From Main Page

First comment!

First off: You've done a lot of work here. Good job - nearly everything we aren't going to cover links to guildwiki. Well done!

Secondly: For legal reasons, I don't think we can call this "guildwiki" without mass approval from guildwiki (including Fyren, Gem, probably Skuld just to make it look good, and Gravewit if we can contact him). It's also very confusing as I try to figure out what page I have open in my tabs. How about Buildwiki, in all seriousness? It's a good description of what the wiki is.

Thirdly: One of the reasons there's a build wipe is because of all the unfavored, crappy builds. See my suggestion for BW:WELL. I personally think they should be deleted altogether (re: Build:E/Any I am attuned. Horrible name, definitely not the best build ever, certainly not needing a page on a wiki as anyone with half the brains god gave an artichoke could figure out that fire attunement + elemental attunement = less energy cost. It says so on guildwiki that it stacks with the other four enchantments, doesn't it?)

Keeping the old unfavored crappy builds can be useful. Before submitting a build I always look through the unfavored to see if I see something similar, and so should everybody else. Maybe include that in the policy? If someone submits a build that is identical or nearly identical to a previously unfavored build, ban them! or something similar :P Jaofos 20:20, 18 April 2007 (CEST)
There's a difference between useful unfavored crappy builds and just plain crappy unfavored builds. Take a look at the one I linked to - the only thing you can learn from it is that Elemental Attunement stacks with Fire Attunement, and I guess you could learn what each skill does. Armond 22:08, 18 April 2007 (CEST)
Personally, I favor merely archiving all of the old build section and trying to start anew with a new, hopefully solid policy. Trying to start with the mess of builds we already have is gonna make it that much harder to create something that works since if we want to improve quality, but we don't look at the old builds with a new standard, we are going to have a lot of quality issues. Archiving = Referencing. Anyone can see them, anyone can use them if they like, but keeping all the old favored builds favored seems like a bad idea. What I would propose would be this. We create two new sections, archived - tested and archived - unfavored. Anything that is currently untested or stubbed can be reviewed once we get the new system, but keeping the old builds or trying to rereview them based on a new policy doesn't seem like a great plan. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:25, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
I'm with you on most builds. Things that were just made for the hell of it, or submitted just as sort of "spam" (not a great idea that happens to take you through Nahpui's really quickly so you decided to post it, ignoring the fact that your team did 3/4 of the work)? Nuke it. Armond 08:10, 19 April 2007 (CEST)

There's a bunch of work to do, but we can get it done. Looks like it's going to be fun! Armond 19:24, 18 April 2007 (CEST)

Addition: This page needs protection. Without it, we're just asking for vandalism. Also, I think we should have our own skills pages (especially for reverse lookup). Armond 19:40, 18 April 2007 (CEST)

I fixed the skill template to link directly to the skills page on GW, so I don't think our own skills pages is really necessary. Jaofos 20:16, 18 April 2007 (CEST)

But reverse lookup of skills would be unimaginably useful. At the very least, I think we should have reverse lookup pages (not whatlinkshere special pages). Armond 22:08, 18 April 2007 (CEST)
To be honest, creating those pages wouldn't be terribly hard, and Armond is right that they could be extremely helpful. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:25, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
How you exactly want reverse lookup to work?.. gcardinal 06:38, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
Make a skill page, give a brief description of the skill (perhaps in-game text, vital stats, and profession only), and then give a list of builds that include that skill. Tag it with (variant) afterwards if the build only uses it as a variant. Armond 07:58, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
Oh okey, that is possible to do. But then we will have to dump a whole skill section ... gcardinal 22:56, 19 April 2007 (CEST)

Great start guys

yes this page will be protected but since now only like 10 people knows about this page everething is open for edit. Name will be changed to PvXBuild that is site name. The only reason it says GuildWiki now is for easy bot writing. Processing some 3000 builds and ripping of all info was hard to needed to make it easy.

Im working on getting gwbbcode integrated into our new wiki so it work on existing builds without any changes, will be a channelenge.

As we all know we will not get anywhere with out a new policy on the builds. I want it to be strict, yeat informative. So only builds that works will have "working" label. We must come up with something fast. Please use GuildWiki:Community_Portal for all work related talk's.

By the way, if you guys use msn my is : admin at

so now the anti build wipe people can stop whining

Okay, I'm relaly sorry, but the ONLY thing you shoudl be downloading is teh Gvg builds or other proven good builds. Just making a new site and copying all the builds ownt help.Cheese Slaya 05:39, 19 April 2007 (CEST)

Eh... lern2read imo :P We're not voting on builds until we've got a better voting system. Once that's in place, we'll be able to weed out the junk ones. The only thing I'm concerned about... are we going to let the unfavored builds sit and rot in a pile of 1500+ other unfavored builds? -Auron 05:44, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
I'd say whipe those tbh >.> –Ichigo724Ichigo-signature 05:45, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
/agree Armond 08:08, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
Yeh. I'm thinking 2 weeks since unfavored, then delete; that would give the author long enough to either 1. improve the build enough to warrant another RAB, or 2. store it on his hard drive. -Auron 05:46, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
The problem would be recurring builds. The ones that show up over and over and over and... yes, over. We won't be able to check if something's been done a million times. Although we could still give it as a reason though >.> –Ichigo724Ichigo-signature 05:47, 19 April 2007 (CEST)

