Builds are Stupid

not true. u only need 1 or 2 specific skills for any char. rook - towers \ stats, vamp bite \ bats, ub - venom \ passives etc... . this game is very build limited and u simply dont have any other options if u want 2 win.

Rook:
Level 1: Towers

Level 2: Archers/Hammer Slam

Level 3: What you didn't buy in level 2

Level 4: Hammer Slam

Anything else and you are doing it wrong. THIS is why we need builds.

EDIT: Builds are not meant to be the difinitive way of playing. They just help you keep track of what you are doing, so you can have a basic set of skills that work well together. Hell, even in games like WoW, while leveling I didn't follow the builds exactly. Maybe I wasn't grinding the whole time and instead did instances to get better mana regen and now I don't need a full 3 talent points into a skill that will help regen my mana. That doesn't make the build useless.

True that but i have something to say: its true that builds are situational, but theres no other way of communicating our strategies to new player, players stupid enough to take them literally also are players stupid enough that they wont create a good build to play.

Well what i wanna say is players bad enough to not understand that they should change builds by considering situation, demigod, map and personal preferences are the type of people that will get smash to the face because they dont know what abilities to prioritize, what items to buy or what to do with thier skills/

Quoting Sean0883,

reply 2

Rook:
Level 1: Towers

Level 2: Archers/Hammer Slam

Level 3: What you didn't buy in level 2

Level 4: Hammer Slam

Anything else and you are doing it wrong. THIS is why we need builds.

EDIT: Builds are not meant to be the difinitive way of playing. They just help you keep track of what you are doing, so you can have a basic set of skills that work well together. Hell, even in games like WoW, while leveling I didn't follow the builds exactly. Maybe I wasn't grinding the whole time and instead did instances to get better mana regen and now I don't need a full 3 talent points into a skill that will help regen my mana. That doesn't make the build useless.

A basic early game format is fine, but a whole build designated to the whole game? No, it doesn't work like that.

Quoting wulagas-wulagaski,

reply 1

not true. u only need 1 or 2 specific skills for any char. rook - towers \ stats, vamp bite \ bats, ub - venom \ passives etc... . this game is very build limited and u simply dont have any other options if u want 2 win.

That's not exactly true either. Sure, there's only so many skills vailable to each character and arguably some skills are more useful than others, but designating a specific order of acquiring skills for EVERY game is dumb. What seperates the men from the boys on Demigod are those who adapt, and those who don't. Those who adapt on a per game - per stat - per DG - per Mode - Per item - basis are gonna dominate those who just march in with a preset build order in mind.

I never get Hammer Slam for the Rook, which is the only DG I play. I just keep working on his passive weapons. getting him the Beam weapon to compliment the tower building and also working on the building eating skill as well.

I think some people are misunderstanding what "build" means in this context. Of *course* they are situational and not meant to be viewed as static. That doesn't mean there isn't a benefit in documenting and understanding opening moves in order to appreciate why certain moves are good and others are bad. Just like in chess, there are well understood chess openings that are documented and copied. The best chess players know that games are fluid and they have good situational awareness that allows them to take advantage of opportunities that arise in the context of competitive play. Same thing here. Builds aren't stupid; players are.

not true. u only need 1 or 2 specific skills for any char. rook - towers \ stats, vamp bite \ bats, ub - venom \ passives etc... . this game is very build limited and u simply dont have any other options if u want 2 win.

thats plain wrong, there is almost no skill which is useless at all. It always depends on the situation, your allies, the enemy team, the map etc. ; Try using venom spit vs a team with sedna on Prison lol...

Sure you need to be flexible, but not completely. If I go a mana intensive build, I will need mana items to support it no matter what else is happening on the battlefield.

With sedna I usually buy the same 3 headpieces each game, though occassionally I find I need to delay or switch some of them out for extra health or boots of speed. I will never buy heart of life for her just because its not worth the gold for my particular character.

Theres a difference between variations on a theme and complete chaos.

