Last Archive Summary

*Criteria for Real Vetting

*Improvement to Real Vetting Score Calculation

*The Naming of Categories

*Description of Numerical Values for Real Vetting

*Category Names (Cont.)

*Significant Changes to Build will result in Revote

*The Archiving of Pages and their Talk Pages

*Voting Categories (Cont.)

*New Ideas for Real Vetting: Build Masters + Commentary

*Current Progress towards Real Vetting

*”Can Build Authors Vote on their own Builds?” Discussion

*Authors allowed to Vote (Cont.)

*Why are all Builds in the “Good” Section? (No votes yet)

*Question regarding "Innovation"

*Topic based upon Build Guides

*Impatience for Real Vetting to be implemented

*The Deletion of improper votes

*Discussion upon supposed “PvE Bias

*Watch list bug

* # of Votes before tagging a Build

*Proper Testing Complaint

*4.45 rating bug (Was Resolved)

*Summery Creation and Archiving

Watchlist votes

Would there be any way of adding when a build is voted on it its respective watchlist, it's nice to know when people are voting on a build you've submitted, or when it's category has changed as a result. --Ckal Ktak 12:00, 18 July 2007 (CEST)

They are working on that. Also so that it shows up in recent changes. ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 15:31, 18 July 2007 (CEST)


I really believe a change needs to be made to real vetting. I know Universality and Innovation count for much less than Effectiveness, but if a build gets 0 points in them it still has a negative effect on the build. IMO a build should be able to be "excellent" without having to have users lie about it being Innovative or Universal. No one thinks builds like Build:Team - Lutgardis FFF are Universal, or builds like Build:W/any Triple Chop PvE Warrior are innovative, but both are still excellent and users are giving them 5's across the board even though they know they dont deserve them just because if they dont the build will not be rated as well overall. I really would like to see this change.--Coloneh 08:44, 23 July 2007 (CEST)

Universal should have some effect, but not as much as it has now. ‽-(єяøηħ) no u 19:33, 23 July 2007 (CEST)
This is a big thing to change and if we do so we need to be 100% sure about the new thing we changing to. I do agree that from what I see people are not using rating system 100% correctly and just voting to make the final rating match the on they want and this is a problem. And build even if its great dont need to be great, good is still on this site. gcardinal 06:49, 24 July 2007 (CEST)

Leave innovation as a votable concept, but move it's weight to zero. Add another ratable section called 'Ease of Use'. This would allow users to rate on how much of a juggle it is and would allow for designation of very complicated builds. Inovation would still be usefull to allow people to sort and find builds that are outside the norm. But Innovation, honestly, is a whim vote that will steadily decrease with a builds age. It's technically automatic depreciation that is only used as a booster or a docket to help someone push their numbers to where they want it to be. Shireensysop 06:54, 24 July 2007 (CEST)

Didn't we have something somewhere that said what each of us was leaning towards? Who was the one controlling that page? ‽-(єяøηħ) no u 06:56, 24 July 2007 (CEST)
I disagree with the ease of use category. - Skakid9090 06:59, 24 July 2007 (CEST)
[1]. Disagree over there. ‽-(єяøηħ) no u 07:03, 24 July 2007 (CEST)
[2] Here Eronth, and anyone else who is interested. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 07:05, 24 July 2007 (CEST)
D'oh! - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 07:05, 24 July 2007 (CEST)

Good or great?

  • Working-Great (4.5-5.0):
  • Working-Good (3.5-4.4):

This build [3] (as of writing) has a score between 4.4 and 4.5, is that classed as good or great? I'm not sure what to chage the header to.--Ckal Ktak 19:22, 26 July 2007 (CEST)

4.45 and higher rounds to 4.5. 4.44 and lower rounds to 4.4. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 19:30, 26 July 2007 (CEST)
The idea is that 4.50 or larger is great, and anything smaller than that is good. Have to admit that this could be better documented... – HHHIPPOsysop› 19:49, 26 July 2007 (CEST)


On the templates, could we add a link to the rating page? Like, link the word Rating to the rating page. Is there a way to make it a internal link to the rating page, because they don't technically have their own page... ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 23:27, 28 July 2007 (CEST)

You can make it link. It'll take some fancy templating, but {{PAGENAME}} and variants thereof could be helpful. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 22:38, 31 July 2007 (CEST)
Meh, it won't be too fancy... I'll look into it. ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 22:39, 31 July 2007 (CEST)
Ok yeah, I don't think it'll be that easy... It coounts the spaces in the page names as part of the new name... Hmm... Any ideas? ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 22:57, 31 July 2007 (CEST)
Ok, I got it fixed. Use {{PAGENAMEE}} and it shows it with _, not . Ie, Real Vetting/Archive 3 compared to Real_Vetting/Archive_3. ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 19:59, 1 August 2007 (CEST)

Author's Voting

can we please stop this crap? i hate seeing 5-5-5s on author's builds that suck. if they submitted it, they should already have it in their head that it is good, so voting for it is stupid. i know they can, but we can easily remove them — RAWR! Skasig Skakid9090 19:56, 1 August 2007 (CEST)

I've been against this since day one. I think my point has been proven. Even if some users can vote maturely, most are more concerned with getting their own builds vetted. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 19:59, 1 August 2007 (CEST)
We need to not let them vote for sure. ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 20:00, 1 August 2007 (CEST)
We also need to teach people what innovation is. Votes that say something like "It's good, but should be merged with Build:x/x xxxxx." yet have a 3-5 in innovation are messed up. We also need to change Real Vetting voting weights to a more sensible amount. ‽-(єяøηħ) no u 20:10, 1 August 2007 (CEST)
Lots of people give high innovation scores to influence the overall rating of a build. This stems from the weighting of the categories, so that problem should be addressed before we "teach people what innovation is." Anyway, let's try to keep this section on subject. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 20:16, 1 August 2007 (CEST)
Authors should not vote, regardless of how mature they can be, there will always be immature/inexperienced people. (Also, I [maybe it's just me] haven't seen anything done in a while about the mis-weighted-ness of the system, so I tried to bring it back up.) ‽-(єяøηħ) no u 20:21, 1 August 2007 (CEST)
I second that; no matter how experienced a build author is, it's pretty much impossible to make a fair vote. No matter what, a build's author is going to be the best at using the build they made... any vote on the effectiveness of the build is going to reflect that. --GEO-logo Jioruji Derako.> 09:45, 2 August 2007 (CEST)
I agree as well, it seems silly to allow arthurs to vote on their own builds, they may not do it intentionally but they will vote somewhat bias, and about the somewhat wierd system or however you want to put it-could we not work out a new system or something say like the average is based on universilarity and effectivness as normal and say 3/4 of the innovation? (i'm not actually suggesting that just giving an idea of what i mean -.-...though it didn't come out quite how i meant.....) Phenaxkian 17:27, 2 August 2007 (CEST)
However, there is an issue. How do we define an author? It may be the most powerful meta game, and they just copied it down. Do we count them as the author? Granted, if it's that popular it will get a lot of good votes, but still... ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 18:35, 2 August 2007 (CEST)
the author would be the person(s) who originally created the build page and added the build, ( i think that best describes it, and perhaps anyone who has majorily contributed towards it;s development e.g suggested taking out xx and yy and replacing it with zz and ww or something like that..... Phenaxkian 18:40, 2 August 2007 (CEST)

(RI) I really think we need to ban authors from voting. There is no downside to this. It removes bias from builds. If the build is meta, and the writer didn't even create it, it will get vetted for sure, so no downside there. Edit: And I don't see any complainers here... I'm gonna go ahead and add it. ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 01:44, 22 August 2007 (CEST)

I'm generally opposed to forbidding everyone from doing something in order to prevent a portion of the contributors from doing something bad that the ability to do the first thing gives them a chance to do, but I personally believe that authors' voting on their own builds is inevitably at least somewhat, if not extremely(5-5-5 on mending bonder, for example), biased(I know when I vote on builds I've contributed, I often vote 4 or 3 when I think that the build really deserves a 5(a different sort of bias, but still bias)). --Edru viransu//QQ about me 01:55, 22 August 2007 (CEST)
Since this policy change necessitates removal of a great number of votes, I think I should probably ask what the appropriate way to deal with a build that was moved to good/great/other/trash and has 5 votes, one of which is the author's. Should the build be left in the category it was in or moved back to testing? --Edru viransu//QQ about me 02:00, 22 August 2007 (CEST)
In all fairness, I believe that authors should be allowed to vote on their builds. It may lead to abuse, but I don't think that denying their ability to vote is the correct action. I have no problem with bumping the vote requirement to 6 though. Another idea would be to more carefully moderate the comment that the author places on his/her build. If a build obviously sucks and gets a 5-5-5 vote, even it is the author, it should be removed. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 02:17, 22 August 2007 (CEST)
I guess that'd be a fair compromise. I dislike author voting for the reasons given above, but until we modify the RV extension to prevent build authors from rating their own builds, it'd still be left to the admins to remove their votes. Same end result, admins removing unfair votes on an individual basis. That'd be probably be the way run things until we modify the extension properly. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 02:34, 22 August 2007 (CEST)
That's not exactly what I meant. I believe that author voting should be allowed, provided that the Author makes an honest vote on their build. Author votes that are obviously there just to boost the rating of their otherwise crappy build should be removed. However, honest votes by authors should be permitted by this policy; it is a vote, after all. I believe that with the Anti-sockpuppetry policy, there are already enough restrictions being placed on votes, and disallowing authors to vote on their builds would simply go against having a voting system in the first place. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 02:40, 22 August 2007 (CEST)
That's kinda what I meant by "unfair votes." I suppose I could have gone into a little greater detail... - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 02:52, 22 August 2007 (CEST)
Ah. I was kinda thrown off when you started talking about an extension that blocks author votes. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 02:53, 22 August 2007 (CEST)

