Proposed Guidlines for Rating builds

We need to come up with better guidelines for voting on the wiki. Anyone can go leaf through every single build page and just give a vote based upon what they think of the build on paper. That is not productive, however. People should only be voting if they have experience with something. Zuranthium 21:17, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree with this, if you have no actual experience in RUNNING the build yourself, regardless of what you think of the build or what others think of the build, you should not rate it. Of course, if it's obvious at first glance that the build is impossibly flawed in some basic way, I suppose you could vote it down ... but wouldn't it be a better use of your time in such a case to FIX THE PROBLEM? Skie M 21:20, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Weve had this discussion a long time ago. The consensus was that if you know about GW mechanics, you could rate a build without testing it. --- Monk-icon-Ressmonkey Ressmonkey (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
It really depends on the build. If it is completely original, then some testing may be in order, but you don't need to test the other Axe (Shock Axe and its brothers, more specifically) because the build is pretty much the same over 8+ pages. ــмıкεнaшк 21:42, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Common sense dictates that if misunderstandings with a build are pointed out, people would revise their otherwise invalid comments rather than continue to try and press them through. This is more or less an isolated incident as far as I see, but feel free to bring up examples. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 22:25, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
U need to read GoD's rants. You dont need to test a build to judge it in all cases. If its a good idea on scratch its probably a good idea in general. If its a good idea on scratch but it gets trashed, odds are you werent thinking well enough about the counters or inferiority. If we had to test every single build before voting on it, this wiki would be crap. Its all a matter of mathematics and common sense. IAmJebus sig2*Jebus* Is I 22:33, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
And it might be hard to see if the voter even tested the build, anyway, because it isn't hard to make up bullshit. XD ــмıкεнaшк 22:35, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Or just troll like rawrawr *cough anymore the eviscerate executioners strike spike dont work that much but its fairly effective very weak against any type of anti melee and shock is a costly interrupt skill cough* IAmJebus sig2*Jebus* Is I 22:36, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
That's pretty Troll tbh Frosty No U! 23:03, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
The most dangerous thing about what you propose stems from the fact that at the moment Zuranthium, you sound exactly like every first time build poster that has gotten their build trashed. You are setting a dangerous precendent. The build is unlikely to end up in trash, even without your meddling and even if it does you have two weeks to convince people that the situation is incorrect and remedy it. I agree that people should leave builds that they don't care about or have no experience with well enough alone. GoD has admitted to never playing a GvG in his life, if he ever touches a GvG build with a vote, it SHOULD be smashed. If it's your build you should really bear in mind what a conflict of interest is and only remove obviously incorrect votes such as "Lololol daggers, lolololol, teleport". People do actually have a basis for comparison btw, Aura of Displacement. Not that many people use it to it's full potential, but it's an incredibly versatile skill. I was always very confused when I saw votes on the GoI AoD sin saying you "don't need that level of movement control in arenas", being able to ping around the map is incredibly useful, perhaps even more so in RA where people don't know how to respond appropriately. - Miserysig1isery (TALK) 03:06, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

The point will go across back and forth. First we got fed up of testing builds which clearly weren't going to work, so actually testing builds was not mandatory. Now we're getting fed up with people who don't test builds before voting, and you guys want testing to be mandatory. I assure you that if that happens, the same thing will repeat over and over again. This is what I propose should happen with theory vs. practice conflicts:

  1. Testing is not mandatory before voting.
  2. If an untested vote is identified for debate, discussion should take place on the build's talk place with clearly presented arguments for either side.
  3. Pro-theory contentions should consider the practical value of the build; pro-practice contentions should accurately identify the characteristics of the build. In other words, don't resort to "You didn't test it, therefore your opinion is invalid" line of argument. Present the information in a neutral manner without taking it out personally on the person you are debating against.
  4. If no consensus or compromise is reached, the issue should be brought up on the admin noticeboard.

