that have been included in last months so the information in the equipment section is hardly reliable. Not that it is all false now, just that new items have not been tested with different chars. Of course the problem with high level items is that there is not enough people owning them so it is difficult to say that Chief Bwork Set is better then Dragon Pig Set.

As many things can not be measured I can see big problems from anyone being able to edit/change one main build page. To level Gob or Tofu? Cloudy or Natural? Raise Vitality or not? These will never be answered clearly as it depends on each player, what level he is and which is the main goal. Level 150 players have completely different view on many spells and stats then level 50 does. It does not make the thoughts of level 150 more correct, they are different. There are also other spects affecting the views: are you in big guild fighting mainly in groups or doing solo? Are you rich and have millions to spare trying to create uber-strong char or another average player who only started the game and wishes to get some pointers to not make same bad mistakes? Do you wish to own PvP or be able to level up fast?

In the end, I doubt the builds/guides will become much more useful then they are now. Too many aspects in the game affect the "goodness" of your char so there is no one universal "best" way to raise the stats and spells, same way there is not one "best" item/set to use at certain level. For each class there can be some sort of tested guide to reach lets say level 40 easily enough, but when level gets higher the number of possible good choices between spells and items increases too much so the whole idea of build becomes pointless. So, I would scrap all the builds/guides and add section in the end of each class page for spells/stats/items up to level ~40 explaining the main ideas why and how they are useful/useless. Fogleg 15:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, I'd just like builds to be trimmed down to a relevant plan based upon factual information. I definitely do not want to read, "Level 1-6, train in the tutorial on the arachnee. Level 10+ get a gob set and pwn flowers, etc."
Instead, I want to see:
Summary of goals: brief text
Spells to raise: simple table
Characteristics: brief text
Notes: text
List of sub-pages: (covering various issues, like specific equipment, tactics, variations, etc.)
As far as long-term versus short-term, in my idealized world, I would like to see each and every build designed to be as much fun as possible to play at every stage of the game without being crippled in the end, should the player stick with the character. The idea of builds is primarily to help new and casual players - so why address them exclusively to the hardcore crowd who wishes to power-level up to 120+ and then start playing? They are the more experienced players who do not need a guide in order to make informed decisions! Make them useful to the people who need guidance.
Active moderation in weeding out and moving poorly-written and useless articles into commentary seems like the way to go. Get the bare minimum factual information out front and let people have the sub-pages for discussion, keeping them from running amok as they have now. - BadMrMojo 17:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Reorganizing builds[edit]

Let's be practical. I'm starting a big overhaul of Ecaflip builds based on mine as well as above ideas and experience. This full-size exercice can be reverted as I'll be progressively copying all builds to a special section before rejecting/editing them in the main pages.

Build-specific comments can be made on the corresponding Talk pages. I suggest we discuss here the global approach of this overhaul.

General philosophy
  • Drastically reduce the number of builds
  • Use a hierarchical structure Class > Build > Variant to avoid repeating info. Eg.1 All spells described at Class level, Specific spells at Build level (all STR spells for a STR-based build). Eg.2 A complete levelling guide isn't required at all places. Only specific aspects of the Class/Build/Variant should be described at each level.
  • Only 1 'standard' build per type of build. Variants as a subsection if needed (more later about variants)
  • Summary tables allowing quick comparisons between builds, whether existing or proposed. See User:Lirielle/BuildTemplate for an example showing that 2 builds can be made into 1.
  • Unless published on a user page, all builds are community-owned. Anyone can edit them.
  • If and when a consensus can be reached on the main aspects, a Build Editing Guide can be written that could be used as a reference to make/undo edits.
Summarizing the builds

Class pages will only have one summary table of the types of builds for this class. I suggest the following layout for a start:

  • Column1: Element or Characteristic on which the build is based
  • Column2: A global rating of this type of build (needs to be fine-tuned)
  • Column3: A global comment
  • Other "rating" columns might be added, but difficult to fill-in: Cost, Difficulty...
  • Section1: 'Pure' elemental builds. Only 1 line per element, so 4 lines in all
  • Section2: 'Hybrid' elemental builds. As many lines as required, specifying the 2 main elements. Notes: chars raised to low levels should not be considered as making hybrids (eg. Chance in Eca bluff builds, which are in fact Agi builds) or may be considered as variants of the main Element.
  • Section3: Other builds (eg. weapon builds??). This is just a placeholder for the moment. We need to avoid this being used as a new place for linking to a page-long list of fantasy builds.
Making builds

Each type of build (a line on the symmary table) will have its own page. For this page, I suggest the following layout:

  • 1. Introduction
  • 1.1 Soft caps (for elemental-based builds) - only those of the specific element(s) on which the build is based
  • 1.2 Spells - only spells related to the specific element
  • 2. Standard build - more to come about this most important section.
For some layout ideas, see User:Lirielle/BuildTemplate#Suggestions
Main subsections: Skill point investing guide, Spell point investing guide, Levelling guide, Weapon and equipment guide... All subsections limited to info specific to the build!
  • 2.1 Summary table
  • 3. Variants
  • 4. 'The-Choice-Is-Yours'-builds. Links to experimental, historical, user-specific builds...