Ahh, i'm glad i rejected adminship now. have fun striking out votes! — Skakid9090 01:56, 22 August 2007 (CEST)

Leave em in the current category. The next voter will move em. ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 02:13, 22 August 2007 (CEST)
I completely agree with Rapta. The new rules to vote removal can just kill the dumb votes, saving us much time and trouble. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 03:24, 22 August 2007 (CEST)

that's too questionable. just don't let author's vote, so there's no bitching and complaints, if your build is good why bother even voting on it. — Skakid9090 03:26, 22 August 2007 (CEST)

To kill the dumb people's votes that Admins can't remove because they have gay "Reasons". Also, a small buffer to each build. Finally, the whole process of removing Author Votes is just ridiculous. We have no way to currently shut them out, and we have to remove the current ones. Just a bad idea completely imo. DE and Auron have yet to comment regardless... Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 03:54, 22 August 2007 (CEST)
Ok, well, time for me to weigh in on this I guess. Personally, I think I have to agree with Rapta on this one. Author's votes should be more closely scrutinized because of the possibility of bias; however, on the other hand, removing their right to vote all together seems like a poor choice of action. When we were coming up with the vote removal rules, one of the things I said that I would like to see is a note about being less lenient on Author votes; however, given the ability to rollback votes, I believe that the Administrators are capable of deciding what constitutes a completely biased vote. Besides which, a single vote is unlikely to actually effect the outcome after 5 (or perhaps 6) votes. And, in the cases in which it would drastically effect the outcome, it should be obvious that the vote is biased since it should present a marked difference from other votes.
Despite the possibility of abuse (which as mentioned can be prevented when necessary), stripping people of the right to vote, when it isn't unreasonable for an author to vote fairly, is contrary to the system we've put in place. Part of the idea is to treat everyone's vote the same. What that means is that unreasonable votes (regardless of who submits them), should be stricken, whereas reasonable votes should not. When Author's vote, we should undertake to look at those votes as we would any other voters. i.e. As long as the vote is reasonable, it should say. Of course, we should take that vote with an added grain of salt because the Author is subject to greater bias; however, I do not believe that simply saying "no author votes" is the correct answer.
Of course, even as I write this, I understand that in many cases, Authors will vote unfairly when it comes to their own builds. However, in most cases, when we see votes that are somewhat unfair, we leave them alone, primarily because people are entitled to their opinion. Of course, a 5-5-5 on an Double Echo Mending build would be removed, but, we have already excepted it as principle that biased votes, or those that are simply and blatantly wrong should be removed. To go the extra step and simply prevent Authors from voting seems unnecessary and counterproductive. If an Author can vote in a fair manner, that's fine. In the same way, if an Author cannot, that's fine as well, we'll treat them just like any other biased voter. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:31, 22 August 2007 (CEST)
Also, updating Real Vetting before there was a consensus (Bureaucrats hadn't even weighed in yet) was, as Edru put it, "In retrospect, premature, at best." Normally, Administrators are somewhat autonomous and, can in fact, make policy official and whatnot if they so choose. However, it's usually best to get everyone's opinion on the matter, particularly when its as big a decision as this (it's an important decision in principle, and, 20-30 people had votes removed because of it). Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:37, 22 August 2007 (CEST)
DE on the target as always. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲŞƳŞŌƤ 05:37, 22 August 2007 (CEST)
Additionally, as I sent notices to everyone who had their votes prematurely removed, I got a chance to look at some of these Author votes. While some people gave their builds 5-5-5 which is obviously unfair, I was actually surprised at the number who voted 3-2-0 or 4-3-4 or whatever. And, in the cases where I saw 5-5-5s, those votes either didn't matter because the build was unfavored anyways, or, the build was just a meta build that everyone was giving 5-5-5s. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:54, 22 August 2007 (CEST)

i'm still opposed, since good builds should be vetted even without the author's vote. — Skakid9090 05:55, 22 August 2007 (CEST)

I assume your point is that in your opinion, there's no downside to Authors not voting. Of course, if I take your argument literally, I could say that only the top 10% of Wiki voters should be allowed to vote because they'll vette good builds without the other 90%. But, that's not the issue. However, it does demonstrate my point. I might argue that those 10% will more accurately rate builds since they're the "best" and the other 90% will simply distort the voting by their "bad" votes. However, with the current system, we let everyone vote anyways. In the same way, even though those Author votes might distort the voting with their (theoretically) biased votes, that's not a reason to not let them vote at all. So, in the same way that we trust the 90% to vote reasonably, and only remove votes when they don't make sense, we should be applying the same principle to authors and only removing their votes when they're biased. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:00, 22 August 2007 (CEST)
We can remove Biased votes, just in-case btw. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 06:03, 22 August 2007 (CEST)
Another good point. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:04, 22 August 2007 (CEST)
Due to DE's very convincing argument, I again oppose preventing authors from voting. --Edru viransu//QQ about me 14:16, 22 August 2007 (CEST)

The first problem with Wikipedias is that all users are author as soon as they modify an article. For most builds this has little affect as the original author mostly watches his own build like an eagle his babies making major changes his priority. However, there is also a good amount of builds that have changed completely from his initial status to something better, mostly due to the changes of the game Guild Wars itself. These builds have many major authors, and are more a community work which makes it hard to decide when a Wiki-User is an author of the build.

The second problem is that if the original author wouldn't think his build was somewhat good, then he wouldn't have written it down, and created a build page. Thus, the original author's vote cannot be bad in no circumstances as it would be highly illogical to have written the build at all then. I think in the long-term run the "original author's" vote has little impact on the overall rating. The issue of who is author cannot be clarified in general, every build would be a case to check - which expands the work of OPs to an eternity span. — Ranger-iconLuobailong ···talk ···builds 11:13, 22 August 2007 (CEST)

i mentiond a bit futher up that the author should be the orignal creator of the build or any major contributor to the build. After reading everyon's posts through i'm starting to have a change of heart, it doesn't seem fair to completly ban authors voting,but i think they should be subjected to additional observation to see how biased they are. I also think that if the build is rated as a good or great or whatever catagory, but it's boderlined (e.g 0.1 either end) that maybe the author's vote shuoldn't be taken into account (not nessecarily removed just not counted towards the overall rating) and wait for a few more people to vote to see which way it goes, that way it will be in the right catagory. As mentiond by Luobailong:"The second problem is that if the original author wouldn't think his build was somewhat good, then he wouldn't have written it down, and created a build page.", which is entirely true, i wouldn't even think of bothering to submit a build if i thought it was a load of **** (though in all fairness i actually only test about half of my own submited builds-though i don't vote on them anyway). Thoughts?PheNaxKian (T/c) 13:24, 22 August 2007 (CEST)
Agree with DE now...~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2(T/C/Sysop) 14:39, 22 August 2007 (CEST)
Of course we all think our builds are "good," the question is simply whether taking that into account, we can accurately portray the build regardless. I may think my build is good, but, I may realize it isn't great, and thus, I might give it 3-4-3 or something along those lines. Or, I might simply have copied a meta build, and the 5-5-5 I give it may be warranted. In fact, it would seem that the only case in which a problem might arise is in an instance where the build is absolutely horrendous, and I, as the author, give the build 5-5-5 or something. However, in those cases 1) The build will likely be sent to trash anyway by other voters, and, 2) We can remove those obviously biased votes. To conclude this unnecessarily long paragraph, I'd say that for those reasons, that second problem you mentioned isn't really that much of a problem. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 19:07, 22 August 2007 (CEST)
As an author, if I know I'm going to rate my build 5-5-5 (usually the case with obviously good PvP builds), I will wait until 5 other votes have put it in Great, then vote myself. If it's a more personal build, like the whammo signet one, I'll rate it right off (because they obviously don't deserve 5-5-5s).
In general, I don't see what purpose disallowing author votes would serve - we already have a clause for removing biased votes. -Auron 08:26, 24 August 2007 (CEST)

Criteria and Weighting

Digging out a thread that was a bit buried here: It was suggested to add a criterion "Ease of use" and to change the weighting as follows: Efficiency 80%, Universality 15%, Ease of Use 5%, Innovation 0%. The main idea of the modified weighting is to stop people from neglecting the policy-defined criteria in order to boost a build's overall rating up/down. Any opposition? – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 21:02, 2 August 2007 (CEST)