I personally lean towards practical evidence from testing over theory, but if both sides are equally well-formed, I don't see a reason why one should override the other, and votes should thus be allowed to stay. Again, the main idea is not to instantly bash votes because of lack of testing. Guild Wars is not a dynamic environment, and builds are inherently predictable. With enough experience, players can understand the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of a build without having to run it themselves. The only deviating case I've seen here is the concept of weapon-switching builds, which did require some testing to prove the concept was viable. Unless a build goes against conventional wisdom, testing doesn't necessarily prove something new -- nor does testing automatically mean that the build is actually good, all things considered. --Scottie bow Scottie_theNerd (talk/contribs/complain) 09:21, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

I doubt anyone is going against the entire idea of "you don't need to test in order to vote". However, there are extreme and certain isolated incidents where just looking at a build just isn't enough - many people are too closely attracted to certain builds and are simply unable to judge a build objectively (the GoR build being an example, and many others in the past). The more interesting part is, most of them seem to occur with Assassin builds for whatever reason.
In any case, those incidents have called for more testing. The problem is, there are some people who get offended for whatever reason when asked if they tested, and immediately post on the AN regarding this issue. This includes that SP build used by [Me] in several monthlies; the build was deleted several times over because it kept getting submitted, and this repeated until the aforementioned MAT win took place, at which time every vote on the ratings page popped up as 5-5-5. If anything, I think User:Zuranthium has a point, and it's one that I've been addressing on a multitude of builds' talk pages. The line needs to be drawn between the two points:
a) One being permitted to evaluate a build without testing it and
b) One's own capabilities in evaluating a build without testing it
Looking back, it was only a matter of time before something like this incident with that GoR build occurred. I believe Scottie has already addressed point a), but what's being mentioned is point b), and that's the conflict occuring in this build. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 14:34, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
In other words, theorycraft only works when you're good at theorycrafting. Ojamo SigOjamo Tell Me I Fail 22:26, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
And some builds really can't be theorycrafted. Ojamo SigOjamo Tell Me I Fail 22:28, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
Precisely. Sort of like when people said Frenzy was bad because it makes you take double damage. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 22:54, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
Thus my preference for practical testing. When a theory-based vote is being challenged, I would prefer too see more elaborate evidence from both theory and practice. Most cases have devolved into "This build sucks in theory, and I won't explain why because I know better" and "You didn't test it, therefore your opinion doesn't count". It helps when both sides engage in actual discussion instead of hurling one-liners and ad hominem attacks. --Scottie bow Scottie_theNerd (talk/contribs/complain) 23:27, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
Whipped up something quickly. Sort of like what was proposed on the old GWiki. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 00:42, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't see why the build would not go to trash if it is rated so. The expiry of practical testing should be a week or something like that. The one more week before deletion is sufficient for additional rating. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 03:56, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Only valuable thing I see here is the clause that if your voted has been proven incorrect, you can no longer vote on the build to stop the C&P until the vote sticks behaivour. Why don't we just add a clause to PvX:VETTING that allows BMs or admins to ban certain people from voting on one build when they are clearly just stabbing in the dark to make their vote stick. Could keep similar criterea, but I don't see the whole "Will go into Other instead of Trash" thing as being necessary, there is still two weeks to sort this stuff out. Naturally this will need to be used carefully, don't ban someone from voting because they called a spike build pressure once, if they keep saying it over and over, sure. I would kind of like to see C&P votes disappear altogether as all it does is reweight someone elses vote and it can be valid without even thinking about the build. - Miserysig1isery (TALK) 06:39, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
