Talk: Real Vetting/Archive 6

criteria

Three criteria suggested in this policy is just an example. It is possible to make 3-4-5 or 10. It is very adjustable.

I really don't want to see us promote a build just because it is innovative. There are plenty of good builds out there that are pretty cut-and-paste; that doesn't make them bad. For example, a good war build will have an IAS, speed buff, ~3 attacks and a rez. There's nothing innovative about this, but a build featuring those skills would be effective. There's no need for that build's score to suffer.

The potential of build is also a poor quality to judge a build by. Some people can design a good build, designated to fulfill a certain purpose (let's say, e-denial). It may perform excellently at e-denial, but may not be effective at something else (say, spiking). Under these criteria, the build would rate much lower than it deserves. Just because it only does what it was designed to do doesn't mean a build's score should suffer either.

The categorization system of this policy looks great, however. It would certainly be beneficial to any policy we end up implementing.

As far as the voting side, it looks good too, though I think it would be inappropriate to call this an easy voting process. It is complicated, especially when compared to some of the other policies.

Most of this polciy looks really good, but it has a glaring Achilles heel, if you will: criteria. Having a static set of criteria to evaluate a build upon will be harmful to the wiki. It will misrepresent builds that are really good, as well as those that aren't (like the 'best use of a bad elite' builds. They may be good to have, for players who don't have any useful elites yet, but they should never be ranked above those common, uninnovative builds that really work). Evaluation is better left in the abstract; rigid criteria will not be beneficial to maintaining a useful Builds section. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 00:52, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

I think this policy has a lot of potential, but needs some cleanup.

To me, it depends on how the vetting result would be displayed. If the three criteris (Idea, potential, and strength) are averaged together for a signle score, then I agree that it would artifically help the score of poor builds, while dropping the score of effective but non-innovative builds.

On the other hand, if the scores are not averaged, and each build is displayed based on each score individually, then this seems a very effective method. Scripts can easilly reduce the complexity, so no issues from that. If you're looking for a powerfule build, search for all builds with a high "strength" score, ignoring the other two scores. If you want innovative, search for high "Idea" scores while ignoring the other two. This gives it a lot of flexibility. I would also suggest writing the scripts to be easilly expandable - if a fourth or fifth criteria are wanted in the future, write the scripts from the beginning to support that possiblity.

The main thing that I would suggest changing is to make the vetted results based on 5 categories of 20% (0-20, 20-40, 40-60, 60-80, and 80-100), instead of the currently proposed 25% segments.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.88.255.140 (talk • contribs) .

People come to the wiki looking for help with builds, i.e. they are looking for good builds to either mimic or be inspired by. They aren't looking for builds that other people were very creative in making. The strength category is the only one that will actually be useful to someone who needs help with their builds. The other categories are geared more towards pleasing build authors than those who want to use the wiki as a resource. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 02:44, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

However, if all we saw were the same old builds then the game qould start to get rather dull. Especially since EotN has only 150 new skills, and 50 or 100 (I forget which) are PvE only, someone has to be creative if the metagame is going to change at all and if old players are to stay interested. Another possiblity would be to organize the builds into sub-categories, having a category for most creative, best overall, best potential, best overall strength, best damage(spike and pressure) best defence, best healing, best E-denial and whatever other categories you decided to include.--Foozdood 21:23, 17 May 2007 (CEST)

Why not just bring over the Overall Category sugested by my proposal an place it into this one. May give a 4th definitive build 'rating' that is still abstract enough for some, and detailed for others. May cynch this into place for those who want simplicity over detail. Shireen 18:10, 18 May 2007 (CEST)

Could work just as well to rename it to Design Performance, rather than 'overall'. Shireen 00:44, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

Suggestion

While having a discussion with BrianG, we figured out a way to kind of get around the Achilles Heel that Krowman pointed out. What if we base the actual percent rating (that determines the placement of the build in the hierarchy) based soly on the Strength category (since that category pretty much covers the things that make a build good). Then, we could give people the option of also assigning Innovation, Idea, etc. scores to a build. Those scores would not effect the actual rank, but, would instead be usable as search criteria. That way, we get all the benefits of the policy, while still maintaining a high standard for our builds. Thoughts? *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:04, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

Good compromise. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 05:05, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

I agree. However you would need to make the rating more than 0 to 5 to get a real ranking based on just one category. At least to 20.

--Dark Grendl 18:28, 16 May 2007 (CEST)

@DE and Krowman; I thought that was what I said above, but maybe I wasn't clear enough.

@Dark Grendl; Not really. Letting each individual user vote 0 to 5 simplifies voting, and averages of multiple votes goes into decimal places, so there's really an infinite range of average rankings with 4.5, 3.25, 3.14159, etc.

Yes, or something like efficiency + utility. ~Corpselooter 17:14 +1Gmt. 18 May.