I disagree completely with ease of use. Skakid9090 21:05, 2 August 2007 (CEST)
the thing is that effectiveness needs to be at least 90% so that a build can reach "great" status without relying on voting categories that dont effect how the build functions. anything with effectiveness lower than 90% gets a thumbs down from me.--Coloneh 21:10, 2 August 2007 (CEST)
To be quite honest, I think basing the entire system on Effectiveness would be much simpler, and actually allow users a lot more freedom when deciding the criteria they wish to take into account when voting. GuildWiki used a simple Yes or No system. But, when people gave reasons for voting, they would take into account all of those things, Ease of Use, straight out effectiveness, universality, even sometimes innovation, without ever being prompted to. By simply asking users to rate a build between 0-5 or whatever, we invite them to take into account anything and everything without being limited by misunderstandings regarding the "meanings" of categories or being limited by a set number of categories. Inevitably, if I ask a person whether a build is "effective" or not, they will be forced to take into account everything regardless. I realize that this idea is "radical" given that this was originally envisioned as a category system, but, having thought about it for a long time now, I am still inclined to believe that we are better off simply asking users to "rate the build" without being burdened by categories and category definitions. It may not work out as well in practice as I think it would, but I honestly do believe we might be happier with the results. I also realize that this may not be practical, by which I mean making such a gigantic change to the system, but, again, I think it would work out better. However, let me balance that by saying that I'd be happy with a system based on Universality and Effectiveness, the main thing is getting rid of Innovation as a weighted factor, but, just something to consider. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 21:13, 2 August 2007 (CEST)
It entirely depends upon effectiveness. Innovation has no purpose. Ease of use, simply does not make sense as good builds do require some skill to use. Finally, who cares if a build has limited uses? How does that affect its viability whatsoever? I suggest getting rid of Inno and EoU entirely. Make Univ only 5-10 max. (Edit Conflict) Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 21:16, 2 August 2007 (CEST)
Just as an addendum. If a build, based on its specific purpose, needs to be flexible or adaptable to achieve that purpose, than part of its effectiveness will automatically be derived from it's flexibility without having a separate category. If flexibility isn't important to a build, then when I'm deciding whether it's effective or not, I simply won't take that into consideration, rather than being forced to still give it a rating on that factor. The same goes for ease of use. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 21:19, 2 August 2007 (CEST)
  1. In my opinion, the main purpose of the rating system is not to figure out what's the best build or who's the best author ever. The main purpose is to maintain a collection of interesting builds, along with an accurate description of their qualities, and a system to organize them in a way that enables each reader to find the build he's looking for. To this end, we do need a number of criteria in the rating system.
  2. Completely abandoning the criteria would mean to change to another vetting system. Considering that Real Vetting was put in power by means of a public vote, we would need complete consensus to do such a change, which I don't see given.
  3. We still plan to develop a build search engine, as outlined in the Real Vetting policy. That will put the final decision on the weighting scheme in the hands of each reader, not the voter. With all criteria, or any combination of them, being searchable, the current weighting scheme and the quality categories resulting from it will become mostly obsolete (except for defining what's a trash build). An important point however is that all criteria are rated by the voters and that these ratings really reflect the voter's opinion on each criteria, rather than being lies aiming at circumventing the weighting scheme.
  4. Conclusion: as long as we don't have a build search engine, we need a common weighting scheme. It should give Effectiveness enough weight to encourage honest votes. If needed, I can live with Eff. being weighted 100%, but the other criteria should still be there.
  5. Ease of use: I really believe that many readers would be interested in this piece of information. We can discuss giving if a weight of 0%, if people don't like it to influence the overall rating. However, I didn't see any reasoning against having it at all. Who doesn't need it, doesn't have to look at it, but that doesn't mean we can't have it. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 22:04, 2 August 2007 (CEST)
Well, here's how I see it. If you're willing to weight Effectiveness 100%, then it really isn't relevant whether or not the criterion exist. I don't mean that I'm gonna keep pushing to get them eliminated, merely that I don't particularly care if they're there. Particularly in the case of innovation, I think it's a great category to search by, I just think that it shouldn't be weighted. As to EoU and Universality, I still think that's part of "effectiveness," but if you insist on keeping them, it's fine by me. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:25, 3 August 2007 (CEST)
On that subject; as it is, there's no way to search for builds based on criteria. I personally love designing and looking at innovative builds; I'm talking about crazy "Way of the Empty Palm" Assassin builds, pure-BeastMaster Rangers, and all that "for-fun" stuff. As it is, a build that's rated high on innovation, yet low on everything else, will simply get unfavored, disappear from the lists, and get deleted after a while. We need a way to shunt "unfavored" builds off into "highly innovative" sections, rather thin simply piling them in with the "this doesn't work" section. I can't even look through the unfavored section for innovative builds, because they're mixed in with all the random bad BoA variants, Wammo tanks, and various builds in the generic "wasted party slot" category. Until we actually start making these voting criteria count for something, we might as well vote on a 1-to-5 basis, for all the difference it makes... --GEO-logo Jioruji Derako.> 05:13, 3 August 2007 (CEST)

Bump: new suggestion for a compromise: Effectiveness 85%, Universality 10%, Ease of use 5%, Innovation 0% – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 20:23, 16 August 2007 (CEST)

User/Build Talk

Why do we specify not to bring up votes on a user talk page? I figure, until we have a 'My Ratings' special page, it is difficult for anyone to keep track of what builds they have voted on. If anyone has an issue with some user's rating, it is much faster and easier to clear up the situation if someone is allowed to post a message along the lines of "Hi, would you mind explaining your vote on Build A at Build A's talk page?" People, in practice, don't watch every build they vote on, and may not even notice if someone posts a similar message on that build talk page. Basically, my amendment to the policy would be to permit users to request other users to explain/discuss their rating on any given build, but to keep that discussion on the Build talk page, where people looking over the build can easily find it. Opinions? (Also, bump to the Search Engine/Criteria & Weighting/Author Voting threads above, go read those too) - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 02:21, 8 August 2007 (CEST)

I support this idea, although I will be sad to have only a few chances to use my template. --Edru viransu//QQ about me 02:23, 8 August 2007 (CEST)
It is mostly to prevent the constant NPA's (No one cany deny :P their existance). Not working to well, as no one appears to read Real vetting :/. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 02:27, 8 August 2007 (CEST)
imo, it would be better to just punish NPA's that do happen than to have a blanket ban on discussion of votes on user talk pages to avoid NPA violations, because NPA violations can happen just as easily on a build talk page as on a user talk page, and generally, I think it's better to punish policy violations than to make policies that restrict discussion to avoid violations of another policy. --Edru viransu//QQ about me 02:32, 8 August 2007 (CEST)
(edit conflict) NPAs can occur at User talk pages as easily as they can at Build talk pages. This would simply direct discussion back to build talk pages, as well as allowing for better communication beetween users. Way I see it, people are breaking this rule now because they don't otherwise have a useful way to discuss user ratings. There's no point in enacting a rule that people aren't going follow anyways; it lowers morale, and in this case, is accomplishing very little. Btw Edru, your template got my gears turning about this, so you can take credit for it if you want. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 02:34, 8 August 2007 (CEST)
It was created so we may be lazy :). Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 02:38, 8 August 2007 (CEST)
Fully agree with Krowman. I never liked this 'don't talk to other users' rule. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 09:20, 8 August 2007 (CEST)
It's generally a better idea to discuss on the build page, I think, because it allows other people to view issues and discussions regarding the build on the build's page... rather then discussing a point in complete isolation. I normally leave people a heads-up on their page though, so they know that I responded on the build page. --GEO-logo Jioruji Derako.> 18:36, 8 August 2007 (CEST)
I think we make a template, Template:Please explain, and have it have the fill in stuff to link to the build page. Just post it on their page, they look at talk and explain, all done. ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 18:40, 8 August 2007 (CEST)

Implemented. Feel free to create a template if you'd like, I don't mind typing up my posts personally. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 21:00, 10 August 2007 (CEST)

New use categories

I think it will be a good idea to have only Effectiveness-based votes, with categories corresponding to each game style the build is designed for. With the current system, if a build works great in general PvE, but it's only regular in AB, it's overall rating considers both as one, just because both are listed in the build's page. Instead of "Effectiveness" and the misleading "Universality" and "Innovation", builds should be rated with criterions like "Effectiveness in general PvE", "Effectiveness in GvG", and so on, with each use the build is designed for.Ereanor 16:43, 10 August 2007 (CEST)

That would be incredibly complicated, and most builds that are tagged for multiple venues are mis-tagged anyways. It would be better to label builds appropriately, rather than edit the RV extension to function as a work-around for mis-tagged builds. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 18:51, 10 August 2007 (CEST)
That's very much pointless compared to what we already have. Effectiveness has the highest weight factor in ratings. So really, what you've said already has largely been taken into consideration. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 21:22, 10 August 2007 (CEST)

