FANDOM


k, let's make this final. The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Skakid9090. 03:23, 12 August 2007 (CEST)

K. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ/〛 03:43, 12 August 2007 (CEST)

K. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 04:05, 12 August 2007 (CEST)

Still doesn't really say anything specific about profession bias. I've seen a 0-0-0 rating on a warrior farming build because a 55 could do it faster. That shouldn't happen. Bluemilkman 04:12, 12 August 2007 (CEST)
IMO that's a case of unreasonable voting and should be brought up with an admin. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 04:48, 12 August 2007 (CEST)
/agree with Armond here. If people want a great farming build, they use the best regardless of profession. If they want a good one, they use the best of the professions they have made available to themselves. Votes such as BMM's example should be brought to administrative attention, rather than creating a new policy and set of guidelines to deal with them. Some builds will farm better than others and deserve a higher rating than them. A Para might farm ok, but it should not be given a higher (or equal) score than a tested and true farmer simply because it is a Para. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 09:40, 12 August 2007 (CEST)
/Agree with Krowman. While I agree that BMM's example probably constitutes an unfair vote, "Profession Bias," as defined by this policy isn't altogether unfair. Some professions are uniquely suited to specific roles, while others may not be suited to that role at all, and we have to acknowledge that. I think that this is probably the kind of problem that inevitably has to be dealt with on a case by case basis. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 09:12, 16 August 2007 (CEST)
As impractical as it may seem, common sense should dictate over this type of subject. A build that uses a different profession but accomplishes the task as best as a build of that profession could with minimal downside may deserve a good rating, but a build that does that with a larger expense may not deserve the same rating. "It's the only build that can do that" doesn't really cut it in some cases, but in other cases it can, depending on the build's overall performance. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 18:23, 20 August 2007 (CEST)
Agreed, builds should receive fair voting, and bad votes can be struck, but this policy is unneeded. I could make the downright BEST warrior healer, and by this policy, since it's the best healer a warrior could be, you'd have to vote it well. In Bmm's case, the vote itself seemed unfair, and should have been removed. Bob fregman 06:38, 21 August 2007 (CEST)

I vote in favor. Builds should be voted on their effectiveness within their class. Comparing between classes is impractical and illogical. Many people are not going to create a brand new character and spend weeks leveling it up and spend maybe what? 10-20k on skills and armor and weapons just to farm one area? Just because a build is relatively slow or has less damage output doesn't make it a bad build. If you can safely farm an area without too much hassle with the build it should be approved. Matthew Edmund 01:41, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

I agree. The way the voting goes on here, builds are rated as inferior if they do not meet the effectiveness of a similar build using a different profession. I disagree with this, as I feel that if someone is looking for a Warrior farming build, they are not going to look in the Assassin category for the build. In the case that upset me, I had a Dervish build that was similar in most ways to a Monk build. But no one that wishes to find a Dervish farming build is going to search for their Dervish builds in the Monk category, and no one that wants to farm an area that has their Dervish there are going create a Monk and level him and get him to that area for farming. They will want to farm on their Dervish. Therefore, whether the job can be done similarly or even better on a Monk is mute; the person is searching for a Dervish build, not a Monk build. I think profession bias needs to be done away with. - Lord Xivor 02:00, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

Awesome. If this goes through how it is, imma submit a W/Mo healer. It would get vetted too, cuz it would be the best the profession has to offer in terms of healing. :) --Teh Uber Pwnzer 02:56, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

And I'll make a N/E fire nuker. Misfate 03:07, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

So, if this becomes policy, I can't vote a P/R barrager lower than a typical Ranger barrager because the p/r is a para? --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 03:12, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

Exactly.--Teh Uber Pwnzer 03:34, 16 September 2007 (CEST)
I guess I'll have to make a R/Mo healer build. Or, even worse, a resto rit! :P --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 03:37, 16 September 2007 (CEST)
Awesome, Healing Touch and Mending Touch only costing 2 energy @15 expertise! Oh, I know what your elite should be! Healing Burst!--Teh Uber Pwnzer 03:46, 16 September 2007 (CEST)
The more I look at this policy, the more bullshit this policy looks. Glyph of Essence + Phoenix warriors. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 03:56, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

You know, the sarcastic immaturity above this post does nothing for this proposed policy at all. Common sense people, common sense. Is that something that is so greatly lacking in this community? Apparently so, from the responses of the people I have read or interacted with as of late.

