I’m not sure that tier lists are really needed for GD - they work for things like fighting games, because they need a way to summarise the huge amounts of info for each character - nobody wants to have to figure out how good a character is from giant lists of things like “34PK overhead staggers 65% of the cast with great frame priority on all walled stages” after all.
But for GD…it’s already easy enough to just type the usual “Gladiator Crucible, Mad Queen 12s, etc” in the thread title, and if anything that’s easier to understand than a “Tier X” that people would have to hunt down the meaning of.
Besides, I don’t think we need even more “build segregation” terms for the elitists to go crazy with.
I dont mean to be rude or sarcastic, but I would really like to see any Druid setup that can compete/be better than BWC sorcerer or SJ elementalist in any aspect of the game.
There really is no reason to rank builds in GD. It’s not competitive, no ladder, no PvP.
You already can see how viable or “meta” a build is by looking at Vanilla Nemesis killing times or Crucible times/performance.
Plus, it’d be a close to impossible to rate them, as already pointed out. You’d have to make so many comparisons and differentiations for every build. That’ll be a ton of work and who should decide it at which standards and criteria? For example, Pet builds can kill MQ in no time but killing Nemesis like Fabius or Valdaran can prove difficult. On the other hand, some dw melee Classes can kill every Nemesis in no time but struggle with MQ. Some S&B builds are top at Crucible, but clearing Vanilla content takes a lot of additional time compared to others. You see where I get here.
People should just enjoy and play the builds they have fun with. In the end, you can’t rank individual fun anyhow.
It’s interesting to see the discussion develop in this thread. It seems a lot of people don’t like the idea of tiers because it brings forward an insecurity about any build not being tier 1, as if there is anything wrong with that. IMO, and the point I’m trying to make, is that if a build is tier 1 vs. tier 2.5 is the same difference between a fire damage build vs. lightning damage build. It doesn’t make one build or the other inherently “better”, it just means it does certain things better.
Again, all I’m advocating is a little more clarification in builds that people post. If someone posts a build and doesn’t specifically mention nemeses or crucible, a lot of people visiting the forums will just assume that the build will handle them, when this is really not the case. This is more directed at first-time build posters, not really towards people like JoV or Superfluff or w/e that know what they’re talking about.
A guide to building guides would accomplish the same thing without a tier list, actually. Something stickied that’s like “So, you want to share your build and post a guide for it? Here’s some tips/things to keep in mind when creating your guide”.
I don’t know how many, but if some people feel that way then that’s fine for them. If they are looking for a build that is tier 1-2, then the build is clearly not for them and the tier list will have done its purpose of providing information that prevents them from making a mistake in which build to follow. I don’t think there’s a build that exists that every single person enjoys more than any other, so I don’t see a problem with this. It doesn’t make a tier 1-2 build “better” than this one though.
Level of skill required to play a build, in my tier list, would not be addressed and would have to be explained further in the build/guide, but if others feel that should be addressed in a tier list then we can adjust for it. That’s why we’re discussing it =)
Your last part is absolutely true, and fits in with my above point.
I feel like labeling builds as “Tanky” - “Squishy” - “sc/hc” would be enough for new players. Everything else can be viewed within the thread if the newbro would like to check. All builds within their thread always list what they’re currently capable of doing, and some build owners change stuff randomly so those builds would need reexamined and re-ranked.
Sorry if someone said something like this before, I was skimming.
A description of what the build can do and how fast/reliably preferably with videos would speak much more than a tier list imo. A tier list would also bring the issue of who decides and game updates…
A bit of side-tracking but your suggestion for crucible tiers is too lenient, going by it a lightning caster warder would be among the best builds…
Need to factor extra spawns, clear time and qty of buffs used on top of success rate.
I agree and would like to add something to describe “how hard to acquired everything to BiS”. Is there any alternative suggestion about gear in the build. Or explain newbie to know that specific greens are so much more harder than getting ordinary legendary. Which parts of the build are rare and what you can use instead.
The “g#” in compendium seems to misunderstand and everyone don’t have the same standard for a while.
It’s like some builds are really good but use so much MIs which is hard to follow to BiS (Newbie don’t know it’s hard to find specific one. After follow it until nearly complete then realized they’re fucked up with those greens.)
Fun ranking would make little sense indeed, but efficiency ranking does: it is pretty simple for instance to check how much time a given build require to accomplish a specific challenge, and compare it with other builds. That does make sense. If you get that build A requires 1 minute to kill that monster and that build B requires 3 minute for the exact some monster in the exact same condition, you can fairly assume that the first build is more efficient for that kind of task.
Which is why I would suggest that instead of a general 1-5 mark ranking that really is subjective and way too open to debates to just rank builds by the time they need to complete specific tasks. That couldn’t be questioned and would rely on nothing else but facts.
Sure, sounds fine to me.
But then we def. need videos to proof and still some kind of rules to define the final grade for each build. Additionally, what about builds postet without those tasks completed + proof of it? Will they automatically have the “worst” rating or no rating at all?
Also, the mods would have to be involved in keeping an eye on this. Or should all of this be optional for the build creator?
in Vanilla there is no need for this as every Main damage skill can beat the game’s content with little to no trouble.
Maybe it would be useful for Gladiator but only 20 to 25% of the people who bought the game even have crucible. And of those how many don’t even play it anymore.