Income Rating

I know it would be rather complicated, but I think farming Builds should have an income rating. If a build that is meant to kill <10 and it works great because any lvl 20 can kill a level 10, but a UW build that is slightly tricky to use/get the hang of, but makes more than 20 times more money, I think it should be rated higher. Then someone can know that if complication, available skills, etc. are no trouble, why would they do the low income, "Great" build, as opposed to the high income "good" build. The Ratings could be based on a scale so that there isn't confusion like 1=1k/hour> 2= 1-5k/hour 3=5-10k/hour 4=10k-25k/hour 5=25k/hour+ or something along those lines--Cursed Condemner 21:50, 11 August 2007 (CEST)

A farming build's effectiveness is partially reliant on its effectiveness at making money. --Edru viransu//QQ about me 21:56, 11 August 2007 (CEST)
Income is affected by anti-farming code and the monsters farmed as much as the effectiveness of the build itself. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 21:59, 11 August 2007 (CEST)
I understand that Farming builds effectiveness is partially based on income, but that's just it: Partially. The above example is an extreme, but there are other cases when it would be useful. Like two builds used to farm the UW. You would want to do the one that makes money faster, but how would you tell since they are in the same place (there are actual cases like this). And even stuff like the Hard Mode Elemental Farming, Ettin Farming, Troll Farming, Totem Axe farming. Which one is best? That's why I think there should be an income rating. Also, if IIR, the anti-farming code has been taken out. And in Team ratings, it should be based on average per person I think. This would also help get rid of some ones that are considered farming builds, but really aren't.--Cursed Condemner 00:40, 12 August 2007 (CEST)
Anti-farm cide still exists. Income is subjective, drops are randomized. There is no stability in what you profit from. Income depends on monsters farmed, monster drops are totally random, thus income is totally random, making it a poor inclusion as criteria. Pardon my poor grammar, I've barley spoken any English in the past few days. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 09:34, 12 August 2007 (CEST)
Well what if you said say do 5 runs, record the value of evrything (what everything's worth in the current market state) do a couple of repatble quests or missions for the fact they are rebetable, do 5 more runs and record the value again do the same quests or mission and do another 5 runs and the value for that and work out the average? that way you'll be taking into account the drops vary by taking an average over 15 runs and the 2nd and 3rd set of runs won't be affected by the anti-farm code because you've done missions....would that not make sense or am i missing something?Phenaxkian 20:13, 12 August 2007 (CEST)
That would be a horrible way to test imo, simply because it involves attempting to circumvent the anti-farm code. --Edru viransu//QQ about me 20:16, 12 August 2007 (CEST)
Site goes through hundreds of builds, having to do 15 runs and 5 missions each time you'd like to vet/shoot one down would take an awful long time. Aside from trader items, nothing has an exact in-game value, so you would still be making an approximation. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 20:20, 12 August 2007 (CEST)
I wasn;t saying do that, i was saying doe xactly that just something like as an example was all.....Phenaxkian 20:51, 12 August 2007 (CEST)

Vote Removal

After a very long discussion with GCardinal, I realized Real Vetting was missing something very important. Something that I thought had already existed, merely because common sense would dictate, but looking through RV I found nothing. It appears, through a very large error (Communication Break-down, biggie), that I was receiving warnings for vote removal, merely because in Real Vetting, it does not state "Bad Votes, or votes supported by little/contradictory evidence, can be removed." Thus, I cannot remove the vote that states SoJ Monk sin are better than BoA's. I may not remove the vote, that gives a 4 in effectiveness saying the build is countered by deflect Arrows. In other words, Admins may not remove bad votes. Thus I have written some new rules regarding Vote Removal, and they are as such:

Votes may be Stricken when:

  • They are obviously submitted by sockpuppets. (If a User has <1 contributions, then he/she is usually to be considered a sock. Leaving a mention of this on there talk page, is recommended.)
  • The Reason does not correspond with the vote. (Ex:The Reason does not specify why the build is bad/good.)
  • The Vote makes comparisons between builds that serve entirely different functions/roles.
  • The Vote's reason, makes little sense or it contradicts itself. (Ex:Saying a build is great, but giving it a 2 or 3 in effectiveness because it is does not work in TA, when it is not even labeled for that purpose.)
  • The Voter obviously, did not understand the weighting of votes. (Ex:Gives a low score in Effectiveness, but a high score in both Innovation and Universality, even though they are all highly interrelated. The Reason must also represent this misunderstanding. Bringing this to a user before action, is generally a good idea.)

Please Note: Though not absolutely required, it is suggested Admins inform the user after removing his/her vote. This is merely done out of courtesy, so exceptions may still exist.

All of the above rules can be generally rewritten, to sound better ect, but hopefully will carry the same meaning during the end result. The rules that are already in RV will be kept, and these ones merely added. Any suggestion for rule alterations/different rules regarding vote removal? All suggestions welcome. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 19:34, 13 August 2007 (CEST)

It'd be nice if we could strike a vote simply because it is wrong. "This uses Frenzy, this r bad," that sort of thing. That'd be borderline oppressive, but would improve the wiki's standards. It amounts to giving users the right to vote the way we want them to. Doubt this will go over well with the majority of the community, could settle for a note stating "The user shows a very weak grasp of game mechanics." - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 19:42, 13 August 2007 (CEST)
Yeah, it appears that I was continuing to break policy, merely because I was removing such votes. I do not see it as oppressive, any more then it is encouraging them to write actually decent comments regarding the builds. It prevents me from saying "Comment is too short..." and Auron's "Insert Comment Here" Votes. However, it also removes the "Searing Flames is better then Water Magic" Votes. Trust me, I am tired of people saying I continue to break policy even though such a policy should technically exist lol! What is the point of vote removal, if we cannot remove bad votes xD? When SF becomes acceptable, because of some fluke, then we have truly failed as admins imo. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 19:50, 13 August 2007 (CEST)
Well, how does this sound as an inclusion? "The vote demonstrates a minimal understanding of in-game mechanics." - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 19:57, 13 August 2007 (CEST)
Sure. Sounds good. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 00:27, 15 August 2007 (CEST)

I reviewed the whole section on votes, implementing also the suggestions made here. Instead of listing reasons for vote removal, I listed rules that votes should follow. A reason for removal is then, obviously, a violation of these rules. This is my suggestion:

(...) 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 judgement 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. If in doubt, a user may be requested to provide an in-game name on his user page.
  • 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 Efficiency 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 builds 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.

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 admin 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.

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.

– HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 20:17, 16 August 2007 (CEST)

Very good Hhhippo :). I like it a great deal! /clap Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 04:21, 17 August 2007 (CEST)

Sounds reasonable to me. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:00, 17 August 2007 (CEST)

Two or three other things I would like to see. First, for author votes, we should be more stringent about what we accept for "reasoning." An author giving his build 5-5-5 with reason "I love this build" should not be acceptable. We assume the author likes his/here build, so, any vote made by an author should have to go more in-depth as far as "why" the build is good. Second (and this one's obvious), votes placed on Stubs and Trial builds should be automatically stricken. Also, I guess this might tie in to the false premise thing, if a build is changed (or the meta changes significantly) and renders votes inaccurate, vote removal should occur as normal. (Some of this is common sense, but if we're gonna have a comprehensive list somewhere...). I want this list finalized very soon (since we need a list of reasons we can point to). So, I would suggest posting the list above for now and then adding and subtracting from it as necessary with a note that there may be exceptions (well... not exceptions per se, but, that there is still an element of Admin prudence being exercised since it's not possible to generate a "comprehensive" list. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:40, 18 August 2007 (CEST)

I've always had a hard time explaining why a build is good. Lies are easy to make too. — Skakid9090 05:43, 18 August 2007 (CEST)
It's true that it's sometimes hard to say why a build is good, but, most of the time, you can at least come up with something like: Deals lots of damage... or, provides a lot of utility... whatever. Furthermore, I think that GuildWiki (at least partially) had the right idea in not letting author's vote. First, there's inherent bias; and, second, we can assume going into it that the author likes his or her build. However, I'm happy to let author's vote, but, I want to force author's to give a real reason to help prevent (as much as possible), bias from entering the equation. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:53, 18 August 2007 (CEST)

All sounds good to me however while i do trust people to be resbonsiable when votting on their own builds i feel that we shouldn't, even if it doesn't seem bias to them it will be even if it's only slightly, which will effectivly skewes the results, making it seem better than it is, thr authors vote could be the diffrence between a "good" and a "great" catagory, do people see my reasoning here? However i feel it wouldn't be fair to just say authors can't vote on their own builds so perhaps a poll of some sort and see what people think(obviously if people said yes we would have that stupidly bias votes are removed)?PheNaxKian T/c 18:12, 18 August 2007 (CEST)

Bias will never be completely out of a vote. A user may not like a user, and vote his build differently than if it was someone he liked. I'm not saying 0-0-0's, but maybe a 3-4-3, instead of a 4-4-4. If the author can give a good reason for voting his build the way he does, it should be let to stand. As said before, a 5-5-5 vote with no explanation is just plain stupid, but if reasons are given that poit to it getting that rating, it should be allowed. What it all comes back to, is that it's up to the admins to make sure the votes are as fair as possible. Bluemilkman 22:27, 18 August 2007 (CEST)

