Please use the following structure for comments and suggestions. Try to be concise and factual and avoid lengthy or off-topic discussions. If you like the current draft, please say so in the Support section. Text set in italics was included by Hhhippo when setting up the page at 21:39, 4 June 2007 (CEST) summarizing previous discussions.

New posts should be added in the usual style. --Hhhippo 01:13, 5 June 2007 (CEST)


I understand you support this criterion as is, and don't want to split it, right? I'm wondering because you put this to the Split subsection.--Hhhippo 01:13, 5 June 2007 (CEST)
Moved here from the Split subsection. Shireen supports this criterion as is. Support is also assumed from anybody who doesn't suggest changes here. --Hhhippo 12:05, 5 June 2007 (CEST)


Alternative suggestions for naming this criterion:

  • Was originally called "Strength".

nimm02 supports the name change to effectiveness, but not the split.12:00, 9 June 2007 (CEST)


Put suggestions for subdividing this criterion here.


Put comments on the description of this criterion here.



  • Was originally called "Potential".


  • Ifer ( suggested to split this into "Adaptiveness" (to unexpected situations) and "Universality" (for use in other areas). gcardinal indicated support. Also supported by Hhhippo who suggests to rename "Adaptiveness" to "Flexibility".
  • Universality is supported by Shireensysop
Does that mean you support the criterion as is, or you support the split? --Hhhippo 01:13, 5 June 2007 (CEST)
Shireen seems to supports this criterion as is, without split. Why's that? Didn't you earlier suggest moving even more criteria over from your policy proposal? We can always make them optional by giving them (close to) zero weight. Could you give some reasoning against the split so we can reach consensus in this point? Thx --Hhhippo 12:05, 5 June 2007 (CEST)
  • "Adaptiveness" to "Flexibility" and the split in general. Supported by Eronth. Eronth Also suggests that Flexibility and Universality be two parts to one area.
What do you mean by 'area'? "Universality" and "Flexibility" being sub-criteria of a superordinate "Adaptability" criterion? --Hhhippo 01:13, 5 June 2007 (CEST)
I would support Universality and Flexibility as being two separate criteria but that contributed to one overarching category of Adaptability. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:20, 5 June 2007 (CEST)
Yes Hhhippo, that's what I was trying to say with my limit of vocabulary. ‽-(єronħ) no u 06:27, 5 June 2007 (CEST)
ok, thanks. I just wasn't sure since I sometimes misunderstand things due to my own limits.--Hhhippo 12:05, 5 June 2007 (CEST)

nimm02 is against any splitting of criteria. Three is enough, anymore complex and browsing will be hindered.12:00, 9 June 2007 (CEST)

I moved your post here, since this is the only criterion where a split is actually discussed. Regarding your concerns: Firstly, I don't see how browsing will be hindered by too many criteria. Are you sure you don't mean categories? Regardless of the number of criteria there will always be one overall score for each build which puts it into categories for browsing. A few more criteria add detail to the description of a build's qualities and offer additional, optional possibilities for searching, but they don't change browsing.
Secondly, if you like only three criteria, why these three? Both the split of Universality and the addition of Usability seem to have more support than Innovation. So which three would you take? --Hhhippo 21:30, 10 June 2007 (CEST)


Put comments on the description of this criterion here.




Put suggestions for subdividing this criterion here.


Put comments on the description of this criterion here.

New Criteria

Suggestions for adding new criteria:


Hhhippo and Ifer ( suggested to add "Usability" or "ease to use". Reasoning: "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.", "People want easy builds, so why not give them this voting category." gcardinal indicated support. Ifer suggested 15% weight for this, Hhhippo is undecided. In case other people don't like this criterion, Hhhippo suggests a weighting of 0%. That way this criterion will not change the overall rating, but still be searchable for people who are interested in it.

Eronth suggests a 0-10% weighting leaning more towards 5%
Skakid9090 disagrees with the implementing of the "ease of use" category. Builds should not be rated badly due to player skill being low.


  • Ifer ( suggested effectiveness 50%, innovation 5%, adaptiveness 20%, universality 10%, ease to use 15%
gcardinal indicated support.
Hhhippo supports, but is flexible.
Eronth thinks effectiveness should be worth more (where do we mention this stuff at, or do we just add it ourselves?)
I guess we should change the draft after reaching consensus here.--Hhhippo 01:13, 5 June 2007 (CEST)

:Shireensysop gives his support to the above criteria. Remembers that we DID agree on that. Removes support, 100% on 'strength'.

