Consolidate Class discussion forums?

[Oliphant]

Seems like fewer options would be better. For example: Ranged, Melee, Casters, Customs, that's it.

[Oliphant]

Sigh, wrong forum. I suppose this is meta :/

[Cordovan]

Heh, we tried doing this some years ago now and it received a lot of negative feedback, so much so we reverted the change. Overall we heard from people that they prefer to look up a specific class for advice, regardless of how active that makes the sub-forums.

[Xgya]

Where would a pure class Arti look for advice in the proposed change? "Spellcaster", well, Artis ARE spellcasters... "Ranged"? That's a thing Artis are known to do too, right? "Melee"? Recently, I've seen a few melee artis strapping their trusty bastard swords and sticking the sharp end into monsters, so that counts too.
If somebody asks the question: "How should I build my artificer?", which of your proposed forums would be the best to ask?

With Eldritch Knights being a thing, can Wizards fit into "Melee" now?

What about Rangers? They get both melee AND ranged trees. Which forum would someone seeking to compare both use?

Really, each melee playstyle is different. THF isn't in the best spot, but it has its uses, and advice concerning general melee probably wouldn't help them.
Same goes with most ranged builds.
And most caster builds.

[Memnir]

Overall we heard from people that they prefer to look up a specific class for adviceYes. This.

[C-Dog]

...Overall we heard from people that they prefer to look up a specific class for advice...
100%.

Fewer options means more cluttered, more noise:signal when you're looking for something or interested in following something. If I'm interested in Paladins atm, and nothing pops up in that forum, I'm good. If I have to check "melee" AND "custom" every time, that'd get old fast.

More, after the fact, MUCH harder to scan thru recent posts for something you're looking for.

So... no.

[Silverleafeon]

Heh, we tried doing this some years ago now and it received a lot of negative feedback, so much so we reverted the change. Overall we heard from people that they prefer to look up a specific class for advice, regardless of how active that makes the sub-forums.

Looking up a specific class is much better.

If anything, more subdivision would be better not less.

Suggest mildly dividing the Multiclass section into Multiclass Caster type, Multiclass Melee type, Multiclass Specialist type underneath a general multiclass heading, but no biggie there.

[Oliphant]

Maybe its the multiclass section that could benefit from subdivisions of melee, ranged, etc. My issue is I'm not married to a class but I'm curious about optimizing ranged and would like to see some competition between categories rather than go down every rabbit hole. If I want to find the discussions about people's opinions on the absolute best ranged toons I have no reliable starting place. I have no idea which route is the best at this point.

[C-Dog]

...If I want to find the discussions about people's opinions on the absolute best ranged toons I have no reliable starting place....
I see where you're coming from now, but even if it were as you suggest, I think that specific discussion/information would be rare as a specific thread. And even then, it recently may(?) have become obsolete w/ the introduction of the Inquisitive tree.

Further, "absolute best" varies w/ context - best for leveling/TR? best at end-Haroics? best for end-Epics? best non-VIP? best Iconic? best DPS, or best survivability, or best balance of those two? Which "absolute best" are we talking about? :confused:


...would like to see some competition between categories rather than go down every rabbit hole. I have no idea which route is the best at this point.
I think, and especially given the two issues above, that the best route is to take matters into your own hands and start the thread you're looking for yourself! Address what issues you can/want, and give some examples/links to kickstart the discussion, and give it space - and time - to breathe and grow.

As to which subforum to put that into? I'd go General Discussion, since it's not a specific class nor specifically multi, and you're looking for general input/opinion/discussion.

GL!

[cdbd3rd]

.... Overall we heard from people that they prefer to look up a specific class for advice....

Just for the record - still feel this way.

edit: /Seconding C-dog's suggestion in the above^ post.

[Impaqt]

Maybe its the multiclass section that could benefit from subdivisions of melee, ranged, etc. My issue is I'm not married to a class but I'm curious about optimizing ranged and would like to see some competition between categories rather than go down every rabbit hole. If I want to find the discussions about people's opinions on the absolute best ranged toons I have no reliable starting place. I have no idea which route is the best at this point.

Google. Google would be your starting point. Or at least the4 search bar here.

[C-Dog]

Google. Google would be your starting point.
Yes and no.

Yes, you can type a partial URL into any search engine, plus the key words you're looking for, and the result will tend to be narrowed to that website. So "www.ddo.com/forums" + "ranged build" would return stuff mostly just on these (or related) boards.

But unfortunately, the challenge with any Search is to find the right key words, and for that you can only guess how various authors might have phrased a post in an "optimal ranged" thread. GL with that.

[Oliphant]

Heh, we tried doing this some years ago now and it received a lot of negative feedback, so much so we reverted the change. Overall we heard from people that they prefer to look up a specific class for advice, regardless of how active that makes the sub-forums.

Thanks Cordovan. So consolidating the forums was not popular. Could adding more then be popular or acceptable? Although I'd prefer it more consolidated, the distinction I really care about is lacking a strategic subforum section. Currently the build forums are exclusively tactical (means) based but it would also help to have strategy covered. Perhaps strategic subforums could be added (ranged, melee, healing, crowd control, dc casting, damage casting, or something).

[Impaqt]

Yes and no.

