FANDOM



Innovation checkbox Edit

I will change the weighting of innovation to 0% in a few minutes. This will effectively take innovation out of the overall rating of a build, innovation ratings are then given only as an additional information to the reader. At some point the 0-5 scale for innovation will be changed to a checkbox, I'm waiting for our test server there.

I'll put the weighting to 80% effectiveness and 20% universality for now. This can be discussed here and changed again if needed. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 11:07, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

awesome.--Dark0805(Rant/Contributions) 11:08, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Oh, finally <3 Brandnew. 11:10, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
And I was about to put a bunch of 0 inno votes on the noticeboard. Saves me some time. Finally. ZefirsigGod Zefir 11:11, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Done. Many builds will have a slightly different overall score now, so one should keep an eye open on builds that are no longer in the right category. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 11:44, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

I'll trawl through the PvE builds if someone wants to do the PvP ones? - PANIC! Panic sig4 sexiness!
I'll do PvP. We should change to their corresponding categories, correct? --File:GoD Wario Sig.JPG*Wah Wah Wah!* 11:49, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
I still don't see it, though. --File:GoD Wario Sig.JPG*Wah Wah Wah!* 11:50, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Vetting interface looks the same to me, too, so I'll just leave it for now tbh. - PANIC! Panic sig4 sexiness! 11:56, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
It's only the numbers for the overall rating that have changed so far. I'll change the 0-5 buttons to a single checkbox later. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 12:20, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
heh. sorry. I meant the overall scores on the interface look unchanged. We've just been pretty good with making people vote Innovation as an average I think. - PANIC! Panic sig4 sexiness! 12:23, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
If you find a case where the numbers follow the old weighting and not the new, please tell me. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 12:30, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Nvm, it was just changed so Innovation = 0%. Anyway...

Green thumbs up

The PvXwiki community finds this to be an excellent build.

Through the PvX vetting system, it has reached an overall rating in the range from 4.5 to 5.0 and thus qualifies for the highest category of working builds: Great.

This build has been designed for the following use:

NO TYPE SPECIFIED </ul>

Check THIS BUILD HAS BEEN RATED TO BE INNOVATIVE

Just a rough sketch. It could be under a template called {{Innovative Great}} or what not. We also need a transparent check mark image. --File:GoD Wario Sig.JPG*Wah Wah Wah!* 11:56, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

I'd prefer a named argument for the existing template. We also have to decide on the percentage of checked innovation boxes a build needs to qualify as innovative. Furthermore, we have to decide what to do with the existing innovation scores. Since most of them were not given to express an opinion about innovation but rather to cheat the rating system, I'd propose to set them all to zero. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 14:12, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
agree with the argument thing (I know what he means,,,i think XD). I'd say have the majority rule. So if mroe thn half say it's innovative it falls under innovative. I'd also saythat for current scores, if it's 3+ mark it as checked or something along those lines. Then if they're bother we have "my ratings" so people can go back and change if they want to. ~PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 15:11, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
On my discussion, I was thinking that basically any amount of "+ innovations" would be considered "Innovative". Or for percentages, anything above 2.50% (as in the current Innovation in the ratings page). --File:GoD Wario Sig.JPG*Wah Wah Wah!* 16:39, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Innovation description Edit

I must admit I didn't follow the last changes to the description of innovation. Indeed, the current version is quite inconsistent. Obviously, a build which is meta cannot be new/innovative at the same time. On the other hand, people associate meta = good = must have top scores in any category, whatever that category is supposed to mean. Now that innovation doesn't count anymore for the overall rating, we can try again to find a proper description of innovation. Voters will be easier to motivate to give an honest opinion about how innovative a build is if that doesn't affect the overall score, which seems to be what everybody's looking at.

While the new description in the mouseovers has to be implemented in the back end, everybody is free to make suggestions for a new text here. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 11:07, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