--Lirielle 10:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


Pending any comments, I'm going on with the cleaning-up and reorganizing of class and build pages.

Class pages
  • Sections reorganized as follows:
  • Characteristics: soft caps table followed by any comments
  • Class spells: complete table
  • Weapon: class bonus, main choices (no details on specific weapons)
  • Builds: a table on the main options (see above) with short, general comments

Existing builds are moved to Experimental Builds as well as to a list at the bottom of the generic build to which they belong (eg. Ecaflip/Strength3 listed on Ecaflip/Strength)

  • Training dopple: table
  • Trivia
  • any PVP section is removed, PVP is build-level info
Build pages
  • 1 page per main option (eg. Cra/Strength, Cra/Intelligence...)
  • pending contributions based on new skeleton, page is a stub, with only a list of existing builds as a reference

--Lirielle 09:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


I -finally!- got reactions from some users about the changes under way. But either they did not read the above discussions or they did not understand what was going on.

I have been accused of 'forcing an Elemental view', because the current tables mostly only have entries for the four main elements. Let me explain.

What's for sure, is that the current build sections had to be rewritten in some way (see above). I could as well have started with blanking the section altogether or replacing it with a blank table, but wanted to have some base to start from. This is why the table starts with an Elemental section, but ALSO has 2 other sections, even if most are blank for the moment: "hybrid" and "other". It will be obvious for everybody that there is more to it, and neutral (vitality) builds or other approaches will have to find their way. Another reason why I already inserted the elemental builds is that I wanted to suggest that there will be (unless the project evolves in another direction) only one entry per main choice. We (see above) want to get rid of the endless list of "Ecaflip/Strength", "Ecaflip/Strength2", "Ecaflip/MyBuild", "Ecaflip/Roxx" etc, which often are very close to each other. The idea is to have proven "standard" builds highlighted, presented in a standard way, so that the first-time user can easily start a build with clear instructions leading to viable characters. This does NOT mean that other builds would be excluded, but the offer would be presented differently, in some hierarchical way where every build can find its place, but no poorly written, incomplete, and/or unviable build appears on the main class pages. The current attempt goes along the following lines. (Sorry if I'm taking an element-based example.):

  • One main entry on the class page, describing the big orientation of the build (eg. "Ecaflip/Strength") and a quick note about it.
  • A corresponding subpage (eg. Ecaflip/Strength) where the standard build is developed by the community. A structure has been suggested above.
  • This structure includes a "Variant" section. This is where info previously placed on "Ecaflip/Strength2"-type pages would come. ONLY the differences with the standard build would be described, avoiding useless repetitions (description of class spells, leveling guides, etc.). The variant must obviously have some ground and suggesting to raise eg. STR to 180 instead of 200 does not warrant a variant. (Such suggestion can be done as a comment on the Talk page.) If the build substantively differs, it may be worth considering a separate entry on the main class page, but subject to community approval.
  • The structure also includes a final reference section for "Experimental builds", where all other builds can find a place. It is yet to be discussed what can and can not go there and if/how poor guides should be rejected altogether.

This approach offers several advantages in my opinion, mainly from standardization and hierarchy, but it is open for discussion and all comments are welcome. --Lirielle 06:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I, for one am very pleased with your idea, Lirielle. I hope that others will give it a chance enough to see some fully implemented examples before they dismiss it out of hand. Good work. -Suaverthanthou

User:GrauGeist comments[edit]

I'm sorry to say, but this is NOT an acceptable justification for the recent changes, moderator or non-moderator. Lirielle, you (deliberately???) made your proposal on this little-trafficked page and got ZERO significant commentary. This page is not likely to be part of anybody's Watchlist, and you know it. Furthermore, this page is, for all practical purposes, a TALK page, not a content page, so it isn't even properly-labeled. The very fact that you got zero comment (and thus zero support) should have clued you in that that you were heading down the wrong road towards building consensus. What you did was little better than giving "notice" on your User Page. Except that your User Page is likely more watched for news. IMO, the natural approach would have been to place your proposal under the talk for Class, and then to link from the talk pages of each individual class page. That way, people who are focused on their pages would have had ample warning and notice that changes were planned. You could then have polled for the change, much as Cizagna did with the item / weapon reorganization. That was a sweeping, highly-visible change to a Wiki, and Ciz did the right thing by soliciting comment broadly. You failed to do so, and I am formally protesting this change. This is NOT an acceptable model for making future changes to the Wiki. --GrauGeist 17:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Approach[edit]