Last call, is anyone throughly against this? Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 01:54, 20 August 2007 (CEST)

I'm FOR it. ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (T/C/RFA) 01:56, 20 August 2007 (CEST)
You'll have plenty of work to do. There are thousands of votes on this wiki that fit the description of votes that should be deleted. I'd be so bold as to say at least more than 30% of all votes. If you disagree, go look at any build and look at the votes. Repeat your query with multiple builds. Don't you think that there is something wrong with having to remove such a great deal of votes? Not only that, but it seems that people use this only when they have an agenda against a vote. For example, Gem was deleting votes in the PvE toucher build that he created that viewed the build unfavorably. Right or wrong, Gem did not make any attempt to revise any other votes. Who would? The collection of bad votes is so massive that it will take months of honest work to clean up. I do doubt that anybody is willing to go through all those votes. Not to mention that doing so will anger quite a few people, as was the case with Gem and his PvE toucher and what happened with the old touch build. I challenge this wiki to be consistent in this part of the policy or to modify it. I at least suggest that all builds created before the vote removal policy was made to be revoted; it might be easier to begin from scratch than to go through and wipe out all the bad votes. Keep in mind that there is a policy that says admins will not use their position to control content, so to remove a vote they do it as mere editors and not as admins. - Anon
Any votes you feel are based on false premises or otherwise invalid, please inform the admins on the admin noticeboard. If it is indeed invalid, it'll be removed. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 03:22, 7 November 2007 (CET)

marking for moderation

wouldnt it be easier for the majority of users and admins to strike votes if they didnt need to get told about it? there should be an option for regular users to "mark" a vote and then the admins can check it out. simple, effective. Alpha fireborn 17:50, 15 August 2007 (CEST)

Let me just check i get this (soz very simple mided =P)your saying that if there's a vote someone wants removing they should be able to mark (or flag i s'pose you might say)and the admins check that marked vote out and see if it needs to be deleted? if so i think it sounds like a good idea, but i think there would need to be a way for admins to find out where there are flaged votes without having to go through evey build and look at the votes none you would need a special page or something which would tell you where there have been votes flagged, and i'm not sure on this having no experiance with this sort of thig but making that kinda page sounds kinda complicated, however if it could be done i think it would be good system Phenaxkian 18:03, 15 August 2007 (CEST)
You can use Template:Admin_review for that. It will put the page in Category:PvXWiki:Administrative_reviews, which is checked regularly by the admins. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 18:21, 15 August 2007 (CEST)
It doesn't seem to complicated... I mean, he made the Recent Ratings page, along with Hippo. However, I don't think its worth it. It doesn't need IMMEDIATE attention. It won't matter much. ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (T/C/RFA) 18:22, 15 August 2007 (CEST)
Sounds good to me, but like you Phenaxkian, I'm no wiki expert and I don't know how to make that sort of page. I'm sure someone could though. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cursed Condemner (contribs) 18:25, 15 August 2007.
It's a good idea, and it should be possible. But if it were implemented then the ability to mark removed admin votes should be enabled too, theres some instances where vote removal didn't seem justified to me.--Aliri 16:50, 17 August 2007 (CEST)
It is possible, but doesn't seem very urgent to me. What's wrong with just using Template:Admin_review? That flags the whole build, and in the 'reason' entry you can specify which vote or which rollback you find questionable. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 17:42, 17 August 2007 (CEST)
That sounds reasonable then, If you do what Hippo suggests then i think it would be a perfectly good idea-although when you put in the reason box the vote you want to "mark" i think there should also be a reason as why you think it's suspicious so it's not just a waste of time...PheNaxKian T/c 19:56, 17 August 2007 (CEST)

Comparing Builds

I seriously think that buids should be able to be compared to other builds with a similar purpose during vetting, and why shouldn't they be? A builds effectivness greatly depends on what its competing with. I feel that by removing the comparison aspect, it's opening the door for inferior builds to obtain status equal to many of the builds that really are great.Bob fregman 06:33, 22 August 2007 (CEST)

"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." That's directly from the policy. I assume that you're bringing up an example from the any/D Generic Forge Runner. I think the reason that the votes were removed was because you (and others) gave it an extremely low rating because you said other professions did it so much better. That isn't consistent with the fact that the build actually doesn't sacrifice much for what it gives in return (i.e. it allows many more professions to reliably make the run). Furthermore, in a sense, comparing that build with another Forge runner isn't necessarily a comparison of two builds doing the same thing. This build is specifically to allow multiple professions to run as best as possible which it does very well. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:37, 22 August 2007 (CEST)
But again, i could specifically make a assassin meant to heal, since assassins are a class which aren't usually meant for healing. Since you can't compare that build to a monk or a ritualist, and it does function, it would have to recieve a decent rated, as an inteligent healer COULD in fact make a A/Mo or an A/Rt work in low level pvp. In addition, how is the Generic forge runner not like other forge runners? It is meant to do the same thing, with different professions.Bob fregman 06:43, 22 August 2007 (CEST)
And i'd also like to point out that 2-2-2 is higher then 0-0-0, which is what id give a build, hands down, that didn't work at all. Bob fregman 06:46, 22 August 2007 (CEST)
Perhaps. On the other hand, in the case of the A/Mo, the Assassin primary could never be expected to compare to a Monk Primary since you're sacrificing a of effectiveness for no purpose. Furthermore, there's no reason why you would "want" to use an Assassin primary healer. On the other hand, every profession wants a way to effectively do a Forge run. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:47, 22 August 2007 (CEST)
Oh well, i really don't feel like arguing, particularly since the admin team seems so behind this policy. I was just suprised that after the multiple statements and policies mentioning maintaining a high quality of builds on the wiki, that one was actually made meant to allow inferior builds a better place here. Bob fregman 06:54, 22 August 2007 (CEST)
Don't worry. I cannot speak for the entire Administrative Team, but I will guarantee you, that we will not ever have inferior builds in the Great/Good Section for long =). Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 07:04, 22 August 2007 (CEST)
Erm... no policy was made for that purpose... The quote I gave you is from Real Vetting. Besides, the purpose was never to allow for inferior builds to be allowed, merely to ensure that builds for different purposes weren't being compared (i.e. this BLight GoLE Monk can't spike nearly as well as my SP Sin! :P). The point is that some form of common sense has to employed. Sure, the "comparison rule" could theoretically be abused, but, as long as the Administrators only employ it as intended, there shouldn't be any real problems as far as bad builds go. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 07:06, 22 August 2007 (CEST)

Testing should be compulsory

I think people should be required to actually having tested a build before rating it. So, votes from people who cleary haven't tested the build, and are rating it only basing themselves on assumptions, should be striked. --Lumenil 13:33, 28 August 2007 (CEST)

Negative, if we were to do that then we would have to test every single spammer, wammo, meleemancer, meleementalist and smiter that hits the wiki pages. Experienced players, like the core of the community (Including me somehow...), know quality when we see it. We don't HAVE to test to know what is going to work and what isn't going to work. As for the finer arts of just HOW effective it is, that requires a little bit of testing. ~~ Napalm Flame ^_^ Napalm Flame Sig Image (talk)·(contributions) 20:03, 28 August 2007 (CEST)

So we'll have to test every mending wammo, meleecaster, flare spammer and signet smiter that gets posted on this site? That won't solve anything. And though admins can remove bad votes, you have to be aware that many experienced players can judge a build just by looking at the skill bar and attributes. As well as the many cases of a build being obviously bad. Tycn 13:46, 28 August 2007 (CEST)

Testing should be encouraged, but not mandatory. Sometimes, it's easy to see how a build works simply by looking. As it is, I believe the policy is already this way; a vote that is based on shaky logic can be stricken, if need be; an author can simply bring up the matter on an Admin's page. But in a mandatory situation, users would be required to test builds featuring non-working combos. A Whammo build with two point in Healing Prayers, running Mending + Frenzy + Healing Signet would need to be tested before a voter could give it a 0-0-0. In any other case, if someone does vote a 0-0-0 for a build that's not running Frezy HealSig, then an admin can always be informed, or the voter can be asked to vote more fairly. --GEO-logo Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 14:00, 28 August 2007 (CEST)
People still don't understand that good players can often tell how well a build will do without needing to do any testing? Heh, even I can do so to some extent. There are a lot of builds which are quite obviously very bad(Decapitate, mending in builds other than 55 farmers, damage spells on warriors, tanks in PvP, Healing Hands, etc.). Good players can recognize even more bad builds without testing. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 14:13, 28 August 2007 (CEST)
While I like to keep a open mind (I'm sure it's possible to make a working build with both Healing Hands and Mending on it), I don't doubt that people can tell if a build works or not with a glance. To really give a detailed vote, testing is important, but yes, nobody should be forced to test a build they're sure doesn't work well. --GEO-logo Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 14:26, 28 August 2007 (CEST)

Then you should change the wording of the template: you can't say "this builds is being tested" when no actual test is going on. You should say "This build is being judged by our community of straightforward cookie-cutter elitists, that we assume (or hope) is composed by good players" --Lumenil 18:22, 28 August 2007 (CEST)