Quoting RegnorVex,

reply 7

I think some people are misunderstanding what "build" means in this context. Of *course* they are situational and not meant to be viewed as static. That doesn't mean there isn't a benefit in documenting and understanding opening moves in order to appreciate why certain moves are good and others are bad. Just like in chess, there are well understood chess openings that are documented and copied. The best chess players know that games are fluid and they have good situational awareness that allows them to take advantage of opportunities that arise in the context of competitive play. Same thing here. Builds aren't stupid; players are.

I concur with this, and would like to add that just like chess, all your previous moves are irreversible. You've spent that turn making that move just like you've spent that skill point on a particular skill. What was said about varying the skill build according to situation is definitely true, but can only go so far.

You can't just say with QoT: "hmm I'm build her with minions in mind, but now it looks like my chance of winning is to down towers fast, let's switch to a heavy Uproot build". Sure the player can adapt, but your spent skill points cannot. The "build" in this case is deciding on a particular strategy/play style and having a plan on how to most efficiently spend your skill points to execute that strategy. What can vary in the meantime, are the items.

Quoting TheBigOne,

reply 8

thats plain wrong, there is almost no skill which is useless at all. It always depends on the situation, your allies, the enemy team, the map etc. ; Try using venom spit vs a team with sedna on Prison lol...

first UB ooze build competitive player , or maybe sedna yeti zerg lol

Builds aren't stupid.

"I kinda hope people stop with this "build" nonsense, it's misleading. What might be effective for one game, WILL NOT be effective for another game. The trick is to train yourself to analyze the other team and to think ahead of everyone else..."-Protocept00

Not true, I've played a few RTS and you're suffering from "I Can Win If I...." syndrome, where you believe you can win the game by predicting or countering player actions, when in most instances the differences you make to "outplay" hinder you,

in a game like Demigod, skill>countering, and they are two different things

If you play to enhance your demigod instead of trying to counter other demigods you'll do better 100% of the time.

Quoting Playdoh,

reply 10

Quoting RegnorVex, reply 7I think some people are misunderstanding what "build" means in this context. Of *course* they are situational and not meant to be viewed as static. That doesn't mean there isn't a benefit in documenting and understanding opening moves in order to appreciate why certain moves are good and others are bad. Just like in chess, there are well understood chess openings that are documented and copied. The best chess players know that games are fluid and they have good situational awareness that allows them to take advantage of opportunities that arise in the context of competitive play. Same thing here. Builds aren't stupid; players are.
I concur with this, and would like to add that just like chess, all your previous moves are irreversible. You've spent that turn making that move just like you've spent that skill point on a particular skill. What was said about varying the skill build according to situation is definitely true, but can only go so far.

You can't just say with QoT: "hmm I'm build her with minions in mind, but now it looks like my chance of winning is to down towers fast, let's switch to a heavy Uproot build". Sure the player can adapt, but your spent skill points cannot. The "build" in this case is deciding on a particular strategy/play style and having a plan on how to most efficiently spend your skill points to execute that strategy. What can vary in the meantime, are the items.

This is a little more in line of what I was talking about. Chess. What I didn't explain well enough in my OP was that I was talking about how we are giving newer players the wrong impression of how to view the game and win. New players are being told "Hey go with this build, it does this, this, and this and I won 4 times in a row with it against the AI" as if there is some be all end all build out there that everyone needs to use to win.... if we are going to have a succesful and competive community, this line of static-build thinking is gonna screw up what the game is really about which is, which played more similary like chess as the above poster already mentioned.

Quoting Foreshadowed,

reply 12

Builds aren't stupid.

"I kinda hope people stop with this "build" nonsense, it's misleading. What might be effective for one game, WILL NOT be effective for another game. The trick is to train yourself to analyze the other team and to think ahead of everyone else..."-Protocept00

Not true, I've played a few RTS and you're suffering from "I Can Win If I...." syndrome, where you believe you can win the game by predicting or countering player actions, when in most instances the differences you make to "outplay" hinder you,

in a game like Demigod, skill>countering, and they are two different things

If you play to enhance your demigod instead of trying to counter other demigods you'll do better 100% of the time.

