PvXwiki talk:Resurrection Skills

This should be part of PvX:FORMAT, not a proposal in of itself. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  23:13, 8 January 2008 (EST)

(EC)In my opinion, we don't need to overhaul the system or create a policy, but just have a message that just informs readers that many builds use a specific secondary's res instead of a any-class res, so they should look at all the builds, not just ones with /any secondaries. Since a specific hard res is selected, it's going to appear in the template, and the template's profession should reflect the name of the page. &mdash; Rapta   (talk|contribs) 23:13, 8 January 2008 (EST)

(two EC's?)Sound logic, but really only should be a succinct corollary, to be posted on PvX:FORMAT.  Shen (contribs) 23:18, 8 January 2008 (EST)

No exception for bars that are literally never ran without a specific hard res? &mdash; Edru / QQ  23:30, 8 January 2008 (EST)
 * We can always make exceptions in certain cases, FORMAT is a style guideline, not a policy. [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  23:33, 8 January 2008 (EST)
 * Usually, when a build is always run with a hard rez, I'd say it would fall into the The particular resurrection skill used in the build is critical for the build to perform well exception. Basically, if the build can't go /any without making it less effective, then don't make it /any. Also, I don't really care whether it's a policy or added to PvX:FORMAT or whatnot, as long as it's made official.
 * As for Rapta's comment, some new users have shown an astounding ability to manage to not read anything. It would make it easier overall to just put builds in /any if possible. &not; Wizårdbõÿ777  ( sysop ) 09:01, 9 January 2008 (EST)
 * Meh, I've always preferred consistency in the Wiki over falling for peoples' inability to read. =/ &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 22:42, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Clarify
It's semi-late and i just got home so i just wanna make sure im reading this right before i discuss. Is this basically saying that a Warrior with 7 warrior skills and a monk res should be listed as W/any?Bob fregman 22:41, 9 January 2008 (EST)
 * Yes. &not; Wizårdbõÿ777  ( sysop ) 22:45, 9 January 2008 (EST)
 * tbh, who really cares. This is a real small detail that isnt deserving of a policy on.Bob fregman 22:49, 9 January 2008 (EST)
 * If made official, it would probably just be added to PvX:FORMAT anyways. Which is really a guideline. &not; Wizårdbõÿ777  ( sysop ) 22:57, 9 January 2008 (EST)
 * I agree with rapta though, if people don't read, well, that's their problem.Bob fregman 17:32, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Necessary
Is this really necessary? If people are really pissed because they can't use Death Pact Signet, for example, they're probably smart enough to slap on Resurrection Signet. Anyway, to further this, I though PvX used to have a "Generic Resurrect" thing (kinda like Optional). Why not just put that back on? -- Guild of  Deals  15:25, 12 January 2008 (EST)
 * Because it's not a skill. Even that shouldn't be needed. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 17:00, 12 January 2008 (EST)
 * Seems completely uneccessary and I doubt many builds would be caught by this. If there is a seven skilled character not using a secondary a resurrection signet will almost always be dropped into the eighth slot rather than a hard rezz. If people put something like Flesh of my Flesh on an elementalist, they usually throw in splinter or something as well. Perhaps a note in style and formatting saying that taking a secondary class purely for a hard rezz outside of a team build is uneccessary would be enough. Most people just fiddle around their teams so they have hard rezzes covered anyway by replacing rezz signets. - [[image:miserysig1.jpg]] isery   -TALK  10:03, 29 April 2008 (EDT)