Yes, you can type a partial URL into any search engine, plus the key words you're looking for, and the result will tend to be narrowed to that website. So "www.ddo.com/forums" + "ranged build" would return stuff mostly just on these (or related) boards.

But unfortunately, the challenge with any Search is to find the right key words, and for that you can only guess how various authors might have phrased a post in an "optimal ranged" thread. GL with that.

"starting point"


Google is a great starting point.

I'm totally confused on how fewer forums with more builds per forum would narrow his starting point better than google.


Thanks Cordovan. So consolidating the forums was not popular. Could adding more then be popular or acceptable? Although I'd prefer it more consolidated, the distinction I really care about is lacking a strategic subforum section. Currently the build forums are exclusively tactical (means) based but it would also help to have strategy covered. Perhaps strategic subforums could be added (ranged, melee, healing, crowd control, dc casting, damage casting, or something).


not popular. Unnecessary. Redundant. There is Already the general Class forum, a Multi-class forum, and a Customer Character builds forum.

[C-Dog]

"starting point"

Google is a great starting point.

I'm totally confused on how fewer forums with more builds per forum would narrow his starting point better than google.
I'm totally confused how you think what you quoted says anything about fewer forums etc.

I was disagreeing that a web search will necessarily be a good starting point, for the reasons I listed.

I did comment, earlier, on how I believe fewer forums would be more cluttered, but made no comment re that compared to a web search. But I will walk you through it again, since you didn't follow my earlier points...


The problem w/ any Search engine is that it is only useful if the key words match. If you're looking for "Oatmeal cookie recipes" - you're going to find them, slam dunk, perfect match. But a search for "Optimal Ranged Build DDO https://www.ddo.com/forums" turns up some pretty useless results (copy/paste and try it yourself!). There is one promising one, "Highest Ranged DPS Build?"... until we notice it's from 2010.

So we're left with two choices - try to "refine" that search (either w/ a Search engine or the DDO Forums' Search function), guessing at what key words will return exactly what we are looking for (IF it exists at all!) - OR we can go old school, dive into a sub-forum and scan down the list of thread titles with our own eyes.

(What is guaranteed is that fewer forums would make the latter MUCH tougher, with more unrelated threads to sift through.)

Which is faster? That has a lot to do with luck. Both have their flaws - a Search could miss the perfect thread if the key words never match. The same could happen w/ an eyes-on scan if the Title isn't helpful, or just from WoT glaze-over. Neither is "best", neither is "great".

So - that's why I said "Yes and no". That's why I believe the "best" solution might be to start a thread on exactly the desired topic.

Hope that totally unconfuses you. :cool:

[Oliphant]

You can say its redundant but there's no goal oriented forums. Or if there is the goal is meta: earn a specific past life (or something). Similarly, telling people to google is pretty glib. Obviously we all know about google. I can go google strategy but you can go google your tactics.

[Impaqt]

I'm totally confused how you think what you quoted says anything about fewer forums etc.

I was disagreeing that a web search will necessarily be a good starting point, for the reasons I listed.

I did comment, earlier, on how I believe fewer forums would be more cluttered, but made no comment re that compared to a web search. But I will walk you through it again, since you didn't follow my earlier points...


The problem w/ any Search engine is that it is only useful if the key words match. If you're looking for "Oatmeal cookie recipes" - you're going to find them, slam dunk, perfect match. But a search for "Optimal Ranged Build DDO https://www.ddo.com/forums" turns up some pretty useless results (copy/paste and try it yourself!). There is one promising one, "Highest Ranged DPS Build?"... until we notice it's from 2010.

So we're left with two choices - try to "refine" that search (either w/ a Search engine or the DDO Forums' Search function), guessing at what key words will return exactly what we are looking for (IF it exists at all!) - OR we can go old school, dive into a sub-forum and scan down the list of thread titles with our own eyes.

(What is guaranteed is that fewer forums would make the latter MUCH tougher, with more unrelated threads to sift through.)

Which is faster? That has a lot to do with luck. Both have their flaws - a Search could miss the perfect thread if the key words never match. The same could happen w/ an eyes-on scan if the Title isn't helpful, or just from WoT glaze-over. Neither is "best", neither is "great".

So - that's why I said "Yes and no". That's why I believe the "best" solution might be to start a thread on exactly the desired topic.

Hope that totally unconfuses you. :cool:

I was just referencing the OP... I still think Google is a fine starting point to search for a build/Discussion.

[Impaqt]

You can say its redundant but there's no goal oriented forums. Or if there is the goal is meta: earn a specific past life (or something). Similarly, telling people to google is pretty glib. Obviously we all know about google. I can go google strategy but you can go google your tactics.

I've never been accused of having much tact.

[C-Dog]

I was just referencing the OP...
Then maybe you should not have quoted me?


I still think Google is a fine starting point to search for a build/Discussion.
I almost hate to say it, but... prove it. Give me some reasonable keys words that anyone can copy/paste into a Google search that points to something useful to the OP's topic. On the first few pages of the return - b/c scanning through those would be the rough equivalent of scanning the same number of threads.

Because I bet those key words will not be some of the first ones that anyone would think of, nor even the second. Or third...

[Impaqt]

Then maybe you should not have quoted me?





But I didn't quote you in my original statement at all. Response 11 is where I responded to the op and you jumped in from there.

I dont know what thi sis.. Are you mad at me about something? Mad at google? I'm very confused