Talk:Gimmick build

This page is ridiculous. The definition here is extremely subjective, and most of these phrases should begin with "some think" and whatnot. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:71.242.187.240 (talk).

Well, it's all player-made and non-official about the general way of happenings in PvP. It kinda has to be subjective. Calor (t) 03:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The article could certainly do with a toning down of the editorialising, though. -- Hong 03:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Deeditorialize to your heart's content. Calor (t) 03:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Gimmick... heh. This page is a Gimmick. Since when did a specialized build = a Gimmick?

Any build other than a balanced build is considered a gimmick because people that run balanced get owned by it cause they aren't gud.--74.61.209.219 16:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

About HA; pretty much all builds are gimmicks there. 'Balanced' is focussing about having overkill aoe with a huge wall of defense(cuz ha peepz are bad) and a big spike. Unexist 08:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The definition should read: 'Gimmick: any build that does not comply with the way I think the game should be played', where 'I' stands for most stuck up elitist players that think they know it all. 145.94.74.23 17:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the comment I just removed spoke of a (quote) "...gimmicky spike build..." proves that there are in fact non-gimmick spike builds. I for one consider them a valid alternative strategy. The whole term gimmick should be removed from this wiki, since it is mostly used to insult teams that play the game differently (kinda like how the word noob is abused). 145.94.74.23 18:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

i have edited a few sentences here that i felt were a bit on the bias side imo, --Metal Sazz 19:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well done. 145.94.74.23 06:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, should Sway be put as an example, it's powerful yes, but is it really a gimmick? MANY might disagree with me. But powerful =\= Gimmick imo, it's just a bunch of skills that work extremely well with each other, thats it.--Metal Sazz 23:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If it 'abuses' something, then you might call it gimmick (like for example spamming so many spirits that the opponent has a hard time selecting targets). If not, then I suppose it is balanced. 145.94.74.23 14:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Dirvish characters in general are gimmicks. I have seen too many times where a single Dirvish can take on 2 Level 20 Warriors in a direct engagement and kill both of them in under 8 seconds. I have seen on two occasions were a single Dirvish has destroyed an entire team while the rest of his team hangs back and laughs at the other team. The Profession is very unbalanced and should be considered a gimmick since it meets the criteria. --68.207.156.253 22:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Kaysan Smithee

Thats not gimmick, thats imbalanced. Dervishes aren't gimmicks, they are just a bad idea that should never have existed. Thats why R/Ds, A/Ds are called gimmicks, because the are a dervish with a better primary attribute. D/- is not a gimmick in itself, but is simply retardedly imba --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Crimmastermind (talk).

I assume it's the "build" part of the article name you are against. And that is perhaps right. But since the word is used as a general insult against any play people dislike, everthing meets the criteria that way. Backsword 02:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Everything is cheap in someone else's point of view. Just depends on the person. --68.207.156.253 04:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Kaysan Smithee

Dervish aren't that imbalanced. They have to be played well and take quite a bit of micromanagement. There are assassin builds that can solo monks in under three seconds, I don't see how using skills and attributes that everyone has access to in a really successful way makes it a gimmick. If you had spent the time coordinating the skills, attributes and timing of eight players (instead of JUST yourself) into something unbeatable by those who play by these supposed "rules" I don't think you'd see it all as a gimmick. These "gimmick" builds aren't exploiting anything, they're using very complimentary skills between a number of players to comprise a really good team. Work out what they're doing, and counter it. If ArenaNet felt that there were balancing issues, they'd fix it. They've nerfed stuff before. This whole page is a vent for someone who feels cheated by a good (set of) build(s). Like it was mentioned earlier, it should be removed from the site. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:218.215.159.69 (talk).