I think it is safe to say that the idiot build ideas you laugh at up above would not be ones that would come up at all. They do not fall under the qualifications of the build vetting policies of builds that work well. I think that builds that get voted upon should be governed by the builds that work well...in their own profession class. Of course a Ranger using Mending Touch and Healing Touch would not be a viable build. It is a stupid idea. That is not even what is being proposed here. Again, COMMON SENSE PEOPLE. - Lord Xivor 07:02, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

Reword the policy? Edit

Looking at the wording of the policy I think it may be better to reword it. I think what we're looking for is a build being judged on the merit of how well it does the job it was intended to do rather than how another build of another profession works. For example a W/Mo healer would not be viable because a W/Mo simply does not have the energy regeneration or energy reserves to heal effectively. However, a W/Mo troll farmer CAN farm trolls effectively although much slower than say a 55 monk. In this instance, the W/Mo build shouldn't be voted against because its slower than the 55 Monk because it offers an effective alternative with its own distinct advantages over a 55 monk (larger room for error, different class, different tactics, etc). What we're looking for is fairness in the vetting of the builds. If a build can do something effectively without undue hassle. It should be voted on its own merits and not compared to another build of another class. Matthew Edmund 04:04, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

A build that's less effective at what it's supposed to do(for example, a farming build that is slower than another) than another should be voted worse. That is the cornerstone of the wiki's vetting system. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 04:08, 16 September 2007 (CEST)
In short, unless rewording the policy makes the policy "Profession Bias is Good", I doubt it would do much good. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 04:15, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

I like Matthew's wording, so I may use some of it here. Not trying to re-say anything, just how it comes out. A monk is a healer. A warrior kills stuff. Would a warrior healer work? No. Would a monk killing stuff work? Maybe a smite monk, but other than that, no. They wouldn't be any good, at all. But when a warrior can farm an area, go through it, not die, and make a decent amount of money, it shouldn't be voted bad because a monk can farm it faster. I think the policy needs to be reworded as PvE Profession Bias on Farming/Running Builds, as those are the only two areas where it would be applicable. Just because a dervish can make the droks run fastest, and a ranger can do it, but a bit slower, doesn't mean the ranger should be done away with. If it works and is not overly time consuming (i.e. two hours to farm an area because you keep getting killed or something), it should not be compared to another profession. Bluemilkman/Talk To Me 04:33, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

I dunno, my War Infuser was pretty good :/... Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 04:34, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

A warrior build that farms the same thing worse than a monk build should be voted worse. They should be compared, although certainly an effective farming build shouldn't be voted 0-0-0 because a different build can do it better. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 04:48, 16 September 2007 (CEST)
I completely agree with Edru.--Teh Uber Pwnzer 04:50, 16 September 2007 (CEST)
I don't have a monk that's level 20, and if I did, I don't have the money to get all the armor needed for the farming builds. ON the other hand, I have a warrior and a ranger that has access to everywhere and everything. I can only find monk builds here for farming. How does that help? Bluemilkman/Talk To Me 04:57, 16 September 2007 (CEST)
This policy proposal, by saying that an inferior build should be rated as highly as a better build simply because they are of different professions, would undermine our vetting policy. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 05:04, 16 September 2007 (CEST)
Your "simply" isn't simple. Bluemilkman/Talk To Me 05:06, 16 September 2007 (CEST)
I'm afraid I don't understand what you're trying to say. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 05:12, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

(Resetting indent) I hated having to edit between that. I would agree with you 100% about PvP, and most PvE categories, besides the farming and maybe running. The only inferior part of most of the builds is time taken. If someone has to level up a monk, but already has a warrior, when does that time taken start to count for itself. It would take me less time right now to use a ranger farming build that takes 5 minutes longer to do, then it would to level my monk up 13 levels, make money to buy armor, and get to the places I want to farm. What I'm saying, is that the inferiority of a build is all dependent upon the preexisting conditions of a player, which should not be taken into consideration when voting on a build. That would undermine the vetting procedure. Bluemilkman/Talk To Me 05:22, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

Play factions? ~6-8 hours for a level 20 char. A war that farms vermin better than a monk vermin farmer should be rated higher. -Auron 05:28, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

6-8 hours for 5 minutes faster? That's 72-96 runs through that farm to equal it out, and that's just the time it takes to get to level 20, that's not counting the time it takes to get everywhere. If you want to farm in NF, but only played Factions, then you have to add that time. Bluemilkman/Talk To Me 05:35, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

actually, nevermind. I remember why I didn't pursue this the first time; I really don't care about this enough. There are better things to worry about, like the GW or GWW linkage. Bluemilkman/Talk To Me 05:37, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

