Build Compendium X (Forgotten Gods)

It doesn’t really matter to me if you write none or just empty space. But some people might think, the builder forgot to include it, after so much time of being in the compendium.

I think often changes of submissions format, can create confusions for non regular players and more importantly create extra workload for you, Stupid Dragon!

I think you’re overthinking it. Pretty sure most people read only Damage type and Active Skills at best when looking for a build to play.

If the “Remove WPS Skills line if there are none” keeps winning then the only change to submission format would look like that:

  • If your build got no WPS Skills then this line should be omitted

As for buildmakers who’re not aware of that I’ll just simply remove it myself from their submission. I fix ppl’s typos all the time anyway.

It would take a hour at best for me, but potentially save time for other people who read through the compendium.

1 Like

OK, @Stupid_Dragon , good arguments, I agree. So no problems with your proposed changes!

1 Like
  • [2H melee/caster] [] (g3) (c ) (sr+) Piercing elements with 2H melee/caster tactician (banana peel)

    • Damage: Pierce
    • Active Skills: Cadence, Inquisitor Seal, Rune of Haggard, Word of Pain, Stormbox of Elgoroth, War Cry, Word of Renewal, Blitz, Displacement
    • Passive Skills: Deadly Momentum, Deadly Aim, Aura of Conviction, Menhir’s Will
    • WPS Skills: None
1 Like

WPS Skills: none had been removed from compendium.

1 Like

Hey, Stupid Dragon, can you add this latest beast of mine to the compendium, please!

1 Like
  • [2H Melee] (g3) [c+] [sr] High Voltage - PS Warder (afanasenkov26)

    • Damage: Lightning, Electrocute
    • Active Skills: Primal Strike, Savagery, Blitz, Wind Devil, Aether Corruption
    • Passive Skills: Storm Pact, Aura of Storm, Field Command, Mogdrogen’s Pact
    • WPS Skills: None
1 Like

Hello, Val. Updated my Warlock guide

  • [Caster] [] (g3) (c+) (SR+) (vid) SERIOUS SAM - Warlock, superboss killer (Dmt)

    • Damage: Lightning, Electrocute, Cold, Frostburn
    • Active Skills: Trozan’s Sky Shard, Sigil of Consumption, Course of Fragility, Aether Corruption, Mirror of Ereoctes, Nulification, Chain Lightning, Blood of Dreeg, Ulthos’ Arrival.
    • Passive Skills: Star Pacr, Maiven’s Sphere of Protection, Iscandra’s Elemental Exchange.
    • WPS Skills: none
1 Like

Hi again! I’ve got another build for the collection:

  • [Caster] [] (g4) (c+) (sr+) (vid) The 'Za-Lord – Valguur Conjurer, Full Sigil Vitality Leechtank. Crucible 6:30. (Cinder)

    • Damage: Vitality, Vitality Decay
    • Active Skills: Sigil of Consumption, Storm Totem, Wendigo Totem, Devouring Swarm, Curse of Frailty, Bloody Pox, Blood of Dreeg, Upon Rylok Wings, Solael’s Flame, Mogdrogen’s Pact
    • Passive Skills: Possession, Solael’s Witchfire
    • WPS Skills: None

Thanks for all the work! :slight_smile:

1 Like

Hey there, I’ve got two announcements.

I’ll be going on vacation for a week starting this saturday. I’ll probably keep visiting the forum, but I won’t be adding builds during this period, since smartphone is inconvenient for edits. During this period I won’t be adding any builds (you’re free to submit them though).

I really feel like something needs to be done about gear tag system, details below.

First of all, to deter all “Why don’t leave it as is” questions. Current system does more harm than good:

  1. It straight up DECEIVES people on gear dependency. It’s easy to assume that the higher the number the more gear dependant the build is, as well as builds within the same category are more or less equal in terms of gear dependency. Both are FAR from truth. Some people swear they are good as guidelines, but they aren’t really.
  2. It is taxing on the new builders since they need to read through existing g-tag rules, which became quite bloated after my attempt to fix the system. Some people just mess up classifying their builds still.

So no, I won’t leave it be as is, period.