A classic "gimmick" build is simply bringing 8 assassins with those so called "skills and attributes that everyone has access to", to try and kill all the enemies. Know why its a gimmick? Because it has no healer, no midline, and no backline. Any team with 6+ of frontline, midline or backline is a gimmick. Any team with no healer is a gimmick. Any team which exploits AI of NPCs in Guild Battles (like the VoR exploit) is a gimmick. Sway is considered a gimmick because it combines two essentially OP elements of the game to bypass the setbacks A-net put on them (Ranger skills sucking so bad and costing so much so that Expertise brings it back to only an acceptable level, and non-scythe related dervish skills sucking horribly along with a pretty sucky primary attribute). Most other things commonly called gimmicks are in a grey zone, most people think they are gimmicks, some people don't. In essence, most of Guild Wars is a gimmick, because of bad balancing by A-net which balances professions on the average usefulness of all of a given profession's attributes and skills. This would work, except that there is a thing called secondary professions, so it fails horribly because people can take the strengths of two different professions without the weaknesses, and people can also take the strengths of one profession without taking any of the weak attributes. As such, Dervishes have an insane weapon (scythes), but are "balanced out" by a mediocre primary attribute. Rangers have a killer primary attribute (Expertise) but are countered by having their attack skills costing so much and achieving so little. Monks have awesome healing, but are somehow "balanced" by having a smiting line that sucks balls. Rits just plain suck. Assassins get two weak lines (Deadly Arts and Shadow Arts) in exchange for two instagib lines which have insane synergy because for Daggers to work, you need Crit Mastery. Then again, shadow steps just make Assassins completely unbalanced anyway. Warriors have insane dps, but are actually balanced because they need to charge adrenaline and have so much melee hate on their ass. Paragons are retardedly imba in that they have everything you could need (awesome support and decent inherent dps). Mesmers and Necros have the most stupid gimmicks in them, but also have the most shitty skills that no-one could ever make useful, so somehow A-net thinks they are balanced. Elementalists just plain rock .They have one line with the most dps in the game, one line with the most snaring and utility in the game, one line which is a counter to all melee and one line which sucks in PvP. All this at the price of a shit load of spells in the useless line which have 25 energy cost, 30 recharge and 3+ casting time. Call that balanced? Any combination of these can make a gimmick, so stop saying that so-and-so is balanced, because clearly it isn't. Crimmastermind 21:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You have just given a great example, did you know that? You have shown why gimmickness is purely based on opinion. You basically call everything that isn't 3 melee - 3 midline - 2 healers a gimmick. Well, if the game is well balanced, you can play anything and win...including teams that deviate from the standard, broad orientated setup. So basically, there are no gimmicks and the defenition should just read: negative term to describe builds that a player doesn't like. 145.94.74.23 07:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Really have to say I agree with the last person, while the definition may be an imbalanced but popular build or team build, the only use of the word is really just a negative term used to describe builds that ticked somebody off. My impression of this game from the start has been that it is wonderfully flexible - you don't ever need a set number of any particular role or profession (though, healing needs to be somewhere). Some combinations and builds might make life easier or harder, but in the end any good group can do whatever you're going after. These popular 'gimmicks' ones are mostly pvp and farming, but they're really only gimmicks because those are where people are fastest to point fingers and scream: when someone did it better than them. Lillium 19:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Definition of a Gimmick Team

3+ times the same character in a team makes it gimmick.

Devs insight

We can have a discussion that goes for ever about what can be considered gimmick or not but... What are the devs opinions on such things as an 8 assassins team or the like ? Did they experience it ? What was their thoughts after the fight ? I am just curious... Yseron - 86.209.192.194 13:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

//-------------------------------------------------------------------
// The absence of Anet answers goes there
//-------------------------------------------------------------------

- 100k to each anet employee answering in less than 1 week

1 week ellapsed. Closed. Yseron - 81.251.150.93 17:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

//-------------------------------------------------------------------
// Wiki users comments goes there
//-------------------------------------------------------------------

A gimmick is anything which uses several of the same or similar overpowered combination of skills to win. -- 13:25, 28 February 2009

Underpowered gimmicks builds

I think we should revise the description to mention bad gimmick builds. I don't think a suicidally bad 55 build is any less gimmicky than an obscenely overpowered one, and I would describe the horrible builds Auron refers to in his essay on originality and competitiveness as bad gimmick builds. If no one objects, I plan on revising the introductory paragraph and adding a section on bad gimmick builds some time next week. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have rewritten the article in an attempt to objectify it. It may be useful to start a new, seperate article on balanced builds, to clearly define the difference between the two. 145.94.74.23 08:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Not bad. Dark Morphon 14:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It may not show that often, but I am really trying to write well and think things through. 87.210.150.58 21:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Against the designers' intent?

I don't think this is necessarily the case. Some skills look like they must have been designed specifically for gimmick builds, including Order of Pain, Order of the Vampire, Way of the Master, Vocal Was Sogolon and most Chants, Echoes and Nature Rituals. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that there is no set defenition for a gimmick, which is why I tried to include as many half-defenitions as I could. 145.94.74.23 07:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new introductory section

I feel that the current introductory section is biased towards PvP, which I consider inappropriate for the introductory section of an article about a general term (although I feel that the paragraph would would be completely appropriate in a PvP section). I'd prefer to use something like this for the introductory section:

A gimmick build is, in the broadest sense, an unconventional build. The term has negative connotations, and is often used by people to refer to builds which they dislike because they consider them inappropriate.