At this point, I am *EXTREMELY* unhappy with the entire process. While changes do need to be made (Class != Build), this is NOT the way to go about it. Moving foward, we need to first take a few steps backwards.

1. Revert all Class Build sections, but keep "Warning" notice.

2. Restore "Class Guides" to whatever it was, and rename it Builds.

3. Move this discussion to Builds/Talk.

4. User:Lirielle to STOP changing Build sections that she is not actively maintaining. These edits serve no purpose except to antagonize.

5. Develop consensus as to Build contents. I am not at all convinced a "one-size-fits-all" table serves any useful purpose. Eniripsa/Chance??? Eniripsa/Strength??? Don't make me laugh. Those are worthless, and would only serve to inflate the Wiki. The content for off-stat builds is even less than having detailed PvP/XXX_vs_XXX pages.

6. Develop replacement sections in cooperation with the page maintainers. The natural home for this will be on XXX/Builds with associated Talk pages.

7. No changes until clear consensus is reached.

As far as content goes, you NOT be able to convince me that the proposed elemental damage table is the way Eniripsa Builds should be organized. Enis are built as either Team Support or Solo Combat. They are *ALL* Intelligence-based; and there are no "standard" Chance or Strength builds.

--GrauGeist 18:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope you are now convinced that you misunderstood me (even if I may be blamed for that misunderstanding), and the table was only a skeleton to be customized for each class. I've done so for the Cra and Eniripsa classes, where it was most critical. I'm still relying on other wikians to finalize the other build tables. --Lirielle 08:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Wiki Heirarchies[edit]

I propose that we separate Class from Build as follows:



Build - (this page is Talk:Build)

Cra/Builds - discuss standard elemental / hybrid approaches
Eniripsa/Builds - discuss team vs hybrid solo approaches

--GrauGeist 18:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd personally keep the current structure, but it can be improved. I'm waiting for more suggestions anyway. I hope that the double Cra/Strength entry in your suggestion is a typo, because my strongest objection to the existing build structure was that we had a list of builds where anyone could add anything and we could come to have half a dozen of Cra/Strength builds with little differences between them. I am suggesting (based on comments from other wikians) that we only maintain 1 standard build at the most visible level of the structure (build table on the class page) and that the rest be treated either as variants of the main build or as experimental builds, depending on the contents. We COULD have eg. two Cra/Strength entries on the class page IF the two builds are RADICALLY different (which I'm most sceptical about) and if they can both be considered as standard proven builds.
That being said, I'm of course open to all suggestions and I have no objection to a specific /builds subpage where general aspects of choosing a build could be discussed more in detail. The point is to only keep a summary (the build table) on the main class page. The /builds subpage would be referred to in a note above the table, together with the link to the list of experimental builds. At first thought, I can see no need for a global Build page, though, so I'd rather suggest this:
Cra/Builds - discuss standard elemental / hybrid approaches
Eniripsa/Builds - discuss team vs hybrid solo approaches
Note that, so far, your approach made a distinction between team support and team combat that looked relevant to me, reason why the table now contains three sections (team support, team combat, and solo).
Does all this suit you?
--Lirielle 09:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
At this point, I don't think I care much for the entire thing. I was going to comment that Eni/Solo is a waste of space, but I came to the realisation that, it doesn't matter what I think and that you're just using my protest to count it as "participation". But then, I wondered why should I waste my time if you're just going to overwrite the pages to suit yourself? Screw it. I'm not supporting your agenda. Good luck in getting others to help you with your project. --GrauGeist 00:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
C'mon you perfectly know that you're twisting the truth. I am NOT "overwriting the pages to suit myself". What I've done is put a structure where it was most needed and the contents are untouched. Can you tell me in what way the contents of the current Eniripsa Build section do not reasonably match the older version? If you think that the current sections in the build table do not make sense, I'm all ears. IMHO, they reflect what was there before, but if you want the table to be organized differently, let's discuss it. I've drawn some guidelines and what matters is the philosophy of the project. The details are yours. --Lirielle 07:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Build/Guide distinction[edit]

Just to throw my two cents in.