You phail at sarcasm, srsly. The testing is putting it through the paces of A. our minds and B. the game. And how are we all 'straightforward cookie-cutter elitists'? Tell me- do you know just what it takes to 4 man Abaddon in Hard Mode? ~~ Napalm Flame ^_^ Napalm Flame Sig Image (talk)·(contributions) 20:05, 28 August 2007 (CEST)
First, sarcastic comments don't actually help anyone nor do they help your argument. Second, please understand that if you don't like this community, "straightforward cookie-cutter elitists," then no one is forcing you to be a part of it. Third, I can test a build without actually trying it. Simply reviewing the skills and attributes is a test of the build in a sense, so there goes your semantic argument. Finally, beyond what others have said, i.e. that Administrators can strike votes based on false logic, and people are capable of rating builds without testing every one, please also realize that there's no way to actually force anyone to go out and use a build. Even if we "said" it was compulsory, there's no way to prove one way or the other whether someone tried a build. Honestly, this debate has been had already, and there's little compelling evidence in favor of making testing compulsory. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 19:06, 28 August 2007 (CEST)
This has been a subject of debate before; the only thing it accomplishes is giving bad builds an excuse to spend a longer time in the testing phase, and weaken the standard that's needed on builds. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 19:16, 28 August 2007 (CEST)
For your information, we are experianced. Roughly 50% of sysops on this website and quite a few of our more active members are or have been in top 100 guilds. Cookie-cutter elitism is, in actuality, documentation of the metagame. To be frank, someone had to design those builds somewhere to become a part of the metagame. Design something new that's good, it becomes more and more popular until it's the metagame. Then it becomes cookie cutter. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲŞƳŞŌƤ 20:27, 28 August 2007 (CEST)
lol... calling me a "straightforward cookie-cutter elitist" is pretty foolish. I'm cryptic, run retarded things like Shattering Assault sins, triple nec hexes, locust's fury sins, etc(I bring mending on my monk heroes when I group with a friend of mine's sin because he's too lazy to weaponswap, lol), but when it comes to a builds wiki, the things we should be documenting are actual good builds, and good players(or even people who r gud@theorycraft like me) don't need to test every build to know whether it's good. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 20:44, 28 August 2007 (CEST)

No. Mandatory testing and PvX:WELL don't mix. WELL is more important. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 19:54, 28 August 2007 (CEST)

I second this notion, WELL is FAR more important. ~~ Napalm Flame ^_^ Napalm Flame Sig Image (talk)·(contributions) 20:05, 28 August 2007 (CEST)

Honestly, you don't have to be a cookie-cutter elitist to tell when a build either A) won't work or B) won't work as well as another similar build and has no obvious advantage over the other build. I have 1 Fame and have run some of the worst builds imaginable in all of my time playing GW, and even I can generally tell when a build either won't work at all or won't work as well as another build. You don't need to be a mathematician to tell when something isn't adding up. - Vermain 21:40, 28 August 2007 (CEST)

WELL pisses me off. ‽-(єяøהħ) no u 22:04, 28 August 2007 (CEST)


I see bad build, I vote bad build. Ta-da! Problem solved ;) Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 00:56, 29 August 2007 (CEST)

Exactly, there are too many times ive seen a viable build (maybe even a good alt and should be merged type build) just get WELLed with an "Inferior to xxxxx".
Granted, this is a problem, but people are going to do it, WELL or not. I think we had a big scuffle over this when the No 0-0-0 policy was proposed. - Vermain 02:20, 29 August 2007 (CEST)
That's because, from teh way the numbers were described to us, 0-0-0 indicated a build with poor grammar, 3 elites, 12 skills and 9 proffessions in it. ‽-(єяøהħ) no u 02:24, 29 August 2007 (CEST)

>0 edits for voting

Merely saying "Hello!" on your talk page or userpage fufills this requirement. This allows for admins to check users to verify they are not sockpuppets. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲŞƳŞŌƤ 00:55, 29 August 2007 (CEST)

This has already been discussed Grinch, look above. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 00:57, 29 August 2007 (CEST)

But I'm blind! Also, where? There's alot of text here. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲŞƳŞŌƤ 01:00, 29 August 2007 (CEST)
Added a note to Cardinal's talk page asking him to implement a change to the extension to force users to make at least one contribution prior to voting. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:09, 29 August 2007 (CEST)
Preferrably not in the User: or Image: namespace. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 01:10, 29 August 2007 (CEST)
It doesn't matter where the contribution is made, in fact, simply adding your IGN to your user space would be enough. The point is that if a users has no contributions we cannot check that users IP to prevent vandalism. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:17, 29 August 2007 (CEST)
Right. Any edit is fine. Even making your page not red is fine. Just that an edit MUST be made. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲŞƳŞŌƤ 01:30, 29 August 2007 (CEST)

Vote Removal Criteria #1

"A vote must constitute an objective judgement 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."

This needs to be revisited. The first point about author bias is fine, but the second statement needs to be reconsidered. Until we have more experienced than inexperienced users/players contributing to the wiki, the odds that a sub-par build will be vetted favorably are pretty good. In practice (and even the user that pointed this out to me agrees), this is allowing the standard of quality on the wiki to slide, much as it did on GWiki. While enforcing this statement seems fair, it actually limits the power that regular users have in determining the wiki's fate. High or low ratings are how regular users can influence build ratings, while sysops have the added capability of removing votes. Taking away the option to vote highly or lowly, regular users have no means to ensure higher quality builds are endorsed by this wiki. Only sysops are left to remove votes that misrepresent the builds themselves. Now, this isn't to say that any admin takes unfair advantage of their powers; in fact, most of the admin team performs admirably. The back-end is usually well-maintained, user requests are responded to immediately, and admins take more flack and spam than they deserve and deal with it maturely and responsibly. In a nutshell, we need to revise this because, in practice, it doesn't work. In reality, some players are better than others (this shouldn't be hard for anyone to accept, GW is a competitive game). Some are more knowledgeable, experienced, skilled etc. But everyone gets an equal vote, and to make matters more complicated, there are unquestionably more unconditioned players than veteran ones. There are plenty of smart non-sysops, and they can do nothing to ensure high quality builds on the wiki. Btw, the solution is not a selective reviewing of every questionable vote, the solution is to cowboy up and give the better players (don't argue about points-of-view and subjective ranking etc, just deal with the fact that some people are better at GW than others) a firmer hand to shape the wiki into something of bonafide quality. Excuse the long read. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 03:17, 31 August 2007 (CEST)

I think this is what the Build Master's Thing was trying to address. I like the idea, but maybe something that would reward users after voting so many builds. If there was any way to count a users votes, minus the ones the get deleted, then after so many votes, 100?, then that person's vote would count for 1.2 or 1.5 of a regular vote. I know this would be really hard to implement, but I do agree something needs to be done. In case you're wondering, I would still be wayyyyyy under the limit. I know I do not play as much as other people, therefor not know as much, hence the small amount of votes from me. Anyway, yea. Bluemilkman 04:03, 31 August 2007 (CEST)
Vote-counting would probably end up with users voting just for the sake of voting; even if they voted more-or-less fairly, they're still going to end up voting on builds they can't use, don't know enough about, or so on. I don't disagree with Krowman's point of view; often, there are some players who's opinions I take into consideration more then others. Most of the admins are such people, normally; D.E. and Readem have played more builds then they really should have, so I trust them when they say something doesn't work because, I know they speak from experience.
For the most part, I think that the majority of people who's opinions I trust are already admins, and they do a good job already of removing votes that are based on false facts and bias. Giving some players more say then others is an option, but it all depends, I think; giving a player more say should be agreed on, in my opinion. Just because someone votes a lot, without getting their votes deleted often, doesn't mean they actually know what they're talking about. Same goes for the reverse, there are plenty of players that do know a lot, but don't vote as often. An option might be users with a bit more say in certain categories; for example, Auron and Rapta are both especially experienced in GvG from what I understand, giving both of them a bit more sway in GvG builds would make perfect sense. Same would go for users who are particularly skilled with Ranger builds, or RA builds, or Farming setups. Such users could be "elected" much in the same way as admins are, via nominations and whatnot. Just my idea. --GEO-logo Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 04:54, 31 August 2007 (CEST)
(edit conflict)Know what, some form of ranked user vetting would work with BMs, but in their current manifestation, BMs are useless. They are just mini-admins in the proposal currently. I'd prefer a procedure similar to promoting admins. People can recognize who knows their stuff, and can nominate them to have a greater hand in shaping the wiki. BCrats would still get the ultimate say, so some really popular user with little in-game knowledge could still be prevented adminship, while someone who is despised for putting his knowledge to good use and shooting down numerous builds (and drawing the resulting newbie hate). Too bad that old policy wasn't written very insightfully. I'll dratf up a new one I think. Top of my head, I'm thinking three levels of vote weighting, similar to RfA process (criteria being quality, not quantity of edits/ builds submitted/favored) that is monitored by admins, vote removal capabilities, and held to similar responsibilities as admins in the Build namespace. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 05:00, 31 August 2007 (CEST)
Fantastic discussion. I think that a weighted system will properly address the situation. Of course, as was mentioned or expressed above, discovering the correct weights may prove to be trying. But, over time I believe a good balance can be achieved. And you are right, particular people are held in higher regard when it comes to comments and discussion because of their experience by the community already. It only makes sense that the wiki reflect what the community is already doing on their own. But, by now effecting the rating more directly, we'll have more accurate ratings that have significant reading. The comments by the respected posters and contributors of the wiki should be reflected in the rating of the build. I think this would be a great step towards ensuring that. Ascscorp 05:25, 31 August 2007 (CEST)
PvXwiki:Build Masters. Drafted here. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 00:57, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

When to Move Past Trial?