Foreshadowed, I wasn't talking about playing a game strictly to counter enemy DGs, I create dynamic builds to win the game, whatever game mode that might be... not just to fight. For instance, I'm Regulus, and I'm playing fortress... so what do I do? I adapt my playing style to winning the fortress mode, which is to get Lvl3 scope so that I can attack the frotresses without being hit. I also focus on boosting my auto attack, grabbing mark of the betrayer, and mines for clearing creeps so I can continue assaulting the fortress with my 400+ dammage auto attack thats speedy as fuck and I also grab teleports, and speed bonuses so that I can continue nailing and fucking up the enemy fortress while they are left having to chase me around, or worse (for them) they are fighting my teammates instead of focusing on the Fortresses which leads to the win. Where as, were I playing slaughter, I'd adapt Reg for DG hunting, which in itself is up to the player how that is done as Reg has a broad amount of DG skilling skills.

What I should've clarified is that when people create a single build, and show it off to newer players, the newer players may be under the impression that there is some kinda Uber Build that exists that will always win, which is definitely not the case. I am merely saying that by adapting your Demigod to the game mode as well as using Chess-like situational awareness to plan your course of action, it would give newer players the skills they need to become better players. Not some Uber pre-set build that only works in certain situations.

I agree with the OP. Builds don't work in demigod like they work in, say, World of Warcraft or Diablo 2.

You have to be able to adapt to your opponents or the particular objectives of your current match.

Having said that, I think it makes sense to start with a certain baseline which allows you do swing one way or another without sacrificing strength.

I tried to accomodate these realities in my Oak guide, where I take pains to avoid providing a "build".

Quoting Aroddo,

reply 15

I agree with the OP. Builds don't work in demigod like they work in, say, World of Warcraft or Diablo 2.

You have to be able to adapt to your opponents or the particular objectives of your current match.

Having said that, I think it makes sense to start with a certain baseline which allows you do swing one way or another without sacrificing strength.

I tried to accomodate these realities in my Oak guide, where I take pains to avoid providing a "build".

Yeah a baseline is fine, I was just talking about making sure that newer players realize that isn't about a single build that will always win or anything like that. Setting a baseline is great and then explaining to newer players why you prefer that baseline is cool, as well leaving certain skill slots open in the "build" that player should use for adpating to a particular moment or game mode.

NO UR STOOPID :3

just kidding.

But in all seriousness there are different builds, or "focuses".

Proto,

You dont seem opposed to builds in general, just walking into a game with your build already decided. Is it not prudent to, once you understand what is needed in a game (e.g. DPS, support, pushing, mobility, w/e) have a proven (or at least practiced) strategy for fufilling the role you set for yourself?

For example, How much tweaking are you really doing in game with characters like Erebus where you basically choose to buff your nightwalkers or ignore them? Against heavy AOE teams (Queen, TB, Regulus sometimes), buffing your nightwalkers is probably a lot less effective. Knowing how to play a minimalist (Priests/Erebus) "build" well, having practiced it ahead of time, is probably helpful. Reading how to do that from a more experienced player is not necessarily a bad thing (assuming the guide writer is more experienced which isnt always the case). Conversely, against other teams, nightwalkers can be effective, and knowing how to properly balance these buffs with his other skills and choose the appropriate items can be helpful.

What you are opposed to is thoughtlessness which I agree with. I always lulz when I see people say things like "I am a fire TB player" or "I play ninja rook". Its not builds that are the problem, optimizing a role is useful, its when inexperience governs your build choice that is ruinous. Really the only way to learn what is needed is experience, so new players practicing different builds can be good as long as they dont focus too much in one, and learn the different strengths and weaknesses of them all. That way, once they do have the experience to know whats needed, they got the toolkit to pick from.

Quoting Beejnr,

reply 18

Proto,

You dont seem opposed to builds in general, just walking into a game with your build already decided. Is it not prudent to, once you understand what is needed in a game (e.g. DPS, support, pushing, mobility, w/e) have a proven (or at least practiced) strategy for fufilling the role you set for yourself?