Dispelling Some Myths

Ben says:

While having a discussion with BrianG, we figured out a way to kind of get around the Achilles Heel that Krowman pointed out. What if we base the actual percent rating (that determines the placement of the build in the hierarchy) based soly on the Strength category (since that category pretty much covers the things that make a build good). Then, we could give people the option of also assigning

Ben says:

Innovation, Idea, etc. scores to a build. Those scores would not effect the actual rank, but, would instead be usable as search criteria. That way, we get all the benefits of the policy, while still maintaining a high standard for our builds. Thoughts?

Ben says:

So that way, Strength is the only thing that really matters for determining score, but, people lookinfg for innovative builds can still search for them.

gcardinal says:

Yeah sure sounds a like a great idea. How about faking its effect? I am not sure if people will rate build "good" if they know it has nothing to say , how about we make Strengt count for 70% of tottal score, and other 2 for 15% and 15%. that way they cound but not to much to damage anything

Ben says:

Meh... I don't know.

Ben says:

The problem is that the VERY BEST warrior builds would still recieve lower ratings because most of :them aren't creative.

gcardinal says:

hmm yeah

gcardinal says:

I just afraid we will not have any builds in Good, only Great

Ben says:

I still think it would work fine like that.

Ben says:

And voting on Creativity and that stuff would just be optional.

gcardinal says:

sec let me check

gcardinal says:

Okey how about this, does a VERY BEST warrior build has 0 potential ?

Build W/Mo

Strengt : 100% (counts 70%)

Potential : 100% (count 15%)

Innovation : 0% (counts 15%)

I Think this is the best the only problem is caltulating and evrything

And still we wil get 85% tottal score and it will make into Great section

gcardinal says:

Its important that both Great and Good will have builds, if there will be only 10 builds in good, it would be good

Ben says:

What is potential defined as?

gcardinal says:

If this build has potential to do more than it has been designed for.

gcardinal says:

LIke you can farm in 1000 areas with build = potential

Ben says:

No... builds do what they are designed to do... that is just a silly category...

gcardinal says:

No not really

Ben says:

A GvG warrior is good at one thing... being a GvG Warrior.

gcardinal says:

okey let me illustrate that

gcardinal says:

http://www.pvxbuilds.com/index.php?title=Build:W/A_Shove_Hammer_Spiker

Ben says:

Alright...

gcardinal says:

That is a PvP build, but it can be used for AB, CM, GvG, RA, TA -> 100% potential

gcardinal says:

Potential in form of Universal

Ben says:

Universality doesn't mean good though.

Ben says:

Again, a GvG warrior may be the best GvG warrior but not be good at anything else.

Ben says:

Why should that lower its score?

gcardinal says:

It will not lower its score, it will make it Good

And if its a build that is so great for GvG so specificly designed, it may just as well get Innovation score, becouse its a new way of thinking or what ever.

gcardinal says:

http://www.pvxbuilds.com/index.php?title=Build:Mo/E_SoA_Sliver

Build that is

Strengt - 75% becouse its has many major problems like hard to use

Innovation - 100% new way of farming

Potential - 100% can farm 40 different boss's

that will make it a great build

Ben says:

Alright... whatever... just make Strength count for the vast majority at least.

gcardinal says:

And another thing, if we see anything going wrong, it will take just 1 second to change balance in terms of how rating is counted, and it will automaticly recalculate evrething

Ben says:

There is another problem though.

Ben says:

Just in general with your policy.

gcardinal says:

yeah?

Ben says:

Alright... I know you may not agree, but the fact that this gives no way for an Author or an Admin to refute a vote is ridiculous.

Ben says:

Some votes are just stupid.

gcardinal says:

I dont remmber saying that

gcardinal says:

of couse we can refute a vote, if we cant do that what the points of having admins ?

Ben says:

Well also... is there any way that we can force people to present a reason for how they rate a build?

gcardinal says:

we may also need to create a group of people with that kind of permission. not sure about giving that to author

Ben says:

And then can you have Admins remove votes that just make no sense based on the reasoning.

gcardinal says:

Yes there will be rating with box's and shit, but it will be also box where they MUST type some reason for they vote

gcardinal says:

and people can edit they vote and reason any time

gcardinal says:

yeah exactly

gcardinal says:

that was my idea, it was maybe stupid not to mentining it in a policy

Ben says:

So, as an Admin, I can see someone's reasoning and then render the vote null and void if the reason just makes no sense?

gcardinal says:

in short, when you go to build page, next to [Discussion] will be [Vote] when you go there, you will be askt to rate a build using 3-4 box's rating each parametr from 0 to 5 bla bla. Under that you will see current builds score, votes from other people:

User name

Score given to build

Reason given

Each user will see that but admins and (maybe) a bigger group of trusted users will have right to

gcardinal says:

delete a vote giving they reason for deletion of the vote

gcardinal says:

however discussion will not find place on that page, and will be in [Discussion], but in top of the discussion will be current builds rating just as on diagram on the page

Can some of Admins please make a summary of this discussion and edit policy according ? GCardinal 00:37, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