TBH, I've been thinking about Innovation entirely, and maybe we should replace it. I've come up with a few here. --File:GoD Wario Sig.JPG*Wah Wah Wah!* 11:09, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Mouseovers arent the only thing that need to be implemented in the back end ;] Gogey 11:15, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
We'd probably be better off removing it altogether, tbh. Usefulness=Effectiveness/Universality and Adaptivity=Universality. All we need to know is that the build works (effective) and if it can compete against most other builds/meta (universal). ــмıкεнaшк 11:17, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
I meant Usefulness to be whether it fits in or can go against the current metas. It was a little more PvP oriented, but for PvE we can keep innovation. --File:GoD Wario Sig.JPG*Wah Wah Wah!* 11:18, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
That's exactly what Innovation means right now. As Mike says, its a function of effectiveness and universality. There's no need to vote on it because it should be somewhere between the two. - PANIC! Panic sig4 sexiness! 11:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
And that's why it was originally intended to mean something else. Just as the name suggests the innovation value should describe if there's a new idea behind the build. This is a piece of information that is orthogonal to (read: independent of) the other two criteria, which describe how well the build works.
@St. Michael: Some people might still be interested in new ideas, regardless of the build working or not. If it doesn't work, you'll not want to run it, but might still have a look at the new idea to see if one can make it work. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 11:56, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
I was thinking along the lines of Reliability (don't know if that's the right word for what I am suggesting) but basically if said build can work in any team or if it needs to be in certain team (for instance a Shock Axe war can fit right into all most any team, but some gankers need the team to run a specific play style for them to really excel) I dunno, or maybe just make innovation a tick box of what your voting about (so you could vote 5 innovation for metaness but 1/2 for actually being a new idea or not). Meh. /FrosTalk\ 12:08, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Innovation will become a checkbox, see above. This thread is for discussing a new text describing Innovation. For suggestions for new criteria, please start a new section. Good idea otherwise, but might be included in Universality. Some things (like "needs a certain team") could also just be mentioned on the build page, without having their own rating criterium. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 12:26, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Does this build use underused skills and elites? Does this build take skills and use them in a new way that hasn't been thought of before? Does this build have an intended purpose that hasn't been thought of before or at least not commonly? In short: Would you say the idea behind this build is new? If either of those apply to this build, please check off the box next to Innovation. <-- Kinda like that? Unused skills, use skills in new ways, new purpose.--GatessMoebius Strike IconThe Gates Assassin 19:01, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

New % split up Edit

First off, let me say thank you for dropping the innovation as part of the ratings. Now, I just wanted to say that the 80%/20% change is a little drastic IMO. I think it should be split 70%/30%. Whats everyone think aobut this? --DervsigAngelus(stalk|contribs) 16:37, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Not a fan of a ratings page with only two criteria being counted in general. You might as well use the old vetting system on GW. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 16:40, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
I do agree that 2 criteria seems a bit iffy, but then the question is, what could you have as a 3rd (innovation will be changed at a later date to a check box, Hippoh's just waiting on the test server apparently), personally i don't mind what we put up as long as it's sensible. ~PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 17:08, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Someone should go through the archives. There's been a number of suggestions of what to add, or how to split up one of the existing criteria to get a more descriptive evaluation of a build. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 05:53, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Metagame Edit

Since Innovation is probably going to be changed to it's literal dictionary definition, we should create an extra category as a check box that will say [-] Metagame. If they check that off, the build is part of the metagame and kind of like innovation a tag on the Other/Good/Great thing will say (Checkmark) This build is part of the current metagame. Something Like:

Is this build used very commonly in this game? In PvE, will you be able to easily find a group with this build? In PvP, do most people run this build? In short: Is this part of the PvE or PvP metagame? If you think it is, please check off the box next to Metagame.

If this is to be added in, you would have to add something to make sure that Metagame and Innovation couldn't both be checked off. For Solo PvE Farming builds, things like A/Es running around in ToA atm would be a metagame.--GatessMoebius Strike IconThe Gates Assassin 18:54, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

(ecx2 -.-) i'm not too keen on the definition personaly. I like thew idea though. I think it's difficult to say that innovation and meta are mutually exclusive though. Think about something new and innovative appears, thus everyone starts to use it, it becomes meta, does that mean it's no longer innovative? ~PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 19:08, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Metagame changes too often. We'd need to revote or maintain pages every time someone decides there's been a shift. - PANIC! Panic sig4 sexiness! 19:10, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
=/ Oh well. Simply put a tag on the build that says "This build is said to be in the metagame, however it isn't. If this tag shouldn't be on here, please discuss it on it's talk page." Or make it just a tag that people can add onto the Other/Good/Great tag. Aka: Great-Meta-Build--GatessMoebius Strike IconThe Gates Assassin 19:12, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
No real benefit tbh. For GvG or HA you can use Obs to see the metagame. There really isn't any "Great" builds vetted for other areas that aren't in the metagame either. And normally when something falls out of the meta we archive it. - PANIC! Panic sig4 sexiness! 19:18, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Such things are usually done, with archival and rewriting of newer versions of builds. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 19:52, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Hmm, but that would mean all great builds that are not archived are part of meta. So there's no dedicated space for new ideas which are great, but not yet meta. Anyway, the meta-ness of a build changes too fast to handle it via votes, that should be more like an additional switch to the template which is edited on a consensus basis. After all, meta or not is some encyclopedic information and not so much a matter of opinion.
Innovation, to clarify the difference, describes how new the idea behind was at the moment the build was made. When the build grows older this tag has only historical value. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 05:48, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Efficiency Edit

Does the build complete it's task quickly/within the time usually allowed? How easy is it for the player to use the build effectively? How likely is an opponent to counter/shut down the build, assuming it isn't specifically specced against?

Maybe too similar to effectiveness but whatever. Ojamo 20:41, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

  1. If a build needs to be quick and isn't it's not Effective.
  2. We retain good builds; we don't retain builds because they're easy to use.
  3. See Universality.

Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 20:43, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Pretty much what I expected. I've been failing a lot today. Ojamo 20:47, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
You are valuable :O ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 02:23, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
Why not change that to difficulty? Cripshot and shock axe = Difficulty 5. Tripple warrior GvG team = 5 difficulty. Moebius sin = 0 difficulty.--GatessMoebius Strike IconThe Gates Assassin 02:51, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
Because difficulty is irrelevant to how good the build is. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:44, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
That also depends alot on the player/voter. I find something as straightforward as WoH rather hard, whilst others would find it easy as descending into a deep dark pit by jumping over the edge. --84.24.206.123 04:54, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

I don't think the concept of efficiency applies here. It's basically effect per effort, assuming these two are proportional, which here they are not. About difficulty: It's indeed irrelevant to how good the build is, so it shouldn't enter the overall score. But still it would be a useful piece of information for some players, similar to the Factions only builds etc. It's again the old question how much we care about new players. I think that most of the readers of this site would be happy to find that information, but most of the contributors would be too lazy to provide it. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 05:33, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

@DE and Hhippo, I didn't say it should. It should work like innovation does right now. If you guys are going to implement search catagories I think it would be a great addition to it.--GatessMoebius Strike IconThe Gates Assassin 11:40, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
no there's a doifference between what you were suggesting and innovation. Remember here we assume you hvae access to everything required, that includes players needed for a team or "skill" (for lack of a better term) and by ahving such a criteria we would be effectively saying that now it does matter if you hvae everything available (in a sense anyway). ~PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 13:05, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
What? What does that even mean? Difficulty as in is the build hard to play, not how effective it is. Shock axe is not easy to play. A good player and a bad player could play it and a bad player would do terrible. With something like moebius strike, you maintain enchantments and spam stuff, easy. With that build there is no difference between an experienced player and a bad player, so it would be considered an easy build to play. Droks runs are very hard to do well, D/A speed runners would have high difficulty where as Shadow Form Infinite Runner would have low difficulty. Difficulty has NOTHING to do with how hard it is to get the skills for the build.--GatessMoebius Strike IconThe Gates Assassin 13:17, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Finished template Edit

Green thumbs up

The PvXwiki community finds this to be an excellent build.

Through the PvX vetting system, it has reached an overall rating in the range from 4.5 to 5.0 and thus qualifies for the highest category of working builds: Great.

This build has been designed for the following use:


Dont Check THIS BUILD HAS REACHED AN OVERALL INNOVATION RATING OF >2.50 AND THUS QUALIFIES AS INNOVATIVE


A little off topic, but what do you think? --File:GoD Wario Sig.JPG*Wah Wah Wah!* 08:01, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

The PvXwiki community finds this to be a highly innovative build rather than excellent. Similarly, "Through the PvX vetting system, its Innovation has reached", "thus qualifies for the highest category of innovative builds". ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 08:06, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
I was thinking of adding something like that. 1 sec. --File:GoD Wario Sig.JPG*Wah Wah Wah!* 08:07, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
Well, it's meant to be a template for a build that is (Other, Good, Great) but innovative as well. It's just easier to cram 2 templates together. It could be like {{Great-Innovative|RA|TA|etc}} or whatever. --File:GoD Wario Sig.JPG*Wah Wah Wah!* 08:14, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
I see. With {{Great-Build|Innovative|RA|TA|etc}} a second template won't be needed. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 08:18, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
Something like that. Or if you're going to do it like that, it could be {{Great-Innovative|5.0|RA|TA|etc}} and you can add the percentage points of what it got in the Innovation category. --File:GoD Wario Sig.JPG*Wah Wah Wah!* 08:21, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
But then you need to update the template every time someone rates it. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 08:23, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, I guess. I think the ">2.50" will work. --File:GoD Wario Sig.JPG*Wah Wah Wah!* 08:23, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
Leave the template alone and just add a category tag to the page. Then you can see what all the innovative builds are at once. Adding more stuff into the template makes it look really cluttered. If you want to change the template then a better way would be to change the boilerplate text to dynamic text depending on if the first argument is "Innovative" or not. - PANIC! Panic sig4 sexiness! 08:45, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
Could be something like "The PvXwiki community finds this to be an excellent and innovative build." with the word innovative being a link to a section of Real Vetting which explains what this means. This would be activated by putting "innovative" as the first argument. Btw: once we change from 0-5 to checkbox, the 2.50 limit is pointless, it will just be the majority of voters that counts.
Please do NOT change any templates yet! It creates a huge server load and should be done only after we agreed on the final version and with a server admin around (with the finger on the reboot button). – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 09:19, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
Exactly, HHH. Also, would it be relatively easy to implement something such as the build masters vote count so that we can see something like "X innovative votes"? - PANIC! Panic sig4 sexiness! 09:23, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
Green thumbs up

The PvXwiki community finds this to be an excellent build.