Still, there's no way to tell a user did or didn't "test" it. I could easily say I've run every single build of PvX and rated they're effectiveness accordingly, and for all you know, it could be true. I mean, if they're saying "Dash is stupid on a Rit" when talking about the WoR Flagger, then they don't know what they're talking about. But still, basically saying if one guy tests it he calls the shots is bull crap. I hardly play Guild Wars as it is, and I'm not wasting the time to log on and play 10 games of RA with some shit build. I'm guessing that a large majority of vetted builds were theorycrafted. Hell, I don't think I've ever tested one of MY builds. Saying "Okay guys, you have to test it now" is just stupid. PvX can function if people come to mutual agreement on a build and a center point. Say one party thinks the build is meh, the other party thinks it's God-on-a-stick, they can vett it accordingly (each vote eventually balances eachother out). Although that's just plain vote balancing, it's plain opinion. Sure, maybe either party may've got what they exactly wanted, but they got close. The "meh" party got it vetted lower than the "God-on-a-stick" party wanted, and the "God-on-a-stick" party got it vetted acceptable. People are just too damn proud about if they're right or wrong. --GoD Wario Sig*Wah Wah Wah!* 07:25, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
Still, there's no way to tell a user did or didn't "test" it.
That's pretty easy actually. If they're spewing bullshit and it's obvious they have no clue what they're talking about, they either A. haven't tested the build, or B. suck too much at the game type to have a valid opinion on the build in the first place.
Option C, on the other hand, is them not spewing bullshit to begin with. It hints that they're competent enough at the game to be a fair judge of the build by playtesting. Once their ability to play in the arena has been established, you can start looking at their test results.
I basically had to do the same thing Zur's doing with that AoD shock sin back in the day, back when I first re-wrote it. I put shock off on the side and put in the notes, "Don't start the chain with Shock, use it only as a utility interrupt/snare." Did people listen? Did people comprehend it? No. They voted with stuff like "OMG SO MUCH EXHAUSTION" and equally retarded comments when warriors run shock for the exact same reason and nobody whines about them having exhaustion problems.
I had to fight the waves of stupidity as people slowly learned how to play the build. They started grasping that AoD put you at the reigns when it came to battle positioning, and the actual attack chain didn't require shock (but shock could be substituted in the bar if HotO couldn't hit).
In cases like that, bad players shouldn't be allowed to trash a build. They don't understand how to play it. They're bad at assassin to begin with, most having only played SP-esque 5 attack skill horrors, and aren't used to using their heads when it comes to sin builds. Zum Beispiel, this build. I showed it to a few players wanting an awesome sin build. The comments I got back? "Only 3 attack skills, it sucks." "hex breaker? lol noob." "terrible elite." "blackout means you can't attack, LOL" etc etc
I couldn't believe it. Were people seriously this stupid or was I just being trolled? You guessed it... they were being serious. They just sucked copious amounts of ass. Should we, as a wiki, take their advice? Sure, they have the ability to theorycraft with it. Their theorycrafting failed miserably. How would they perform if they were actually running it? Most likely terribly.
Thus, I don't think we should make testing a requirement as much as we should make sure the people commenting have a clue. Funnily enough, I think we have a neat position for skilled Guild Wars players whose entire job it is to decide if people have a clue or not. When people don't have a clue, these so-called Build Masters have the ability - nay, the responsibility - to remove the flawed votes. While it won't do to have them picking favorite builds, the PvX populace at large should try to realize how they might just... y'know, be right about a build. And for chrissakes, if people have a problem with a Build Master, they need to take it to a bureaucrat, not the admin noticeboard.
I hardly play Guild Wars as it is, and I'm not wasting the time to log on and play 10 games of RA with some shit build.
But when your knowledge of the build is questioned by someone who has logged on and played it, you better do the same. Especially with assassin builds. You don't know what you don't know, honestly.
I'm guessing that a large majority of vetted builds were theorycrafted.
And the largest majority of "great" builds are commonly played on obs, or were at some point in time. Theorycrafted builds should, at most, be in "good" unless they actually see some play.
Hell, I don't think I've ever tested one of MY builds. Saying "Okay guys, you have to test it now" is just stupid.
That really is stupid. Why do you waste everyone's time? Get off your ass and test your own builds. That way, you know they work, so when people question you on it, you aren't just spewing bullshit.
PvX can function if people come to mutual agreement on a build and a center point.
Yes and no. PvX is a build archive, not a place where people smile and hold hands. If a build rocks, it rocks, no matter how many bad players disagree. If a build sucks, it sucks, no matter how many bad players think it rocks. As soon as we start trying to find a middle ground for the sake of compromise, we start losing build quality, and that sort of goes against the entire point of the wiki's existence. We want to be a source of quality builds, not a source of bad builds that are rated high so as to not hurt people's feelings. Hell, I want ANet to re-implement premades based on builds we rate high, but that wouldn't be a smart option if we start letting Abominable Snowman wars get vetted high because you wanted to come to a mutual agreement with the build maker.