Protection should occur now. I'm sorry, Defiant, but that was a pretty major leak. The idea was to not let a lot of people know about this to (among other reasons) prevent vandalism, wasn't it? Armond 08:08, 19 April 2007 (CEST)

It occurs to me that when Hard Mode comes out, 99% of these builds are going to fail miserably... Most notably, the AI will be updated to not go for tanks after a certain period of time, I'll bet you. This means that 55/SS/Famine are going to fail, Grasps will run past minions and pets more than ever, etc. etc. etc... Here's hoping we can think up some alternatives, fast, once we get a look at the new AI. (The end of farming builds...?) Armond 23:18, 19 April 2007 (CEST)

Hey Sweet!

Very impressed with how quickly and professionally you've put this together. I'm also glad you kept the layout of the main build page. I put a lot of work into redesigning it and was kinda ticked off that it was getting scrapped so soon after. Let me know if there is anything you need help with. I don't have much code knowledge but can help out with editing, organizing, etc. I also have some policy ideas that might be useful. Check out the suggestions I posted here. I saw you mention on your talk page that you'd like to have some kind of rating system. I think the best way to do it is to calculate the percentage of people that vote positively. Once you had a percentage rating, you could convert that into a 5 level rating based on 0-20, 20-40, etc. -- BrianG 05:58, 19 April 2007 (CEST)

Thanks :) Yes I was also thinking about it. But I'm not sure how good it will be since it is always so easy to vote 1 if you just dont like something. I'm not sure how many quality votes we will get that way. And how to separate quality votes from trusted people from noob's. Now we primary need help with the policy, everething will be taken care as we go. But all our small community effort must be put into policy. gcardinal 06:32, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
Nah, I didn't mean users would vote a rating. The user would still vote Yes or No, but then you would add up all the votes and get a percentage of people that voted Yes out of the total number of votes. So for 7 out of 10 votes saying yes, the build would have a 70% rating, and that would translate to a purple for example. Just an idea though. -- BrianG 07:36, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
Yeah that can work. And we could also have system where all users can favorite 8 build they uses the most, and have most favorited list gcardinal 22:07, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
My statistics lessons warn me against accepting this if there's less than, say, seven votes. Armond 22:30, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
Yeah I agree. When I proposed this on Defiant's talk page (see link above), I suggested setting a minimum number of votes required of around 10, as well as a minimum period that the build would remain in testing, like 2 weeks for example. This would prevent a build from being voted the wrong way by the first 3 people that pass by, and would reduce the frustration of a build not being given a chance for everyone to see it. -- BrianG 01:24, 20 April 2007 (CEST)
Although I am focusing right now on inputting smaller, more obvious policies, if we expect this to work, we need a BUILDS policy and a VETTING policy, and we need them now. Here is what I would propose. Why don't we create a link where people can post their ideas as to how VETTING/BUILDS should work. And by ideas, I mean proposals. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:53, 20 April 2007 (CEST)


Uh.. i'm not supposed to be here I think.. don't eat me!

things you should probably do:

Skuld 12:36, 19 April 2007 (CEST)

And see di's post a couple of sections up about guildwiki copyrights — Skuld 12:45, 19 April 2007 (CEST)

*ban* :P No, seriously, good to see you (even if it's supposed to be a closed test). Now that I think of it, I'm not sure why you weren't invited, but whatever. I actually had a good name instead of buildwiki this morning... but I forgot XP I think I dropped the "wiki" part off... Maybe Armond 20:24, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
Closed test with the link being spammed all around guildwiki? Not a chance :P -Auron 21:44, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
Okey Im not sure guys what the problem with copyright. There is a clear statement on :
* Further, since we distribute under this license to anybody who accesses this site, everybody in the world will always have the right to distribute your contribution, and any edits to your contribution, for free, provided they are never used for a commercial purpose.
We follow that statement and we have link to Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 what the problem ? There no where in the statement that says that we have to credit each and all builds. We just re-distribute them under same license. There NO copyrights issue here what so ever. gcardinal 21:54, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
I remember now! PvXwiki. How's that sound? Armond 22:32, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
Great :) PvXwiki it is :P gcardinal 22:56, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
I think PvXBuilds would be a better name, mostly because it matches the URL :P Jaofos 00:03, 20 April 2007 (CEST)
Buildwiki. You all know you want it. On another note: the vandalism to the main page already started >.> –Ichigo724Ichigo-signature 00:33, 20 April 2007 (CEST)
Hey look, I am the target of the very first vandalism ever on PvX Builds. Don't I feel special. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:57, 20 April 2007 (CEST)

Build vetting procedure

Currently, since everything was imported from GuildWiki, we have a link to a "build vetting procedure" that is a copy of the wiki procedure. I would say that we should probably remove that since we don't want people to think that that is our actual policy. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:57, 20 April 2007 (CEST)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.