lol, PvE>Linkage. Misfate 05:38, 16 September 2007 (CEST)
Blue, you're missing my point. If a war build is better at farming vermin than a monk build, why on earth should the monk build be rated as good or higher? It performs worse - that's a lower rating on the effectiveness scale. Universality, in this case, would be just as much or lower on the monk build. We rate builds based on effectiveness, not on which PvE char you have that is capable of the farm. -Auron 07:02, 16 September 2007 (CEST)
Thank you Blue for being one of the absolute few that portray some decent intelligence here. You are absolutely right and I totally agree with you. In this community, as any community, people like yourself, myself and others should be allowed to have their opinions heard, and given the fact that there is viable truth behind what we say, maybe even sway a change in the policies. I like this site...it is a great resources. However, the current policies make the build vetting very biased against many possible builds due to their professions. The builds are viable and excellent for their profession and work well in the full scope of the game, regardless if another profession has a build that can do it faster. But I think we should stick together and fight the case against the biasness the current policies enforce. - Lord Xivor 07:10, 16 September 2007 (CEST)
Also, I would like to note that blues comments about Farming and Running builds being the ones that are specifically affected are really what I agree in. Of course I don't feel that a Warrior healer can be effective, and to try to say so is ludicrous. But saying an A/R build cannot be posted because a R/A does it better is stupid in my opinion. - Lord Xivor 07:20, 16 September 2007 (CEST)
Key word: "your opinion". When facts come into play, this policy does nothing to ensure a high standard of builds and will permit less effective builds to bypass the current voting system. Also, you seem to be confused when it comes to the purpose of this wiki. It is not only to share builds; it is to set a standard and show users what builds are good, and what builds are bad. Encouraging less effective builds to be run goes against the point of having this wiki. If there are a few specific builds that you like but others do not favor, put it into your namespace. Otherwise, don't post it on the Build namespace and then start QQing to people when it gets voted down in a fair vote. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 07:26, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

You're acting like it means that bad builds are going to be posted because of this. They won't be. The only difference between one build from another would be the time it takes. Maybe that should be what it says. "Farming/Running builds should only be rated less effective against other farming/running builds of the same profession that takes more time." Something like that. Bluemilkman/Talk To Me 13:35, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

Suppose there is a monk build that farms an enemy/group of enemies in 10 minutes. Suppose there's a warrior build that farms the same thing in 15 minutes. This proposal would have them rated approximately the same, if they were otherwise identical in terms of effectiveness. Suppose there's an assassin build that farms the same thing just a bit slower than the warrior(say 20 minutes). Same rating due to this policy proposal. Suppose there's a dervish build that farms the same thing in 25 minutes. Same rating due to this policy proposal. Suppose there's a necro build that does it in 30 minutes. Same rating due to this proposal. So, we have 5 farming builds of radically different efficiency(10 minutes to 30 minutes) rated approximately the same. That's a pretty extreme example, but those are the implications of this policy proposal. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 19:30, 16 September 2007 (CEST)
The policy amendment suggestion posted below this conversation addresses this so that that this type of inefficiency happens. It is simple: add a profession effectivneess attribute to be voted upon in the voting. This would be more a more balanced and less biased way of voting. - Lord Xivor 22:42, 16 September 2007 (CEST)
That would be even worse, because it would mean that classes that are designed in such a way that solofarming or running is nearly impossible for them would have builds rated high despite being incredibly ineffective. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 22:45, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

Compromise Edit

Alright, so how about a compromise here? How about an amendment to the vetting policy that would modify current voting criteria to include "OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS" and "CLASS EFFECTIVENESS". This would satisfy those wanting to dictate whether or not certain classes are allowed farming builds here while at the same time allowing most regular players looking for farming builds withing a specific class (and not have to make a new character, level it up, buy skills, rune it up, buy new items, buy new armor) etc to decide whether a build for their CURRENT CLASS is effective as far as the class is concerned? Wouldn't that be a bit more fair to all parties and cater to everyone? Matthew Edmund 07:20, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

No. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 07:26, 16 September 2007 (CEST)
This is actually something that I would rather leave Innovation as one of the criteria with an effect on a build's rating than do. That's the vetting criteria equivalent of preferring a mending wammo over a build, for me. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 07:33, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

This revision Edit

Good enough? ~ ZamaneeJinnZealot's Fire(contribs) 23:28, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

Still suffers the problem of undermining Real Vetting by requiring two builds, one of which is better than the other, to be rated the same. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 23:31, 16 September 2007 (CEST)
I fixed. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 23:32, 16 September 2007 (CEST)
Broken again. Thank Skakid for that! Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 23:34, 16 September 2007 (CEST)
Gah, i meant Readem in my comment box. — User:Skakid9090 23:35, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

Still undermines real vetting. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 01:22, 18 September 2007 (CEST)

now still? read again plz i changed it a little. ~ ZamaneeJinnZealot's Fire(contribs) 01:28, 18 September 2007 (CEST)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.