Sorry for the huge wall, I just feel strongly about this topic. -Auron 12:19, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
Cute idea with that assassin build, but I'm assuming it was before the Shroud of Silence nerfs so that you could get off your whole chain, the Blackout them for a continuous very long bloody period of no casting so that the whole rest of your team could gank a monk. We pretty consistently see terrible votes from the same people, so one thing I have been wondering about is a policy something like PvX:Don't be bad, where if your votes get consistently removed it can result in the percentage weighting of your vote being lowered. Could be too much of a pain in the ass to code though, but would it be viable to just ban certain users from voting (adding them to a user group with 0% weighting on votes)? I've always been against things like PvXWiki:Failed Build Concepts because the meta is fluid, shit changes and people, the whole community in general, has been proven to be wrong about shit before. That's another strong reason why I don't think you should be voting on builds if you aren't playing in THAT particular arena at the moment. - Miserysig1isery (TALK) 12:33, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
I don't play GvG or HA--but then again, i don't vote on GvG or HA builds that aren't tagged for something that i DO play. but Auron is right--testing won't solve our problems, because people who fail enough to vote down a great build on based on bad theorycrafting will probably suck at playing it. even if you're pretty good, if you've just decided beforehand that a build is bad, you probably won't take the time to really play it right. it's a thorny issue, to be sure.--Reason.decrystallized 14:54, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
I can say the same, but I still have SOME (if a little) knowledge of HA/GvG. I know how teams should be set up, I know the terms, and etc. I also try to vote with the majority, although that may seem like blindly following the flow. Anyway, basically forcing people to test a build is stupid, especially in areas where testing is a pain and shouldn't be done. Trying to organize a mock GvG game with your guild/alliance or even doing a ranked match to test out a build only to find it's trash is a rather bad concept. Honestly, most builds can have effectiveness easily determined by common math and knowledge, and if they're not, we have BM's. I also agree with Misery; if you see a person whose known for being rather, erm... bad at Guild Wars, then you'll know that they're knowledge is low. Still, I don't think that forcing people to waste time testing a build is necessary. --GoD Wario Sig*Wah Wah Wah!* 15:05, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
I don't think anyone would request this for a Team build, because a Team build is either good or bad, because it's balanced with 4-8 members. It may be worth adding that Practical Testing wouldn't apply to Team builds, but only specific, independent builds. ــмıкεнaшк 15:09, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
I believe making testing mandatory would be suicide, since most people can theoryocraft well (most), I think the problem is people vote when they should just wait and look at what people write in the discussion, or atleast wait to see what other members think. Somepeople are very, lolvote-ish, where they look at a build in a glance, and either vote the same as the 1 vote on there or just vote blindly (this is a good build kinda vote). If there was sometype of proposal like, understand before you vote, that would go down well with me, I don't vote on many PvE builds, because I do not PvE (well I used to so I know what works), where as I generally vote on PvP builds which I understand commonly. Wow now I forgoet what I was talking about. Frosty No U! 15:13, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
A mock GvG game? I doubt anyone suggested or even brought that up. And if you "try to vote with the majority", then you probably shouldn't be voting. It should be based on your own experience, and if you lack that, don't vote. You don't get a medal for being first to vote on every damned build. "That user has a good point" and "I'm going to copypaste rating spam" are two different things. It becomes increasingly obvious when one is occurring over the other. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 23:22, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Better idea: How about you take tested votes and weigh them as 150% of untested votes. You can show proof of the tested vote via screenshot. 19pxAce(LVPoW) 12:08, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

So you want to upload a gazillion screenshots of tests? What constitutes a test? A screenshot with those skills on your bar? - Miserysig1isery (TALK) 14:45, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
After you've killed the Master of Healing. lololol Practical Testing seems a little too inconvenient for everyone. ــмıкεнaшк 14:58, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

so ...

did this just die, or what?--Reason.decrystallized 08:22, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

They just added a note to PvXwiki:Real Vetting. - Miserysig1isery (TALK) 08:41, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.