Through the PvX vetting system, it has reached an overall rating in the range from 4.5 to 5.0 and thus qualifies for the highest category of working builds: Great.

This build has been designed for the following use:

NO TYPE SPECIFIED </ul>

Through the PvX Innovative Vetting System, it has reached an overall ratingin the range from 4.5 to 5.0 and thus qualifies for the highest category of Innovative Builds builds: Great.
Dont Check This build has been deemed by at least 2/3 of the PvX Community as Meta.

Amirite? Of course, were gonna need a new thumbs-up for innovation. Or we could make two separate boxes altogether. Also, a build is only meta if 2/3 of the community says so. Copied the template from GoD :P IAmJebus sig2*Jebus* Is I 00:06, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I like the 2/3 majority idea. It should also be innovative if 10-20 people vote so. Having all that text under the tag is an eye-strainer imo. The checkmark part of Jebus's is a good idea. I think it should say something like "Through the PvX Innovative Vetting System, it has been deemed this build excels in innovation by the PvX community." I was also thinking of phrasing it excellence in innovation or the like. Just link to the (unmade) policy on innovation. The box shouldn't be crowded by it, so make it small but readable. Just a check mark with Innovative next to it would be enough for people to tell whether it's innovative. Voting from BMs should count as two votes.--Relyk Purifying Veil SigRELYK ʞlɐʇ ʎɯ 07:11, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I'd rather use Innovative over Meta, though, because I don't really care how much a build is used, and prefer knowing about the idea behind it. Also, how many votes are we going to have to change to accommodate this new tag because many of us voted innovation based on the average between Effectiveness and Universality? ــмıкεнaшк 10:02, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
I was thinking of breaking innovation up into something like "Originality" and "Meta", with votes for each, as in a yes/no vote, and 2/3 majority would decide. IAmJebus sig2*Jebus* Is I 11:44, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
i'd say jsut have a innovation box, originality and meta are mutually exclusive, so why have 2 boxes when you can have one?. I'll probably try and write up some sort of propsal or somehitng for the innovation think, or wrrite up an edit to the current system tonight if i get chance. ~PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 11:47, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
As in original, i mean "Is it a new idea? Has it been taken from other builds?" However, this would contribute little to the actual quality of the build, and would provide little use. IAmJebus sig2*Jebus* Is I 12:07, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
By original you mean is it innovative. And as i said, Meta and innovation are mutually exclusive. ~PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 12:12, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Change to innovation descriptionEdit

This is only applicable for when the checkbox is implemented, but i've set it ready so it's a quick change. Basically i think the innovation section should say something along the following:


Innovation Checkbox
Tick this checkbox if you find the build original/innovative. If the build is currently Meta, don’t tick this box. Builds where 2/3 of the voters have ticked the innovation box, are to be put into the innovation category, by using {{Great|innovation|…}}, where great is interchangeable with the other categories.


Anyway. Thoughts? ~PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 12:20, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

It seems that its either innovative or meta. It may be confusing to find a great build thats the meta but isnt qualified as innovative. IAmJebus sig2*Jebus* Is I 12:26, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

too much work, just delete it — Skakid 12:28, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

(ec)Meta and innovation are mutually exclusive, if it falls in one it can't be another. That's the point. Innovation is to do with originality, meta isn't originality because everyone and their grannies are running it, thus it's not innovative. QED. ~PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 12:29, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
Its too confusing, people might think that because its not innovative, its not good. Id say get rid of innovation altogether and add a checkbox for meta, if 2/3 of community blahblahblah... but yeah. You could also look at GoD's alternatives to innovation, which seems like a good idea. IAmJebus sig2*Jebus* Is I 13:29, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
That essentially is GoD's version, it'd use the wikicode he said (or that Hippoh wanted). I don't see how you get if it's not innovative it's not good?. The point is you can get innovative great builds (soon to be meta basically), you can also get innovative trash builds. You can't get innovative meta builds though. ~PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 14:02, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
There's no reason a build can't be both new/creative AND used by everyone. - PANIC! Panic sig4 sexiness! 14:22, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
Actually, the fact it's on PvX means that it's either being used by everyone or people are going to start using it. - PANIC! Panic sig4 sexiness! 14:23, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
Sineptitude, although an extreme meta, was innovative and meta at the same time. I forget the name but the Mesmer spike was innovative and meta as well. There are a lot more examples of this.--GatessMoebius Strike IconThe Gates Assassin 17:49, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Meta Edit

So pve has meta builds?--Relyk Purifying Veil SigRELYK ʞlɐʇ ʎɯ 19:14, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Imbagons, Ursan, Cry of Pain etc. --Ibreaktoilets SignatureTab Moo 19:15, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
Those builds are a little gimmicky, and I don't actually see that much use out of Imbagons or Cry of Pain (mostly because Mesmers and Paragons aren't the favoured professions of PvE.) Some better examples would be Moebius Strike+Death Blossom, Dragon Slash, Triple Chop, Healer's Boon, SF, SH, MMs (the different types), Barrage, Orders... ــмıкεнaшк 19:36, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
There are Meta Tema builds for high end areas. Such as Urgoz, The Deep. Slaver's and DoA. There are commonly run teams in other areas as well, but thta's your basic team anyway. Single builds not so much, but you typically have 1 build per proffesion now really (not including ursan) ~PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 20:04, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
And the PvP meta builds affect the way PvE builds are judged, for some weird reason.User Ereanor sigreanor 22:26, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

