This kinda proves my point on the (mi) tag possibly needing at least a (mi+) extension, btw…
Sure, a 13 double rare MI build is not the norm amongst what currently counts as g5, but some builds can really only be played by people with several hundreds of hours worth of end-game farming. And then there are even some builds can’t be played by anyone, ever – at least with ‘legitimate’ gear (not that I’d be against a GDStasher-only category of builds in the Compedium :P).
The concept of “needs” is something I won’t implement. E.g. my build uses Stonehide Kuba’s of Dranghoul but I could say that you don’t really need “of Dranghoul” and you could replace it with “of Readiness” for a small drop in performance. That’s a relatively easy example.
So any kind of such a system will use strict “has” rather than “needs” if I’m to implement it.
Initially yes, that was the purpose of g-tag system. Moreover, I think before it was a 100% subjective system when it was up to buildmaker to decide how he feels about gear dependability, on a scale of 1 to 5. My guess is at some point people started to demand for guidelines or even clear rules, and that’s how we ended up with a system that no longer fullfills it’s purpose.
The whole (mi) tag idea is just to keep some people happy. I don’t feel strongly about it, but it would keep the only thing related to g-tags people cared about. It’s also easy to implement.
Eisprincessin started tagging build threads based on sets used, and while I love it I’d rather not implement it in Compendium. Part of the reason is people want to type less stuff, not more.
It doesn’t answer the question whether something is hard to obtain or not, and it would still need to be explained. Initially g-tag system was designed to relieve the reader from research on what’s easy to get and what isn’t - because they could just check the g-tag and say “ah-hah, it’s g3 so should be average”. Here’s the quote from Compendium V (last vanilla):
g# : The build is dependent on specific gear with a value ranging from 1-5. The higher the number, the more gear dependent it is.
And that’s it.
Basically yes, that’s how it is. The only benefit of your idea is that people won’t have to open your thread and/or your GT link to know what kind of gear they will find inside. That’s not a bad thing, but I think allowing a tweet-sized description just for that would be an overkill.
Probably, but not necessary. Standartization is needed for using search, if description is to be read by human rather than search engine then the free form is possible.
I think this build is a one of a kind extreme, which doesn’t really justify the split of (mi) into subcategories.
I mean I don’t really see the difference between a build with one double rare MI and three double rare MIs, so I’m not sold on this.
Poll time. Do you think a (no-mi) tag for current (g3) builds would make more sense rather than (mi) for current (g4) and (g5)?
Yeah, I agree, arguing with a 13-mi meme build really isn’t helpful to this discusion
But what I meant with my (mi+) suggestion was actually that it might be helpful to differentiate between builds that need an MI without any specific green affixes (e.g. ‘fixes resists/of gives OA/DA’ ones are enough) and those that need e.g. ‘Stonehide/of Kings’ as the only way to properly fix both primary & secondary resists.
But I totally understand the arguments you made above, too.
Maybe there won’t be a way around people having to actually click on a certain guide to find out if they can actually put it together or not either way…
And maybe that isn’t so bad. Every gear collection is compiled randomly after all, anyways.
I vote for (mi) instead of (g4/5) over (no-mi) rather than (g3), btw.; negatives are usually somewhat threatening to people and might cause them to steer clear of builds they really wouldn’t have to – at least according to the logic of me, kitchen psychologist.
Problem is this is kind of hard to verify and it’ll just have to take people’s word for it then. I don’t want to argue over each case, and if there’s anything I learned when trying to improve the g-tag system it would be that people would try to bargain out a more favourable rating for them - one they feel their build “deserves”.
My stance on that is if one posts a build with double rare MI’s he should bite the bullet and ackowledge that yes, he posted a build with unobtainable greens, instead of whiffing his way out with “but my build can work with legendaries instead of MI’s” loophole.
For a build with MI’s it’s impossible because it’s outside of my ability to rate these builds based on how hard it is to farm certain MI’s (one that requires a 30 sec run and one that requires a search for particular enemy that spawns in a two dozen of random points is pretty unequal, right?), how rare the certain affixes are, and based on your solution - whether the build actually needs these affixes or could do with more budget ones or even a legendary. It would be a 100% subjective thing without any moderation.
Hi, Stupid Dragon. I didn’t post here recently in waiting to see how other players will write their submissions. So I will add my builds in the classical way…
Active Skills: Drain Essence, Aether Corruption, Ravenous Earth, Devastation, Mark of Torment, Mirror of Ereoctes, Nullification, Callidor’s Tempest, Displacement
Passive Skills: Harbinger of Souls, Spectral Binding, Maiven’s Sphere of Protection, Iskandra’s Elemental Exchange, Aether-Ward
I forgot to submit my recent builds. So we’re still doing g tags now? Wonder if you’ll allow me to put in g99 tag on the all greens build just as a meme.
At this point it’s whatever, g-tags will be removed, just a matter of time. I’d like to provide a somewhat adequate replacement first - a guide that should help determining gear dependability. It’ll be in about two weeks if I don’t burn out midway.
I have an idea. Put MI tag instead of G tags. No MI if your build is only legendary. If you have MIs, put MI and number of greens you have. Like MI 1 or 3 or 12…
But differentiating between all of those would be totally impossible via a tag system (unless you want to add, like, 50 new tags for farmability/crafting cost/affix roll chance/etc.)…
I’d +1 your ^mi^-tag system to differentiate between the no. of required affixes, though.
Maybe the circumflex could be a minus (-mi-) or a plus instead (+mi+)? But that’s just a matter of taste, really