==Common reasons for a build to be considered a gimmick==

• The build is considered too easy for unskilled players to use effectively.
• The build is considered overpowered compared to "balanced".
• The build is considered overspecialized, sacrificing too much versitility in order to be more effective in certain circumstances.
• The build is considered needlessly awkward to use effectively.

-- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

An unconventional build? Gimmicks are common builds usually, due to their brokenness and/or ease of use. I've never heard anyone call an odd build a gimmick. ~Shard 05:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Most gimmick builds seem unusual when they are first introduced, and, although there are a few exceptions such as IWAY, most of them don't stay popular for long. Gimmicks as a whole are common, however most gimmicks are individually uncommon, and most of them are unusual compared to both balanced builds, and two randomly selected gimmick builds probably have little in common with eachother (compare smiteball with spirit spam, IWAY with minion factory or paraway with hexway). IMO gimmicks are defined as much by what they are not as by what they are. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Gimmicks VS. Balanced Build

Had nowhere else to say it, so this is the most suitable place I could find.
I went to RA, as a A/Me. This is my build:

This is a gimmicky build to all concerns. So, I entered RA. I lost, but I killed 1 or 2 people with me. Tried again. Lost again. Retried. Lost again. Another try. We won, but very close. Another win, but with sheer luck and stupidity of other team (they stayed in lava). In the 3rd battle, I got destroyed. You know why? This build has almost no survival. Anyway, after a few more failed battles, I deleted this char, and created a Mesmer. This is the build that I made on the spot for him:

I went in. On the first battle, we had 2 leavers, so the team resigned. My bad luck. On the second battle, we had a Mo/E, myself, a W/E and W/Mo. The monk was excellent. The warrior pounded hard, and I destroyed any Mesmer, Necromancer, Monk, Elementalist, and lots and lots of Gimmicky assassins. On the 7th battle we lost to an extremely good team, after a long and fun fight. Neither of the teams had any overused builds, and it was so much fun to both sides.

Conclusions? Titani Ertan 11:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Gimmick builds only work in certain circumstances. You got lucky with your team while playing Mesmer. --Arduinna 13:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I got lucky in the 10 more times I played as the Mesmer in RA. And I guess I wasn't when I played with the Assassin again and again, for about 5 more times. Titani Ertan 21:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article, in so many words, says that a gimmick build is anything other than a balanced build. I mean - can't a build start off as being considered balanced, and then later, due to discovered counters and game updates, become a "gimmick" build? I just don't like the way this article is written; it seems a tad more elitist than objective and neutral. --Ninjatek 00:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

By definition, yes. A gimmick build is imbalanced. If it was balanced, it wouldn't be a gimmick. Derp. –Jette 02:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Energy hiding says hello ._.a I could'nt figure out why A/Me would be defeated by e-drain Mes, especially she/he has no interrupts, though it's difficult interrupting 66% boost casting...--TeaCat._. 07:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Gimmick

A build that focuses on exploiting aspects of the game in order to force an unbalanced fight rather than focusing on universality. So, a team that relies on overwhelming or negating one or more aspects of the other teams' offense or defense (such as hex removal or warriors) rather than building to ensure that they have the flexibility to at least partially counter any team they might run into. Book it, done. --71.229.253.172 07:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well said. That's a lot more accurate than what's up there now. ~Shard 03:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Gimmick or specialized build?

While so-called balanced or "universal" builds play an important role in general PvE, there are many challenges that can only be dealt with by a build that is optimized for that situation (that can not be dealt with by a balanced build) and that will not work in another elite end-game PvE area. If such a build is a gimmick, then gimmick builds are an integral and essential part of GW's gameplay. More properly those builds should not be called gimmick builds. The dictionary definition of "gimmick" is quite different than how the word is used in this wiki article; "...novel device...designed to attract attention or increase appeal" and "to equip or embellish with unnecessary features". For instance: a build that was not created for effectiveness (though it can be effective in some situations) but that was created for no other reason than to be highly unusual (novel, attract attention, embellished with unnecessary features), ie only signets, or a ranger with only traps, or an assassin with only touch skills. 83.163.223.50 09:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)