New element idea Edit

Now that Innovation is gone, im seeing the same problem over and over again. only 2 criterias for voting on a build isnt that good and its showing on some of the builds. theres no more variety and how the votes can sway. So im proposing a new addition to the criteria: Speed. Does the build get done what it needs to get done quickly? Can the build accomplish what it is focused around? Does it perform efficiently?

Just throwing out an idea. We NEED to get a new addition to the criteria quickly. --DervsigAngelus(stalk|contribs) 15:08, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

While speed in PvE is good to have (running, farming, elite areas, etc.) in PvP there are pressure builds that need time to win a match (VoDway, HB Capway, AB capping etc.) but they might be still better than a spike build. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 15:35, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

I think something like synergy:Does it mix well with what most other people would be likely to run? The prob with this is that it doesnt work with team builds. Also, if not speed, then efficiency:Does it get the job done without wasting extra effort? IAmJebus sig2*Jebus* Is I 16:16, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

I like synergy, with team builds you could say how well do the individual builds go together. As for the efficiency idea, I'm inclined to say that's partially effectiveness.~PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 17:02, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
Synergy is part of effectiveness, no synergy = ineffective build, although good synergy isnt always a good build (Shatterstone has good synergy with elemental flame and glyph of immolation for PERMA BURNING WHOOOOO!, but that doesn't make it good.) Ojamo SigOjamo Tell Me I Fail 17:07, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
We don't mean synergy within the build (as in how well the skills of the said build go together) but rather how the build synergises with the most commonly run builds at the time, or in the case of team builds, as i mentiond above, how well the builds within the team synergise. ~PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 17:09, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
I like the Efficiency idea also. that is important for a build. --DervsigAngelus(stalk|contribs) 17:31, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
Efficiency sounds too much like effectiveness, tbh. If a build does something way to slow, it isn't effective, and if it does it faster than any other, it is. ــмıкεнaшк 17:38, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
As i said before, synergy doesnt qualify for team builds (unless they're incomplete team builds like HA 2 monk backline or GvG 2 monk aegis backline (OOOooOOoo NOTE THE SIMILARITY OOooOOOoOOOOOOoOOO)) but yeah, its possible. IAmJebus sig2*Jebus* Is I 18:06, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
Synergy also goes with Universality, tbh. Universality means it works well in lots of areas/has a lot of uses (or works well with the meta teams of the designated play type), and synergy is pretty much the same. Effectiveness and Universality are enough, and Universality is really just a branch from Effectiveness, which is why Effectiveness weighs more in the overall score. Just don't bother trying to replace Innovation. ــмıкεнaшк 18:15, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
Were not trying to replace innovation, there will still be innovation, it jstu doesn't count towards anything (and will eventually be replaced by a checkbox when the test server's up_ The problem we have now is that builds are being vetted on 2 cratiera, which is just stupid, you need at least 3 criteria to base a build on. ~PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 18:19, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
Not really, all you really need is Effectiveness because anything else you try to make will just be a branch from it, unless, of course, you remove Effectiveness and split it (into Universality, Effeciency and others.) All that's necessary to vetting a build is a number for the vote and some good reasoning behind it. ــмıкεнaшк 18:24, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
If all we had was effectiveness, all that we would have on this wiki would be copies of the same build modified ever-so-slightly but still great working. Examples: Eviscerate has about 6-7 builds in great/good, preferf shadow form farmers were mostly A/E or A/Me and we had about 12 of those all in great with exactly the same usage. Somehow none of them were qualified as dupes. Therefore, effectiveness is not all that's needed in a build. IAmJebus sig2*Jebus* Is I 19:25, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
I disagree, effectiveness is probably the only thing needed in a build. Plus, comparing an inferior build to a better one is still part of effectiveness, although dupes shouldn't affect how we rate a build, anyway. If they're dupes, they're deleted or merged (or more specifically, include the differences into the original if they're good.) Those builds that are modified ever-so-slightly should be merged, tbh. One skill difference doesn't actually affect the usage all that much, and you could always explain the usage for every optional (the Eviscerate bars with Shock, Disrupting Dagger, Power Spike, Harrier's Haste and so on.) I can predict a bunch of Wounding Strike builds coming up soon. XD ــмıкεнaшк 19:33, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
Speed is idiotic. — Skakid 19:34, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
Speed/Efficiency=Effectiveness, and anything else anyone comes up with that actually pertains to how good a build is also=Effectiveness (or a branch from it.) I think the betting system works fine as it is, just find something to do with Innovation. ــмıкεнaшк 19:36, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
The point is, we're not dropping innovation it is merely be altered so it's weighting is zero (and bares no balance on the quality of the build as viewed by the community).So it'd be pointless to have something that is basically the same, when Innovation is still there. We've made plenty of suggestions, that could be used. Again Synergy was a good one, you can't relate it to effectiveness with the description mentioned. it was suggested how well does it fit with the most commonly run builds at the time, this doesn't have anything to do with effectiveness. Effectiveness is how well the build works within it self (i.e. how well the skills work in combination with each other to form the build as a whole.). In the case of team builds, i suggested that we say it's to do with how well the builds within the team go together, in this case yes, it would be a branch of effectiveness, but you have to think, you could a team with little synergy, but still be really effective (i can't think of any, bearing in mind i don't PvP much.). ~PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 07:58, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