Winner

...This one won... Can GCardinal tell us how many votes the others got? NVM-- frvwfr2 (talk)(contributions) 20:48, 18 May 2007 (CEST)

ick--Coloneh 23:01, 18 May 2007 (CEST)

My main thing is that this is the one all the socks voted for... But whatever. We can flesh this one out. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 23:15, 18 May 2007 (CEST)

Page is buried again

- Need to put a link on the front page, a LOT of people are going to want to be able to have a quick refrence to it without having to guess and dig where the link is. Voting results are not linked to their policies. Shireen 00:38, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

Ummm... click on the Official Vetting Policy link under the "Writing Your Own Build" Section. *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:56, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

Transformation

Here is my suggestion on what to do with builds we have no and how to move them under new policy:

• All current favored builds goes to Working\Good.
• All current un-favored builds goes to Archive\Trash
• All current stubs goes to Archive\Store
• All new builds as by policy will start as Drafts.

It can be a small mess to start with but as soon as that extension is ready it will be okey.GCardinal 00:35, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

Do we need to retemplate anything? Eronth 00:36, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

Pretty much everething. But I have to write an extensions first. Then we will see how to deal with what we have. I will figure out something. Until then just hold GCardinal 00:37, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

Give us a holler and we'll (Me for certain) help out. Gotta break the funk man, quickety split Shireen 00:42, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

Putting all currently favored builds into the working or whatever section is going to solve problems from the previous policy how? We know that old builds in favored needed to be cleaned out, and still do. --Sefre File:Sefresig.pngT*C 00:59, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

Agree with Sefre. Move them ALL to untested or w/e it's called. -- frvwfr2 (talk)(contributions) 02:44, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

Voting will be done on all builds as time goes. And as voting goes builds will be automatically moved around. Moving all builds to Trash will not solve a problem. Taking it step by step will first keep site up and running and will keep it usefull for Readers as well as Writers will have a playground to start with GCardinal 12:32, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

We didn't say move them to trash, we are saying move them to Drafts I think. -- frvwfr2 (talk)(contributions) 15:04, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

Move all builds on the site to drafts. I dont fully agree with this policy, but i think we all know the old one was crap.--Coloneh 21:36, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

FINALLY. Will work on it. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 06:34, 20 May 2007 (CEST)

Some thoughts...

...that occurred to me when re-reading the policy article:

• Instead of "percentage of current/max ratings", wouldn't it be better to call it "average rating"? Technically it's the same, but easier to explain/understand.
• The categories (Great/Good/Store/Trash) are meant to be implemented as wiki categories along with Drafts and Untested, right? (The article doesn't say anything yet.) At the moment there's also an inconsistency between the diagram and the description concerning the category names.
• Assignment of a category is based on an overall rating (I assume). How is this calculated? I favor the 70/15/15 weighted average proposed above.
• Should the "Strength" criteria be split into something like "Power" and "Usability"? Not so experienced players might look for a build that they can handle, and accept that it has limited power, while others don't care how difficult a build is to use (or to get the equipment) but want maximum power for a difficult task.
• What about additional, optional criteria, that don't go into the overall rating but help in describing the build? Some of the ideas of pvxwiki:True Build Ratings could be taken over. Might look complicated, but shouldn't scare anybody as long as it's optional.
• Search engine: I think this is a very powerful and important tool that can render many discussions obsolete. It should include filtering and sorting with respect to all the "criteria". A close to unlimited amount of additional gimmicks is thinkable and can be implemented later. GCardinal: I can send you the draft I wrote (don't want to publish it here, it might cause some load if too many people use it in the current state).
• Finally, at some point a trusted native speaker should polish the article text (no, I'm not :-)

I guess that most of these points are being worked on anyway, now that we can concentrate on one policy. Btw: congratulations for winning the vote. --Hhhippo 12:04, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

It says the script will be made within a week. im curious as to who is writing it?--Coloneh 08:26, 20 May 2007 (CEST)

Make a new topic under which ppl can suggest criteria, general as well as optional? --Luuck 11:18, 20 May 2007 (CEST)

MAJOR PROBLEM

How the hell do we stop trolls from 0 rating everything? Coz we gonna get idiots who do that. This policy is pathetic in the way that is has such an obvious flaw. And what does this mean? We have people who don't TEST BEFORE VOTING. Back to GuildWiki again, the past is here to stay. '~^\^^/~' Napalm Flame (talk)(contributions) 11:26, 20 May 2007 (CEST)

People who rate 0 on all criteria are easily identified as trolls and can be warned/banned. That's already a major advantage of Real Vetting over just Favored/Unfavored.

But you're right, there should be a note in the policy saying that you need to give a reason for your rating. If a rating seems unjustified, the rater should be asked to clarify it. If that doesn't help, admins should have the power to strike the vote.

In general: Let's try and see how it works. There will be more to the new system than just vetting (like you can check which builds your favorite xx-expert is favoring). So the actual rating might become less important than in the old system, reducing also the motivation to push the rating up or down.--Hhhippo 11:57, 20 May 2007 (CEST)