This new policy will be aimed at restructuring the wiki to a large extent. Namely:
- The vetting process will remain, but will only remain as a manner of determining how effective/meta a build is.
- It will largely serve as a function to screen out junk builds and theorycrafts.
- Theorycrafts will have their own namespace "Theory:".
- We'll need a new template for proposed moves, which would hopefully be resolved in a quick manner by an admin.
- The Other section will be removed.
- No one even bothers to look there. (Page view counts should easily confirm this.)
- Build Masters will be eliminated.
- Guides will play a larger role.
- Most builds have come to be simply variants of other builds, even on the team level.
- Storing multiple variations isn't bad, but Guides can serve as springboards for on-the-fly modification and buildwarsing.
This policy describes the procedure by which builds are determined to be "worthy" of placement on PvX. Each user can assist in the determination of whether or not a build is "meta". By this same method, users will determine the quality of a meta build. Theorycrafted builds and other non-meta builds will be placed into a the "Theory:" namespace, from which they may be moved should they ever become meta.
- New builds will be placed in the Build namespace to be later moved to Meta or Theory depending on community concensus.
- Newly entered builds on PvX should reside in the Build stubs category until they are compiled.
- At this point they should be moved to Trial builds for further annotation and modification by editors, as is seen fit to match the meta.
- Once this process is complete, builds should be moved to Testing to be vetted.
Rating is on a scale of 0 (hopeless) to 5 (excellent).
- This criterion describes how effective a build is at performing its prescribed role. This is not meant to determine ease of use, but rather to describe its efficiency. (A rating of 5 in this category would determine that a build is able to perform its function as expected and needed, as well as similar to or better than builds of this quality as previously established. A 0 would determine that a build is unable to perform other functions, much less its intended function, as expected.)
- This criterion describes how flexible a build is when forced into a situation slightly different from what the build was designed for. This includes the ability to change strategy in the event that a foe acts in an unexpected manner, an ally is not performing up to par, or when used in a different location than originally intended.
- This criterion describes whether or not a build is meta-meta. (That is, whether or not a build is able to effectively counter meta builds, as well as builds which may not be currently meta.)
Users are strongly discouraged from vetting builds based solely on the idea that teammates will perform optimally and/or opponents will perform sub-optimally. Users are also discouraged from voting on builds which utilize game mechanics and/or exploit playstyles with which the user may not be intimately familiar with.
In addition, a reason for the vote must be given in the 'Comments' box. Please observe the following guidelines concerning votes and their reasons.
- A vote must constitute an objective judgment of the build's qualities. It must not be biased by sympathy or any other prejudice regarding the author. This applies in particular to votes given by authors themselves or their friends. Votes that deliberately overshoot in favoring or unfavoring a build in order to 'compensate' another vote are not acceptable either.
- A vote may not be submitted by a sock puppet. Users who didn't edit a single page on the wiki yet are in general suspected to be sock puppets and their votes are subject to removal.
- A vote, including the comment, must be self-consistent. That is, the ratings and the comment may not contradict each other. The comment should explain all ratings instead. Likewise, a rating of e.g. Zero in Effectiveness and 5 in Universality is considered contradictory.
- A vote may not constitute vandalism or violate NPA. It may not be overly rude, attack the author or in another way disrupt the wiki.
- A vote must be based on facts. Votes that are entirely based on a false premise, flagrantly misrepresent a build's ability or demonstrate a minimal understanding of in-game mechanics are considered invalid.
- A build that works, but is clearly inferior to another build, should get a lower rating than this other build. However, the rating should still be higher than for a build that doesn't work at all. Only builds that serve the same purpose may be compared in that way.
- The weighting of the ratings on the different criteria is defined by this policy. Voters who don't agree with the current weighting should address that on the policy's talk page. It is not admissible to give false ratings on individual criteria in order to circumvent the weighting scheme.
- A vote must not be based on optimal/sub-optimal performance as noted above. If a vote's reasoning assumes that opponents are terrible, it can be subject to immediate removal.
If a user feels that an unwarranted rating has been given to a build, he or she may contact the voter in question and ask them to explain or elaborate their rating on the build's discussion page. Note that all discussion about votes and their reasons takes place on the build's discussion page, not on the voter's talk page. However, a short message on the voter's talk page in order to draw his attention on the discussion is acceptable. Please respect NPA at all times.
A vote that seriously violates the above rules may be brought to admin attention and, if that is deemed appropriate, will be stricken. The administrator or build master striking the vote will give a reason explaining in which way the vote was violating this policy. In general he will also inform the voter about the removal of the vote. Excepting cases of sockpuppetry and/or vandalism, administrators or BMs are expected not to remove votes from builds they have created, and should allow another less biased administrator / BM to make a determination on whether or not a vote should be removed.
Each user has the opportunity to change his/her vote any time as the work on the build progresses. This includes the submission of a new vote after a vote was stricken. Note however that the re-submission of the same vote without any further explanation is violating 1RV.
Apply Common Sense When Voting Edit
When rating, apply common sense and be reasonable. Don't rate builds based on trivial or easily amenable premises. For instance, If a PvP build listed as using a Superior Rune, but it could still function using Minor Runes, don't use "Rune suicide" as the sole basis of giving the build a low score. Instead, remove the Superior Rune and make a note of your having done so on the talk page (it is recommended that you do so, though it is not strictly necessary). This extends to votes based on the use of a minor skill (e.g. don't give a build a poor rating because you'd prefer a different primer hex which could be easily added).
Votes violating this common sense rule (or common sense in general) may result in a 1-3 day ban for stupidity and blatant disregard for policy.
On the rate page of a build, a list of all existing votes on this build is displayed, including the voter's user name, ratings, and the reason given.
For determining the overall rating of a build, the ratings of all criteria are combined with the following weighting:
- Effectiveness: 80%
- Universality: 20%
- Innovation: 0%
Note that the innovation rating is no longer counting towards the overall score, but merely for the reader's information.
To determine the total score of the build, the ratings given by all voters are averaged. As soon as at least 5 people have voted on a build, the build is assigned a category.
Depending on the total rating by all voters, builds are sorted in the following categories after a minimum of 5 votes.
- Working-Great (4.5 – 5.0):
- The build works great. The build is meta, sees common use, and is effective at buildwarsing other builds. This build serves as a reliable counter for many other meta builds.
- Working-Good (3.5 – <4.5):
- The build works well. The build is meta and sees common use, but may not be effective at buildwarsing other builds. This build may be easily countered using other meta builds.
- Trash (0 – <3.5):
- The build has not shown any particularly good ideas, has no potential, or is otherwise not a good build. It will be deleted after a grace period of 2-3 weeks.
Note that exceptionally bad builds might be subject to more speedy deletion according to the Build Deletion policy.
Transition to MetaEdit
Should a theorycraft ever become meta, that theorycraft will be moved from the Theory space to the Build space. At this point, the build would be placed into Trial, its ratings would be wiped, and any necessary corrections to Usage, etc. will be made. The process will proceed as usual from here.
- Should a build fail to be recognized as Good or Great in the Build namespace, it will be deleted rather than placed back into Theory, having been shown to not work effectively and therefore not be a quality theorycraft.
Additional Information Edit
For additional information regarding both the process of creating/vetting a build under the Meta system, as well as additional policy aspects, see PvXwiki:Editing Builds.