One of the inherent problems with our current criteria is that "Effectiveness" practically covers everything. Basically, Effectiveness reflects "how well it works", and unfortunately it is very difficult to come up with a set of specific guidelines as to how to judge if a build is effective overall. So far, the Effectiveness criterion is doing quite well, given that most voters are apt to use broad examples and personal judgement instead of following a prescribed set of rules. Suggestions and potential suggestions will inevitably overlap with Effectiveness. If we are to introduce new criteria, the more practical thing to do would be to split "Effectiveness" into its composite criteria -- and that may not be so practical after all. --Scottie bow Scottie_theNerd (talk/contribs/complain) 11:56, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Exactly, but it would probably be easier to just keep Effectiveness and Universality as they are. You could split Effectiveness into Universality, Synergy, Efficiency and whatever else you like, but in the end, you could save us all a second of clicking every time we vote by just letting us figure out the "overall effectiveness" ourselves. Effectiveness=how good a build is, and that's all that matters. ــмıкεнaшк 12:14, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
You only need two criteria imo: 1. How well does the build do what it's supposed to in ideal circumstances? 2. How well does the build work outside of ideal circumstances?. Both of these are covered by Effectiveness and Universality and tbh it's the only thing people looking for a build are going to want to know. - PANIC! Panic sig4 sexiness! 12:22, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Synergy:

        PVE: this build has been deemed helpful in Ursan parties and is considered Great.
        PVP: this build has been deemed helpful in Sway parties and is considered Great.

--UnderImage- (PvP)Gunned 00:49, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

lol at that. U forgot rspike in PvP :D IAmJebus sig2*Jebus* Is I 17:04, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

can we.... Edit

say you can't copy/paste votes? it removes the process of actually hvaing to look at a build to vote and judge it accordingly.... For example, i could go on any random build, copy let's say DE (if he ever voted on a build). I wouldn't even have had to look at the build. Of course if DE is wrong (OMG END OF THE WORLD SCENARIO!) then mine is as well. Granted this probably isn't much problem for the admins/BMs to remove but yeh you see what i mean...</nonsensicalrant> ~PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 17:09, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Copy pasted votes don't help the author to improve his build much (although it may emphasize on certain points) and all it really does is make the build get through vetting faster. I don't think it's worth adding anything against those kinds of votes, because if they are wrong, they'll be removed anyway (hopefully). It is annoying, however. ــмıкεнaшк 17:15, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
The thing with copying votes is that you copy a vote from a good preson of whom you know he's right. (Unexist.) Brandnew. 17:16, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Then there's also the kind of votes that are just explained the best, and no one feels like trying to make up their own reasoning when someone else's is better. XD I take the initiative to vote independently, though. =P ــмıкεнaшк 17:18, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Thats like asking everyone to do their own homework...since when did anyone do that?--UnderImage- (PvP)Gunned 21:11, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
I've always done my own homework, and because of it, I'm also at the top of all of my classes in school. =P ــмıкεнaшк 22:02, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
I would say to add a line advising against copying controversial votes, if that's what you guys want. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 01:18, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
I question the purpose of that though. It's not much different to saying "I agree with [user]". You're not adding new to the critique by agreeing with another vote; nor are you going to add anything by repeating the same criticisms. If we're going to discourage vote copying, we need clarify why. --Scottie bow Scottie_theNerd (talk/contribs/complain) 11:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
I think copy/pasting votes is a little cheesy. Saying, as Scottie said "I agree with ___" is okay, but further elaborating or rephrasing their point would be nicer than copy pasting anything you like. As Rapta brought up on the GoR Sin or whatever, I do do quite a few "I agree with ____" votes, but I do elaborate as well. --GoD Wario Sig*Wah Wah Wah!* 11:02, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
In some cases "I agree with ____" can be problematic because if the referred person changes his vote, it might no longer represent the the others' viewpoint. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 12:08, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Possible new rating criteriaEdit