Particular problems with current system, by category:

  1. Almost no g1 builds submitted. It’s a faction gear category, and I believe Builds for Beginners section proven to be enough of a pivot to these kinds of build, to the point that most builds in this section aren’t even submitted into main compendium (which I’m ok with).
  2. Almost no g2 builds submitted, for the same reasons as above.
  3. g3 category houses a wide range of builds that have a wildly varying gear dependency:
  • Builds that could be easily translated into gear-less versions.
  • Builds that only show a speck of it’s power without some of the used gear pieces.
  • Builds that don’t make sense without some of the used gear pieces.
  • Builds that require completely different skill / devotion setup for levelling.
  • Builds that only use one commonly dropped legendary
  • Builds that use Conduits you’d spend hours to farm and then tons of resources to craft one with affixes you need
  • Builds that use gear dropped from superbosses, which a given character may or may not be able to farm
  1. g4 is a MI category, but people kept pointing out that it’s silly because some MIs are easier to get than legendaries
  2. g5 has a same problem as g4 basically, added the fact that two particular MIs do not necessarily make a build more gear dependant than a single one, depending on MIs in question.

Now for the SOLUTION.

My solution is just to DELETE gear tag system from compendium. I said it a couple of weeks ago out of frustration, but I’ve been thinking about it since then, and it seems like a decent solution to me. Current system functions more to differentiate builds that use MI vs builds that don’t, so my idea is to replace current (g4) and (g5) tags with (mi) to denote that they use MIs, and the (g3) tag will be replaced with nothing. (g1) and (g2) I’ll deal with since there aren’t many of them.

This way the current practice of using gear tag system will be preserved, while the confusing arcane facade will be gone.

But well, it’s a community compendium, so it would be unfair if I did it just on my own. You’re free to suggest an ALTERNATIVE. If your suggestion is realistic enough I’ll consider it instead of hard removal. You’ve got at least a couple of weeks to think about it.

No poll this time - you want to object you give me an alternative.

Thank you for attention.


Please add my build. Thank you for your work!

One moment plz
Could you give us example how to make application to compedium?

I don’t realy care about G-tag-system
If you want remake it I’ll support you

I like it a lot.

Maybe the (mi) tag could be extended upon a little bit with a (mi+) for ‘needs 1 rare affix’ & (mi++) for ‘needs 2 or more rare affixes’?

I also wonder if extra tags like (conduit) or, if you wanted to merge this category with those for e.g. superboss items & stuff, (rare leg) or just (rare) / (infr) [for ‘infrequent purple’], would be useful, too – or just bloat the entry size too much.

A short explanation for the curious on how difficult certain categories of gear is to find would probably still exist in the place of the old (g1-5) legend anyways, right?

Just from this we try to get away
Any item have 2 affixes
And some person will to prove that his MI need one rare affix, not two, so he has mi+ or not mi++

What’s why @Stupid_Dragon offer very simple idea
Have MI = MI-tag
Don’t have MI = NO-MI-Tag
And don’t care what affixes have MI item

MI tag only for green items

I get the desire for a simpler system, but the fact still remains that in 95% of the cases, rare affixes are much harder to attain than just a single MI :confused:

Edit: Thus denoting that on the tag might still be useful.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I mean, showing people how easy a build is to complete is the whole point of gear tags, right? Changing it from (g4) to (mi) is, as far as I understand it, just a way to tell newer people that builds using MIs aren’t neccessarily harder to complete than others.

what can be simpler?

have Mi item = Mi Tag
don’t have Mi item = No Mi Tag

As for me it is simplest system

1 Like

Yes, I agree with benefits of its simplicity – I just try to consider its utility :wink:

Edit: see the edit in my above post. Lol.

Yo dawg, there’s an edit in your edit…

In case my plan is in effect there would be one Gear Availability memo and that’s it.

You basically want to somewhat rebrand and repair the g-tag system rather than hard remove it. E.g. I can just unite current g1 and g2 and downgrade all non-conduit non-doublerare green into new g2 instead. It will alleviate some of the issues, sure.

It is the same medal but other side with all trouble of this medal
I vote for the new Mi-No-Mi-System

With a focus on the ‘repair’ bit, yes.

But yeah, maybe that would just end up in the same convoluted mess we’re in right now…

Whatever you decide to do, I definitely vote to abolish the old system.