Meaning you support the weighting suggested by Ifer? Or the original? --Hhhippo 01:13, 5 June 2007 (CEST)
  • Based on the first answers, I suggest effectiveness 65%, flexibility 15%, universality 10%, usability 5%, innovation 5% --Hhhippo 01:13, 5 June 2007 (CEST)
  • - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} suggests: A build's score should be weighted solely on the Strength/Effectiveness value; the others are sortable, searchable criteria. (Wasn't this already agreed to here?)
Eronth feels flexibility should be included in % because it does somewhat constitute to an overall effective build.
DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:22, 5 June 2007 (CEST) feels that Innovation should not contribute to a build's overall score, however, it should be allowable as a search criteria. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:22, 5 June 2007 (CEST)

History: Some people agreed on 100% Effectiveness here. The following discussion here I would interpret as support of the 70/15/15 proposal: GCardinal proposed it and the last statement of DE was "Alright... whatever... just make Strength count for the vast majority at least." The second proposal has further legitimation since it was part of the policy when it was voted on. I feel that we don't really have consensus here. Since we're talking about numbers, not concepts, it should be possible to find a compromise, like giving Effectiveness very high weight, but not all the 100%. I personally don't care too much about the numbers. As long as Effectiveness has the main weight, an average score in this criterion will always prevent a build from ending up in Thrash and being deleted. And as long as a build is not deleted, I don't care about it's overall rating. I will use the search engine to my own taste and look at the ratings for each criterion anyway. --Hhhippo 12:05, 5 June 2007 (CEST)

Effectiveness should be the most by far. Universi(blah) Should be second most, but not nearly as much as effect. Ease of Use should be 5% or lower and Innovation should be 0. Are there any major disagreements with this idea? єяøηħ 07:11, 24 July 2007 (CEST)
(major disagreement here)
Any minor ones? єяøηħ 07:11, 24 July 2007 (CEST)
(minor disagreement here)
100% support for this. Effectiveness 80%, universality 15%, ease of use 5%. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 02:02, 25 July 2007 (CEST)


The following was taken from the Real Vetting Talk Page, it represents the efforts of a number of the Admins and is meant to illustrate the "meanings" of the various ratings (1-5). It was designed specifically for the effectiveness category but could be adopted for the others:

  • 5 = This build excels amongst its contemporaries. It is well-received by the Guild Wars community, and worthy of PvX Build's highest rating.
  • 4 = A build whose qualities demonstrates better than average capabilities in a realistic environment.
  • 3 = A build which has all necessary prerequisites in order to achieve the minimum level of effectiveness required to qualify as an acceptable build.
  • 2 = This build does not function adequately, either because it features an innefective concept or lacks the necessary elements of a better build.
  • 1 = An ineffective build as defined by PvX:WELL.
Fine with me. I'm not sure if 'well-received' applies to new PvE builds, but whatever. --Hhhippo 12:05, 5 June 2007 (CEST)


Great stuff, thx guys, sorry that I havent notice it before! gcardinal 06:56, 5 June 2007 (CEST)

Not your fault, it just wasn't there before ;-) --Hhhippo 12:05, 5 June 2007 (CEST)


If your silence is to be interpreted as support, please put your name here.


Since Gcardinal seems to be busy with other things, maybe we should use the time until Real Vetting launches to come to some conclusion here. The discussion has died out without reaching consensus, but on the other hand the current status on the project page is not the most popular suggestion. So we should find a compromise here and then update the project page. And we should do that fast! I summarize the main changes suggested above:

1. Rename the current "Universality" criterion to "Adaptability" and divide it into two sub-criteria: "Flexibility" (how flexible is this build if unexpected things happen?) and "Universality" (how does it perform in areas other than the originally intended one?).

Supported by Ifer, Gcardinal, Hhhippo, Eronth and Defiant Elements.
Opposed by Shireen and nimm02.

2. Add a "Usability" criterion, which tells the reader how easy it is to handle a build.

Supported by Hhhippo, Ifer, Gcardinal, Eronth
Might be opposed by Shireen and nimm02
Opposed by Skakid9090.

3. Weighting: Suggestions range from 50% to 100% for effectiveness, and some variations for the others.

Suggested compromise: Can the opponents of 1. and 2. live with the inclusion of the new criteria, provided they get a low enough weighting? If not, could you give some reasoning so the supporters might get convinced? (Shireen, I guess this question goes mainly to you, since nimm02 disappeared from the wiki after his one and only edit here.) If yes, then it all comes down to the weighting. What about this:

  • Effectiveness 85%
  • Adaptiveness 10% (5% Flexibility, 5% Universality)
  • Usability 5%
  • Innovation 0%

Note that if we don't find consensus, the status quo on the project page will be installed. I can personally live with that, but I'd prefer the version described here. --Hhhippo 07:06, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.