  • Legibility

The goal here is to help ensure that build pages are actually written properly before they are vetted. Quite obvious. And it stops people from submitting a skill bar. May not be necessarily a "voting criteria", but a possible "second test" to ensure that builds are written properly before being submitted to testing. Trial vs. Build stubs doesn't appear to be working. One example. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 00:24, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

How would this be any direction towards the quality of the build? Rspike could have been written really crappily with only mini skill bars, etc, but that doesnt change the fact thats its good. I is *Jebus*IAmJebussig3Enter my contest! 01:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
Opposed on the grounds of new criteria, but definitely enact the policies we already have when it comes to writing builds. We don't need more policies; we need everyone to actually follow and enforce the policies. All it takes is one person to make a minor edit to fix up a build article's appearance, or at least swap Testing tags for Trial/Stub tags. The problem is on two fronts: the first is that users in general are more inclined to rely on the admin noticeboard for every single problem rather than acting on issues themselves; the second issue is that the wiki in general is becoming lazy and complacent -- in a sense believing we don't even need to explain builds anymore, as with this case. Yeah, I know how to run an Assassin bar, but "Spike shit" is as illegible as it gets. --Scottie bow Scottie_theNerd (talk/contribs/complain) 01:57, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
Unless you're a retard, you can figure it out. Its a 1-5 spike basically. ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   18:59, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
I know a retard that plays gw! but srsly you have to at least pretend you cater to nubz...--UnderImage- (PvP)Gunned 19:59, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
Also, nubs like the <pvxbig> tags so you can have awesome mouse-over descriptions like <pvxbig>[[Supportive Spirit@666]</pvxbig>
(<---- lol, no indent) Nubs don't like when it breaks the page and messes up the rest of the coding, though. >.< In all seriousness, though, that's what the {{Cleanup}} tag and community editing is for. The voting criteria is fine now. Hell, we would be okay with just Effectiveness, because Universality is just a sub of it. We could, however, change Effectiveness to Efficiency (a little less general) so that you can weight it between Efficiency and Universality to see the Overall Effectiveness. ــмıкεнaшк 20:17, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
@Mike: What's the criteria for an "efficient" build then? Builds don't need to be efficient to work, and it's going to be very difficult to measure up PvP builds for efficiency (compared to farming builds, which can be clearly efficient/inefficient).
@Frvwfr2: Then just put down "Use attack skills 1 - 5". It probably takes less time and effort than to come up with a cocky line like "Spike shit". It's not that hard to make the language of build articles a bit more accessible to people who may not be as familiar with the game's professions and mechanics. It looks sloppy and degrades what little respect the wiki has in the community. --Scottie bow Scottie_theNerd (talk/contribs/complain) 04:09, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
Efficiency is basically how fast you spike, how much you DPS for (how well you pressure), and how well you protect/heal (dependant on energy). It is a lot like Effectiveness, but a little more specific in that it's a little further from Universality (somehow, when I thought about it =/) and you don't repeat Effectiveness twice (the criteria, and overall effectiveness). Maybe Efficiency=Effectiveness, but having Effectiveness AND Overall Effectiveness sounds weird. ــмıкεнaшк 12:09, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
I'm not going to beat around the bush with this one. If it's a slow spike (300 damage in 5 seconds, for example), it's not going to work, and therefore it's ineffective. If I'm packing a lot of 10-energy heals, I'm not going to heal for long, and therefore my build does not function. If my pressure is equivalent to autoattacking, I'm not doing a good job at pressuring in the first place. Efficiency can be quite misleading, and when you frame it this way, it's just another aspect of Effectiveness. How do you measure Efficiency for a Conjure Cripslash? A Magebane Ranger? A minion master? You don't need to. Player skill is more accountable for Efficiency than the actual build. Your suggested criteria -- spike damage/speed, DPS, "healing power" -- are all measurements of Effectiveness, not efficiency. --Scottie bow Scottie_theNerd (talk/contribs/complain) 17:03, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Effectiveness measures everything, which is why splitting it up into different and more specific criteria could work better, although it doesn't make a huge impact overall. Universality is also an aspect of Effectiveness, tbh, but much less general. ــмıкεнaшк 19:18, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Innovation Edit