First, Lirielle whilst you can be commended for the amount of thought and work you have put into this - unfortunately I do agree that this was not published widely enough to warn people of what is going on. It was a shock, even for people who check the wiki most days.

I actually like the new approach for a purely factual approach, a lot of the information on build pages is quite a miasma.

But this should not be the sole approach.

The collequial aspect of some of these builds is good, it gets the potential or aspiring player thinking about tactics and encourages them to experiment themselves. This is where Guides should come in, allowing us to have the best of both worlds as it were. If the guides are heavily patrolled, then we can ensure that comments stay where they should be - on talk pages so the content is not diluted.

So we have the bare bones with the Builds pages and expand further with Guides for each.

--PresqueVu 20:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Granted. Guides are a different animal altogether and their place has to be defined. And the suggested skeleton does not exclude references to other info and does not exclude other places for discussion (though the main place remains the talk page IMVHO). I can not insist enough that the contents so far are untouched in their essence. The motto in this first wave of changes was: standardize and streamline.

As for the method, I'm sorry that the wikians do not keep an eye on the community portal :/ I made a wrong assumption there. The process started weeks ago (the discussion was even older and ideas are not all mine) and I have documented the successive steps. Furthermore, I'm worried that the criticisms focus on 'layout' aspects (in particular regarding the Cra page), while the in-depth changes, which will affect the content in some way and which rely on everyone contributing, have yet to come. --Lirielle 21:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ciz Comments[edit]

Well i will not go deep on this, as when i started this topic was to try to resolve this issue, as the contradictory response i halted, even thought the responses on the need to do this was obvious but how to approach the solution was the issue. As this was not advancing i went to what i could work, and those are weapons and items, and those will be what i will work clearly until its finish as what i have to fight is the constant name changes and proper standardization . Now back to topic, the problem with builds as it has been stated before is there are subjective, so the way this has to be thought has to be very deep and clear to work this subjective information, as Dashiva stated one time guides can be Real and Theoretical (also Experimentals) even suggested a scratch zone now created as Experimental Builds, thought one of the issues with this page is that is not linked from the class pages to inform where is all the previous info and other issues that have arouse other than not the infrastructure that is require to this be work out is simply huge also that lots of information that is require for each class as their aims are different for each one. Lirielle did a great effort to gather the previous ideas and create a single work flow, sadly looks like it has been set back due to already stated issues. Now Talk pages are great places for discussion, but sadly they defined talk pages, the build standardization it was going to be as obscures as it was handle in the class (well maybe less here) build (better fit) or where the community and great changes are handle and thats the community portal, and the community portal sad to say but it has been on the Navigational bar since I was reading the Dofus Wikia (and what i just did lately was to separate Community from Navigation), now post-forum we can manage that in the forums a little more live system but still as obscure as community portal. One of the reasons I do voting for the stuff is i dont like to handle complains, like all the logo complains i refer them to the logo contest page and i dont accept middle process changes as i have to adjust all the previous info to the new things. As i do small changes from time to time to certain key pages like mainpage and others like community page is to give this Dofus Wikia an easier way to handle new information referring to our wikia the main page is going to transform on our event page, and voting will become more active, more things has to be done in order to do so and to avoid complains, im happy to see more people trying to resolve this issue, if you guys/gals agree i can start giving publicity to this discussion for a 2 or 3 weeks period to get more inputs but i will not handle this changes as i have other things to focus. Tell me and i will help as able but i dont want to meddle for now in this subject. --Cizagna (Talk) 21:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ciz, I don't blame you for not wanting to get mixed up in this mess. I'm out, too. --GrauGeist 00:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Using Ecaflip/Strength as an example[edit]

I have already commented the builds as general above and I still think these are mostly rubbish and useless. The information on wiki should be based on facts as much as possible and not present opinions of individual users. The builds are and will be mixture of opinions, unproven statements and remain debatable. I will use Ecaflip/Strength page as an example since it is currently page reflecting what they all may look in the future.

Well, the basic problem is if I personally dont agree on something on the page, should I go on and edit it? Should I add comment on page or comment it on talk page? If next user reverts my edits, who will decide if the revert was justified?

Introduction - While you get Earth-based spell at level 48, the Feline Spirit is useless and the build itself does not even mention it later. So you actually get next Earth-based spell at level 70. Also, the build does not only benefit from Felintion, the Felintion is required for the build and is basis for it.

Soft caps - Either scrap the section because it is just a copy from main Eca page or add Vitality too (doesnt matter that there is not cap for Vit) since the build recommends to raise Vitality.