I've put up a few builds now, and they've received some nuetral and good comments, as well as one that's received no comments so far.

At what point should these be moved to "Testing" from "Trial"?

Should I just let them sit in obscurity until people feel like discussing them? Or should lack of discussion be an indicator that they're probably ready for testing? I mean, I've tested them and they work well - but I think there's supposed to be some community refinement before moving them to "Testing". Reithan 18:39, 27 September 2007 (CEST)

WARNING: This page is 89 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections.

You can move it into testing whenever-you can completly bypass the otherstages and put it into trial if you think it's ready, there is no set rules saying the build must have met these requirements before going into testing or whatever-it's when all major changes and minor tweaks are done-so basicly the final version, or whenever you think it's done.PheNaxKian (T/c)Tag thumb 18:44, 27 September 2007 (CEST)
Check out this. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:38, 27 September 2007 (CEST)

Boderline scores

I was wondering if a rating's on the border line-which way does it go-i noticed among my pruning so to speak (sorry bout the GW builds i didn't know >_<) that this had a rating of 4.5 overall so i wasn't sure wether to leave it as good or change it to great (i've not done anything yet....thought it'd be best to check...)PheNaxKian (T/c)Tag thumb 20:40, 29 September 2007 (CEST)

Great. — Skakid9090 20:44, 29 September 2007 (CEST)

GW builds

While i was doing my pruning (only done PvE and agains sorry about the GW builds i didn't know-partially why i'm here) i was thinking, why don't we create a tamplate to put on the GW builds that need to be real vetted and put them in a catagory for GW builds (they'd still stay in good) this way we know which ones are from GW and need vetting still-thoughts (i'd also be happy to make the template if no one elses wanted to if that was the case.....)PheNaxKian (T/c)Tag thumb 21:18, 29 September 2007 (CEST)

English please? —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 22:10, 29 September 2007 (CEST)
Make a template for builds that came from guildWiki that still leave builds in the working-good category. That way we can tell without looking at the history that it might be vetted even if it has less than 5 votes. --Wizardboy777 SigWizardboy777(T/C) 22:16, 29 September 2007 (CEST)
thanks wizardboy-(edit conflict)(i do mean thanks not thanks for the conflict honestly =P).hmm ok i'll try again-The builds that were brought over from Guild wiki were all put into the good section by default when real vetting came in (as i understand it) but basicly not all of those builds have been actually vetted so we have builds with just a few votes if any in the good section-what i'm saying is can we either put them into the testing phase OR create a new tempalte to say they're GW builds which need to be vetted according to the reall vetting criteria (in the latter case we would leave them in the good section while the builds are being vetted). There think that's a bit clearer *sigh* PheNaxKian (T/c)Tag thumb 22:19, 29 September 2007 (CEST)
Yeah, we usually retest builds from Guildwiki. If you see any good/great/other builds, leave something on the admin noticeboard. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 02:09, 1 October 2007 (CEST)
I can make a script-generated list of builds in 'good' that have less than five votes. Since this is a one-time problem, that's probably easier than establishing a new category. Hope to find some time this evening. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 09:04, 1 October 2007 (CEST)
The list is here. Please re-test and rate these builds, but do not move them to another category before they've got 5 votes. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 21:17, 1 October 2007 (CEST)
Thanks-i've already started on a few of them (voting and striking out the list) as have other people (Armond for one-well the only one so far) but would it be possiable to have a message on the main page asking for them to be vetted ASAP or something-because with them not being in testing they're less likely to be is what i'm thinking-so if we could make them more widely known or something.....PheNaxKian (T/c)Tag thumb 23:00, 1 October 2007 (CEST)
Done. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 00:30, 2 October 2007 (CEST)

Other Builds

The requirement for them needs to be upped. Other - 3+, Good - 4+, Great - 4.5+. People complain too much about 0-0-0, so you can't vote that, YOu neeed to give at least 2 for effectiveness and universitility or you'll be harrased, combine that with the near-guarenteed 5-5-5 of the author and you're guarenteed a load of shitty builds in other, when it's supposed to be builds that work decently. Either highten the requirement, or get rid of it, imo. — Skakid9090 13:11, 5 October 2007 (CEST)

/agree. 2.5 standard is too easy to meet.--Shadowsin 19:36, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Ok, this might sound stupid....

As soon as at least 5 people have voted on a build, the build is assigned a category ... Who assigns it then? I got a build (my own) that got 7 votes by now... Am I the one who must assign it, or must a sysop do it? :s -- eXtinction 17:32, 5 October 2007 (CEST)

Whoever notices it first. It's pretty simple to do, just change the template at the top. If you don't know which template is used for your category (good, great, other, trash), take a look at other builds in the same category. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 17:51, 5 October 2007 (CEST)
Ah, thx alot... Good category then, votes are between 3.50 and <4.50 :P Here's the build link btw : Cheers :) -- eXtinctioN 18:00, 5 October 2007 (CEST)


Can we make it more clear that a build does not deserve a 0 universality just because it doesn't work in every single function and location and scenario in the game? --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 04:50, 6 October 2007 (CEST)

Sure, but I'm too lazy to do it. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 04:54, 6 October 2007 (CEST)
its been discussed and the most of the admins are the ones leaving those 0-0-0's on builds that deserve a few ones or twos. its never going to change with the current leadership.--Coloneh 08:35, 6 October 2007 (CEST)
Look at DE spamming recent ratings with vote removals tbh. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 09:01, 6 October 2007 (CEST)

I'd just like to throw this out there, even thought it's totally unrelated to the current discussion. Alot of posts here recomend reducing the importance of universality and making efffectivness even more important. I disagree, and think that if anything, universality should be more important. Look at the Build: E/any Dual Attunement Air Spiker. This build is deadly effective, spamming air skills like theres no tommorow, and dealing tons of damage. Therefore its very effective. However, a small amount of enchantment removal can neuter the build compleletly. Universality, how well a build adapts to new situations(which i usually interpret as how well it adapts to less then favorable situations ie. semi common builds that can counter it) is very important. While not as important as effectivness, it certainly should be an adequate part of the rating system.Bob fregman 17:25, 7 October 2007 (CEST)

I don't really care if universality has any weighting. Personally, though, a build's effectiveness is intrinsically related to versatility. I do think that innovation shouldn't have any weighting, though. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 17:44, 7 October 2007 (CEST)
If its versatility is related to effectivness, then we dont need universality, and people need to grade effectivness more strict.Bob fregman 02:14, 8 October 2007 (CEST)
But they won't, and it's good to be able to see both values so you can make a better judgment of what you personally think of the build. At least, that's my opinion. By the way, I second the "nuke the innovation" idea. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 05:21, 8 October 2007 (CEST)
I don't like innovation either. Is there a way we can 'petition' it out of the system? :\ Hammer And Sickle۷ïεדИǺмЄŠЄ. 05:25, 8 October 2007 (CEST)
I think it likely that innovation will always be a category for search purposes if nothing else; however, I would agree that it probably shouldn't be weighted. As to the Effectiveness vs. Universality debate, I'd say that if we wanted to merge the two, we'd need a different scale for Effectiveness, because 0-5 really isn't a large enough range to get into the details that are encompassed in both. I'd say a 0-10 would be more suited. On the other hand, I don't think it's seriously detracting from builds having both. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:42, 8 October 2007 (CEST)
(edit conflict) DE beat me to it. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 05:43, 8 October 2007 (CEST)

(reset indent) while i agree that innovation should have no weighting, i don't think it should be "nuked", i feel that it serves a purpose in a sense, it will help to show those who have made stupid votes easier-e.g. given 4-4-0 or something, while if innovation is 0% of overall score it won't make a diffrence, however it shows us that the user clearly hasn't thought it through, as for the most part the criteria are interlinked (in some way....). Thoughts?PheNaxKian (T/c)Tag thumb 20:12, 8 October 2007 (CEST)

the main point im just trying to get across is that universality is important. some people above are saying how effectivness should make up 90% of the rating.Bob fregman 22:20, 8 October 2007 (CEST)
Universality has its place in the current voting system. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 22:10, 29 October 2007 (CET)

Different rating per category

Now, I'm not sure if this has been proposed before, I don't know if this would be the right place to propose this, I don't know if this is actually already implemented and I don't know if this is even a good idea or question, but I'm going to ask this anyway.

What I was trying to say with the topic title is that builds that fall under multiple categories, might need multiple ratings.