Did it really have to be changed to yes/no? Because some builds are right in the damned middle. XD ــмıкεнaшк 00:21, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Yes. Innovation has nothing to do with how well a build works. --GatessMoebius Strike IconThe Gates Assassin 00:23, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
What does that have to do with check box vs. rating? Not that innovation really serves a purpose anymore, why is it still kept anyway?--UnderImage- (PvP)Gunned 00:45, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
Woot the checkbox is here!--Relyk IkeR e l y k 01:37, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Guys, as you noticed I'm a bit slow at coding due to RL business atm. So you really had enough time to discuss and find a consensus on what you want. Now we have a checkbox. You can start the discussion again, and I can change it again if that turns out to be community consensus. But I feel I could do more useful things than changing stuff back and forth.
@Undergunned: The purpose of the innovation rating is to provide the reader with some information about builds, which happens to be the purpose of the entire site.
</rant> No offense meant. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 03:39, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Checkbox is good. --71.229 03:45, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
Agree. ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   10:51, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
Heh, what if you're too lazy to decide whether a build is original or not? XD ــмıкεнaшк 12:11, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
Then a checkbox is way better than a 1-5 scale. ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   12:11, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
When you can't decide whether a build is innovative or not, you would put in 3. Now, if you can't decide, there's no happy medium. XD It doesn't matter, though, but are we actually going to use Innovation for something now? ــмıкεнaшк 12:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
To provide the reader with information about the build. Though I was thinking about it and some sort of graphic timeline thingie of builds that are deemed "innovative" would be kind of coolio. Pretty late into GW to really do it now, but maybe something to think about for GW2? Then again everything in GW2 will probobly be innovative for awhile...--UnderImage- (PvP)Gunned 14:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
Now that we've simplified it down to a checkbox, can someone remind me of the purpose of "Innovation"? --Scottie bow Scottie_theNerd (talk/contribs/complain) 17:06, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

(Reset indent) because orignally the site was supposed to document Innovative builds as well (to incourage innovative builds) iirc....Which is one reason the checkbox is usefull, we could create an "innovative builds" Section....(they dobn't have to be vetted or anything but i'd say a high degree of innovation is a must) ~PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 17:27, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

They should be vetted, however, because utterly terrible builds can be innovative. Whoever thought about using Mending+Echo made an innovative build, but we're not going to waste space with builds that are that bad. >.> ــмıкεнaшк 19:20, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
echo+mending wasn't innovative...in the slightest tbh...it was jsut a funny joke... ~PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 19:54, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
We've clearly moved on from the concept of Innovation. We've grown into the state of mind where innovative is typically bad, whereas many players think that by not using a wiki/meta build, they're better than everyone else. We shouldn't be encouraging people to make innovative builds that don't function. --Scottie bow Scottie_theNerd (talk/contribs/complain) 10:54, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
i'm not sayig that innovative builds don't function, i'm jsut saying the specific example given was awful. and i agree that there would probably be some degree of quality involved so we didn't get random crap. But we want to encourage people to think outside the box, which is why innovatioin is there. ~PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 11:14, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
Not giving innovation any weight in ratings isn't much of a way to encourage that mindset--UnderImage- (PvP)Gunned 12:55, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
well what does how innovative it is have to do with how well ti works really? None, that's why we gave it 0% weighting. But we don't want to discourage people to stop being innovative (hence the box). ~PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 13:02, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
Innovation and originality of a build also change in time. I'm sure, the first 55 Monk and the first Touchers were quite innovative, but the fact that they've become more and more common makes them less original. Putting Shock (or Gale) on an Axe bar was a great and original idea, but is it innovative now? ــмıкεнaшк 13:20, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
true enough, obviously we'd consider the "original" one the innovative one (by original i mean the first) and any builds subsequent wouldn't be. ~PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 13:23, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
Innovation is much to inconsistent and opinion-based to be worth implementing a system around, tbh. ــмıкεнaшк 13:45, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
Style points are fun XD--UnderImage- (PvP)Gunned 14:08, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

(RI)That's the inherent problem with Innovation as a criteria. A build might be innovative at one stage, but the day after it'll be stock-standard. There's little gain in acknowledging that a build was once innovative in the ratings. Furthermore, while giving Innovation some weighting might encourage outside-the-box ideas, it also has the connotation that builds that break away from meta are inherently good. This fits the mindset of the self-proclaimed experts sitting in the RA staging area complaining about wiki and bragging about their own secret builds, which probably function far less effectively or efficiently as meta/wiki. --Scottie bow Scottie_theNerd (talk/contribs/complain) 01:36, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Very true, that's why when GW2 comes out we should have some some kind of timeline going marking when the innovative builds come out.--UnderImage- (PvP)Gunned 11:32, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Which will likely be the Beta test. XD ــмıкεнaшк 11:36, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
eh, should we just wait until the actual thing comes out? the nerf bat will be very active for awhile lol.--UnderImage- (PvP)Gunned 11:37, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
we'd wait until the final release for making builds, but we could start making policies and everything when the beta is released (assuming it's an open beta). ~PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 11:53, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Vote wipe on trial builds. Edit

Real Vetting should be edited so that a build is only eligible for the vote wipe upon being moved to trial after significant changes have been made. I've noticed an increasing amount of builds being moved back to trial every time they get 2-3 bad vote in order to force a revote. It's both pointless and irritating. --Tab MooTab Piplup 17:24, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

I second the motion. Damn ive always wanted to say that. But it is annoying, people changing back to trial then treating the voters like noobs "YOU CANT VOTE ON TRIAL BUILDS!" "SUCK MY SALTY BALLS DUDE URE BUILD FAILS" I is *Jebus*IAmJebussig3Enter my contest! 19:20, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.