Spells - While Feline Spirit is Earth based spell, it is not used in the build yet it get mentioned. Listing spells here only by the element is pointless. Why list only attack spells anyway? Spells that are said to be raised to level 5 (Feline's Leap, Wheel of Fortune, Smell, Reflex) are not even listed. I understand that some spells are raised for every Eca build, but still the current list of spells looks quite random and its not clear what was the base for the selection.

Build Summary - What are 'Main spells'? The spells that you get at level 1 and use throughout most levels? You wont be using those that much at level 80+ once you have much stronger spells like Claw of Ceangal? So Main spells are not the ones you probably end up with, they are spells you start with?

'Lv. 101 Base Stats' - Not very helpful as most players never actually reach level 101 and those who do dont care about what build page says. If the idea is to advice new players the better way would be saying str/vit 3/2 or 4/1 or 'str to 100 then str/vit 2/1'. But of course here already we end up with many possible ways without any being simply best and correct.

Skill point investing guide - No idea what it is. Maybe its suppose to be 'Stat point investing guide' instead to discuss exactly the raising rate of str and vit, but I dont know...

Spell point investing guide

HoT to 5? What for? Raising it from level 4 to level 5 only gives 1 more range and possible 2 extra damage. I dont think that is good enough reason to spend 4 points.

Smell to 3? Why not Smell to 5? Or 2? Smell at level 3 is not hugely better then at other levels, it could be left at level 2 or raised to level 5. It is not really a spell related to Strength build, its general Eca spell.

Reflex to 5? Got to be joke? Spend 10 points on a spell that raises agility? Why would anyone want to do that? Its strength build. Of course it can be raised, but what is the reason? Because original author had spare points? Because the animation looks cool? Dont see reason why it should be even mentioned in the build page.

Now for the spells that are not covered in build page. Perception at level 5 can add up to +9 damages and only costs 2 AP. Why not raise it at low level to gain advantage of damage increase? To raise Clover for extra CH? Repercussion can add up to +200 Vit at level 5 and can be lifesaver. Rekop any good? If not why?

Leveling guide - rubbish from the start. The parts that are not completely false, are covered in general Leveling guide. I dont see any point having separate 'Strength Ecaflip leveling guide' at all. Remove it.

So half the spells recommended by the build are debatable to me and some are not covered at all. Again, this is just me, one player. I am sure every player has their own thoughts and ideas. In the end, the whole Ecaflip/Strength build can be summed up into very simple statements: raise Str and Vit with Earth-based spells. But it should be obvious already to anyone without even looking at the build: Str raises earth damage, Vit adds hp. For every class and very char. So the build page here only repeats known facts without adding much new helpful info.

I used Ecaflip/Strength as an example, but exactly same goes for every build. They all mainly reiterate obvious things and add some personal opinions which are more suited in user and talk pages. Having wiki full of pointless pages that only state the same things over from other pages or present personal experience as facts is only lowering overall quality and reliability of whole wiki. -- Fogleg 10:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your valuable contribution. There is much food for thought and I'll take time to answer later on.
Contrary to what you say ('exactly same goes for every build'), your comments are a mix of general comments on "How to make a standard build" - which are to be discussed here - and comments specific to the Ecaflip/Strength build, which are to be discussed on the corresponding talk page. I'm the more confortable with the latter that I am not the author of the guide - I just summarized the existing build. The inconsistencies that you point out show that we'd better improve existing builds than multiplying them ;) - More to come on the Talk:Ecaflip/Strength page.


For fear of a wiki-nazi descending upon this odd little 'inconvenience' section, I just wish to say that I would like a decision to be reached quickly, if not elegantly - this reorganization seems to have very little momentum, and the builds/guides sections are stagnating as a result. If you think me a hypocrite, I shall propose a solution to aid the progression.

My quarrel with the current system is that there is a reason why builds bias towards an element - to take advantage of certain spells. Hence, sorting by element isn't theoretically as practical as sorting by spell type. Since builds will always use a variety of spells, my solution is ineffective. However, I propose this solution; when starting a new game, I decide what sort of personality (if you will) my character will have. Will he support, fight at range, fight close or fight tactically? This may sound impractical, but think about it. You've never played Dofus before, why should you care what element you're going to raise? The ones who require guides don't have foreknowledge of such things. I choose an eniripsa to support, a sadida to mob-kill, a pandawa or sram for tactics, and a sacrier for tanking. If you're starting a 4-account team on a server like Shika, you want to have these things classified for you.

However, if there is a method to click a button which magically overlays the old system, both methods could be applied :) J-Bizzle 22:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)