For example, How much tweaking are you really doing in game with characters like Erebus where you basically choose to buff your nightwalkers or ignore them? Against heavy AOE teams (Queen, TB, Regulus sometimes), buffing your nightwalkers is probably a lot less effective. Knowing how to play a minimalist (Priests/Erebus) "build" well, having practiced it ahead of time, is probably helpful. Reading how to do that from a more experienced player is not necessarily a bad thing (assuming the guide writer is more experienced which isnt always the case). Conversely, against other teams, nightwalkers can be effective, and knowing how to properly balance these buffs with his other skills and choose the appropriate items can be helpful.

What you are opposed to is thoughtlessness which I agree with. I always lulz when I see people say things like "I am a fire TB player" or "I play ninja rook". Its not builds that are the problem, optimizing a role is useful, its when inexperience governs your build choice that is ruinous. Really the only way to learn what is needed is experience, so new players practicing different builds can be good as long as they dont focus too much in one, and learn the different strengths and weaknesses of them all. That way, once they do have the experience to know whats needed, they got the toolkit to pick from.

Thank you, that is pretty much exactly what I am saying. I was tired and quite out of it in the writing and replying to this thread, in consequence I have not composed my thoughts well enough and have a stupid post title.

But yes, what you said is what I am trying to say. Guidelines are fine, I just don't want newer players to get into this mentality that a single static build that someone posts up is gonna win the game and every game. I just want newer players to understand that creativity and experimentation with not only different builds and setups is prudent but also learning the weaknesses and strengths by themselves is essential to learning the ropes as well. This isn't Guild Wars, and I want newer players to understand that dynamically reacting to a situation as well as what game mode you're in is just a crucial as having a nice baseline and early game setup.

I HATE PINAPPLE, PINAPPLE IS STUPID, NO ONE SHOULD EAT PINAPPLE!

(10 posts saying how pinapple tastes good)

Yeah pinapple is fine, I'm just concerned that people who have never had pinapple before may not like it.

TT

Now I am confused. Who wouldn't like pinapple.

Quoting Miyamiya,

reply 20

I HATE PINAPPLE, PINAPPLE IS STUPID, NO ONE SHOULD EAT PINAPPLE!

(10 posts saying how pinapple tastes good)

Yeah pinapple is fine, I'm just concerned that people who have never had pinapple before may not like it.

TT

*facepalm* But I really don't like Pineapple. Give me an apple or an orange.

how about a bananna, everyone likes those.

quoting post

I admit, builds can be fun to make and tweak. I make builds too of course for fun, but I never use them in a competive match because I know it would lose. You need to keep yourself dynamic and open, not confined to a single build that your friend came up with, won only 2 matches with, and now thinks is the best build ever.

I think you should rephrase your thread title to "universal builds are stupid" because "builds are stupid" sounds silly. You see builds are actually created to fit a situation and that's not stupid. A different build for conquest, a different build for slaughter, etc.

I see the point of you're thread and I understand what you want to say. You just missed one word to make any sense.

Because of the thread title, a lot of people misunderstood you but not me (I have a lot of experience in forums). Be more careful next time.

Everything is correct except for the title.

Quoting Defaru,

reply 24

quoting postI admit, builds can be fun to make and tweak. I make builds too of course for fun, but I never use them in a competive match because I know it would lose. You need to keep yourself dynamic and open, not confined to a single build that your friend came up with, won only 2 matches with, and now thinks is the best build ever.

I think you should rephrase your thread title to "universal builds are stupid" because "builds are stupid" sounds silly. You see builds are actually created to fit a situation and that's not stupid. A different build for conquest, a different build for slaughter, etc.

I see the point of you're thread and I understand what you want to say. You just missed one word to make any sense.

Because of the thread title, a lot of people misunderstood you but not me (I have a lot of experience in forums). Be more careful next time.

Everything is correct except for the title.

I was pretty tired in the writing of this post, and just threw out a dumb post title without regards to how it may effect peoples conceptions of what I really intended to write about. Oops. But yeah, builds are not really "stupid" I ment more a long lines of, "sticking with one build because your friend told you his build works for himself" CAN be stupid.

The Forums Are Now Closed!

The content will remain as a historical reference, thank you.