Example: A build that works Great (and is thus, voted Great) will fall under the category "Great", and as a nice bonus, heroes seem to be able to grasp the core concept of the build and use it effectively enough to also make it fall under the "Hero" category, but even though it does work on a hero, it doesn't work great on a hero, it works Good.

Now this is where users might be disappointed, thinking they found a Great hero build, but in reality found a Good hero build, they go vanquishing on their survivor and unfortunately lose it because the heroes failed to protect (far-fetched worst case scenario, but hey, it happens).

Perhaps we should rate builds for all the categories they fit into, and that a Great Team build, might be a Good hero build (The article could have multiple headers, stating it's a Great Team build and a Good Hero build, and the Great working hero builds link on the main page wouldn't list this build)

Unless things already work this way of course, but I simply don't know if that's the case 11:43, 29 October 2007 (CET) (I should really sign up but I don't trust these school computers with my passwords GWiki/GWWiki)

School computers can't have password sniffers or keyloggers. It's against the law. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 11:54, 29 October 2007 (CET)
I was actually thinking more along the lines of spyware :P 12:15, 29 October 2007 (CET)
Idk, that would be real hard to do... Who wants to do like 8 ratings per build? ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 16:12, 29 October 2007 (CET)
Well most builds only go into about 3 categories anyway
So, who wants to do like 3 ratings per build? ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 20:01, 29 October 2007 (CET)
From what i understand of the system your required to vote by what the tags are overall so if you put it down as say an AB build and a Hero build and it works great in AB but not so good on a hero, you perhaps mark it down a bit because it was designed to be used by heroes as well as AB, if you look at some builds talk pages you get people saying to drop this tag or that tag and then it would be more resonable, people advise you what tags to give builds so your not putting good builds up but getting them marked down for being in the wrong section so to speak....PheNaxKian (T/c)Tag thumb 20:31, 29 October 2007 (CET)
Assuming that people don't mention something about changing the tags on the Talk Page, if someone votes a build down because it doesn't work well in HA or GvG or on a Hero or whatever, than it's very easy for the author (or someone else) to remove the tag and then add a request (on the Admin Noticeboard) for the now defunct vote to be removed. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:48, 29 October 2007 (CET)


Decrease weighting to 0%, increase the weight of universality and/or effectiveness. Opinions? --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 04:25, 2 November 2007 (CET)

I vote we change Innovation to smiley faces. So, if they got voted 5/4/4, they'd get a 4.5 and four :)s. -- 04:28, 2 November 2007 (CET)
Innovative way to neutralize the innovation threat. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 04:29, 2 November 2007 (CET)
Ya rly. Way too many people don't understand innovation, and most of the people that do just mark it similar to effectiveness to pitch voting. -Auron 04:47, 2 November 2007 (CET)
5-5-5, see Auron's vote. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 08:28, 2 November 2007 (CET)
I give your vote a 5-0-5, because I've seen votes like that before. --GEO-logo Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 15:17, 2 November 2007 (CET)
Don't you mean 5-5-0? -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 21:37, 2 November 2007 (CET)
I think Effectiveness should have about 75% of the vote's total weight - too many people take Universality to mean 'it works everywhere, in every mode.' -- 21:39, 2 November 2007 (CET)
We just need people to read the vetting policy, like that's ever going to happen. Lord Belar 21:48, 2 November 2007 (CET)
I belive we've had many of these discussions. However i think that we should drop innovation to 0% and then increase effectiveness (no point in having a build that's adaptable if it's not effective IMO)PheNaxKian (T/c)Tag thumb 22:04, 2 November 2007 (CET)
Meh, you know what I mean. And the universality applies here too, votes like that really don't work outside of builds. :P
But to the topic at hand... innovation really doesn't have much of an effect on the build's performance, so weighting it without considering innovation doesn't sound too bad. High innovation is great if you're looking for a new idea, but since when did that mean squat in a fight? (aside from surprising the foe by using different skills, but that's totally based on the current meta anyway.)
I still want to see builds able to stick around based on their merits, in separate categories (Search: Effective Assassin builds - Universal Assassin builds - Innovative Assassin builds). The normal build sections would still be there as always, but add separate sections with ratings based entirely on single attributes. That way, a build could get booted out because of low universality, but still be ranked high in the innovative category. Perhaps encouraging more thought in ratings, too, instead of simply rating 5-5-5, or 4-4-4, or 1-1-1 (thus making the three attributes a moot point). --GEO-logo Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 03:17, 3 November 2007 (CET)
I like the idea of being able to search for high effective universal etc. that would be quite useful. But i also think we should perhaps increase the max rating maybe? so instead of 5-5-5 being max say 10-10-10 or something, that way we could get a good difference between those that are really great (near perfect scores) and say those that just scrape in, obviously though that would require a huge change and i'd assume all votes would need to be redone but just a thought.....PheNaxKian (T/c)Tag thumb 13:02, 3 November 2007 (CET)
That might make it a bit complicated, eh... it would give a better idea of a build's effectiveness, and let people vote in-betweens, but still, that's a lot of numbers. :P And people already have trouble just dealing with three lines on the votes... --GEO-logo Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 17:54, 3 November 2007 (CET)

As ive stated before, i feel innovation should count for nothing, and universality count for more. how well a build does its job is the most important thing for sure, but how easy it is to prevemnt a build from doing its job is also very important. how innovative a build is is totally irrelevant.Bob fregman 04:08, 4 November 2007 (CET)

can we get an official vote on this or something and get it over with? i dont think anyone is left that thinks innovation should be weighted.--Coloneh 16:32, 4 November 2007 (CET)

I don't think we need a vote... (regardless, we don't vote on things anyway)... at this point, it's just a matter of contacting Cardinal. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 17:06, 4 November 2007 (CET)
Looks like weighting innovation zero is consensus. Do we also have consensus on how to weight the other two? Then it's easy to do the change. Both Gcardinal and me can do it. About categories based on individual attributes: this will be part of the search engine, which is in the queue. Please be patient :-) – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 17:30, 4 November 2007 (CET)
How about putting the extra weighting on both (half and half i mean) seems fair that way IMO....PheNaxKian (T/c)Tag thumb 17:55, 4 November 2007 (CET)

Couldn't we like weigh all these categories into one uber category? So when you rate you could just rate the build based on all 3 in one category on a scale of 1-5 or 1-10.--Victoryisyours Sig ImageVictoryisyours 17:57, 4 November 2007 (CET)

That would be a bad idea, you wouldn't have any "middle ground" you'd have to give one overall rating instead of 3 separete ones, so instead of being able to give a high effectiveness and a low innovation for example, you would only be able to give an over all middle rating. But i like the idea of 1-10 still instead of 1-5...PheNaxKian (T/c)Tag thumb 18:09, 4 November 2007 (CET)
You could give the build an 8 and say it suffers innovation.--Victoryisyours Sig ImageVictoryisyours 18:27, 4 November 2007 (CET)

(RI)Destroy innovation entirely IMO, tbh i really dont care how innovative a build is, if it does its job and does it well (better than other builds) it deserves a 5, i dont care if the build is used everywhere, just that it does its job well. It is a entirely useless category, and really means nothing to how well a build performs. Universality, on the other hand, is actually related to how well a build does its job and how well it performs, as it being able to be used in a variety of different situations (not areas, situations) well and do its job. Most of that is totally redundant but i really dont care :D. Anyways, to sum all that up: get rid of innovation.—Cheese Slaya&#039;s Sig Cheese Slaya (Talk) 02:41, 8 November 2007 (CET)

Effectiveness = 75% Universality = 25% Innovation = 0%

Innovation can stay, but just as a search catagory. Innovation isn't important. No one in a battle is going to be so surprised by a new build they stop attacking and you win better. NO it doesn't mean squat. How well it does its job does. How well it handles different enemies does. NOT the fact that you used the same old elite, if it does use the same elite and its similar to another build, merge or delete, Not give it a 0 rating and make it a "Good" build instead of a "Great" build which so many builds right now are worthy of. My god its a build not a movie--The Gates Assassin 22:30, 23 November 2007 (CET)

Innnovation is completely pointless. In PVE, the mobs don't try and counter builds specifically. If the idea is a novel tactic to surprise in GVG, well it shouldn;t be on a open site. As it stand, it's a good excuse to low-rate a build you don't like, when it has absolutely no bearing on how the build performs. As for universality, a Deep group KD warrior is a pretty weak build anywhere outside that specific area due to wasting skillslots on KD. Egon 11:00, 25 November 2007 (CET)

A) Yes, we've already established that Innovation should not be a weighted category. B) That would be true if that's what Universality meant, but it isn't. Universality refers to how flexible a build is in responding to a variety of situations taking into account where the build is intended. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:10, 25 November 2007 (CET)

Small point, Innovation says basically what is it's chance as a meta and that is it a current meta would get half the ppl saying 5! it is the meta! and half would say 0! It is the meta! --The Gates Assassin 06:15, 26 November 2007 (CET)

exactly. the term and its meaning are in total opposition to one another. - Y0_ich_halt 17:41, 26 November 2007 (CET)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.