PvXwiki talk:Real Vetting/Meta proposal/Archive 1

ok then, here are my proposed changes:

First though: none meta builds still get vetted just making this point clear =p

ok here you go:

• all builds are the same in the build-stub and trial-build sections
• Meta builds no longer go through vetting, instead they are simply tagged with {{Meta-build|type1|type2|..}} (so no "untested" step for meta builds)

• This new tag will work in the same way the current good/great do, but will have a link on it which links to a section of the build called "Commonality" (we can change the name if we want)

• All meta builds must include a section called "Comonality"

• This is just a a little section which informs the user how common it's run/what's run instead of it (with links) and why (poor healing/bad dmg etc.)

• There will be a group of people who will be in charge of the section (community appointed (similar to an RfA)), and get final say on if something's meta or needs to go through vetting.

• these will not be BM's. They won't have any special rights, they just get final say in this matter.

• A list will be made of said users.
• If a build tagged "meta" suddenly stops being meta (meta shift etc.), then it will be tagged {{Archived-bild|category=Meta|type1=...|type2=...|reason1=...|reason2=...}}

The main page will be changed so there's no longer a column on the builds table for "trial" builds, and there will be a new column that links to an areas "meta" category.

go nuts. ~ PheNaxKian talk 22:05, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

i like it--Bluetapeboy 22:20, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

i'm not sure the whole thing works so well for pve. - AthrunFeya - 22:25, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

why not? ~ PheNaxKian talk 22:28, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

I'll explain more later when I'm awake enough to be able to type more than 3 words without becoming teh tpyo quene. - AthrunFeya - 01:40, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

so Basically, if a Build is Meta, it will not go through the Voting Process at all. it will skip al that, and be put straight into a new Area, Meta Builds, and will only have a Meta Tag, not a great/good/trashed tag? also, can these be well'D? so Basically, if its Meta, its kinda like an automatic rating of 5.0? explain more of these things, people have Questions to be answered--Bluetapeboy 02:06, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

That's the basic idea yeh (they'll still be in the build namespace, but instead of putting it into untesting ---> good/great, you just put it into "meta" with the meta template (similar to the good/great ones).

As for the WELL tag...I imagine so yeh, but I can't see there any being any real incidents of WELLs within these builds (slight variations leading to dupe submissions, that's about it).

"auto rating of 5.0" well...yes and no. Yes because we're saying this build is awesome and all that, but no because it isn't actually getting voted on, or obtaining a specific rating.

If you have questions, ask away =p. ~ PheNaxKian talk 13:18, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Basically Lemming and I intended this to be for just the GvG section (but I guess phen wants to apply it to everything). The underlying principle is that a GvG meta only supports 3-4 teambuilds at most, yet PvX has dozens of builds in the good/great section (many of which are outdated or really awful yet got pushed through real vetting anyway). The idea was to separate GvG into two categories. Instead of good/great there would be meta/theorycraft. Theorycrafted builds would go through the same vetting process and wind up with either the good/great tag. Really nothing would change from the current process. Meta builds would have a special meta tag (basically the same as good/great but with a diff color, i like purple or red). The builds in this category would be strictly those builds that are played competitively in the current meta. As builds fall out of the meta they'd be removed and moved to an archived tag so that the builds in the meta category would actually reflect the current meta. Meta builds would NOT go through the vetting process since obs mode proves them to superior builds, we don't need PvX members who are generally pretty bad at the game to confirm it. This Meta category would be managed by 4-5 members of the competitive GvG community (myself, lemming, crow, and saint come to mind) who would be responsible for making sure that the builds in the meta category reflect the current gvg meta and would be responsible for moving builds into and out of the archives as necessary. I'm not sure that this concept should be applied to the other categories though., HA's strictly 8v8 kill setup allows for a wide variety of builds to be effective, the meta in tombs generally isn't restricted to only 3-4 builds. RA, CM, and AB can't really have a meta defined by only a few effective builds b/c teams are essentially random. Same sort of applies to PvE since each particular area necessitates different skillsets--TahiriVeila 02:31, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly have I didn't give a huge thought to how it would effect all areas, but I assumed for the sake of ease it would be best to have all areas treated the same. I see what you say about things working well in diferent areas, but we will still have the good/great category.

To take an example from the PvE section, we have "imbagon" as meta. That would be given a meta tag as replacement of it's current "great" one. We also have 2 other PvE Paragons in the "Great" section, now these work fantastical well also, but they very rarely see use (because people would rather run an imbagon).

So While stuff will still work great that isn't meta in these areas, there will be those builds that are just run over pretty much everything. RA/CM/AB don't have any meta build anyway that i know of, so they wouldn't get any tags =p. I'm unsure about PVE teams though, i'll have a think about that. ~ PheNaxKian talk 13:18, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Is it worth reading all this shit? Brandnew 07:24, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Everything except for Jake's post is self-explanatory. Read the first half of it or sth. The page also just says that we'd create a "Meta" category which bypasses testing. --Chaos? -- 11:14, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

just read my first post at the top of the page (the bullet points), that's what will be changed if implemented. ~ PheNaxKian talk 13:18, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

implementing

So how long before we can put this proposal into action?--TahiriVeila 00:00, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

I'd say give it at least another week in case someone thinks of something that needs adding or has any objections worth noting. ~ PheNaxKian talk 00:42, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

scope

I'm not really comfortable with this going into PvE builds. It should be limited to GvG/HA, where obs can give a definitive answer as to the meta-worthiness of each build. I think Athrun was going to say something along this line but never got around to it. -Auron 06:48, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

^ this. Misery 07:44, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

"i'm not sure the whole thing works so well for pve."

She already did. And yeah, I also fully agree with this, but I'm a little afraid of these meta caretakers (lol MC's!) beginning to abuse their status to push through shitty builds. Drama gogo. --Chaos? -- 09:04, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

i was going to essay about there not being an obs so you could claim anything to be meta, so Auron summed it up pretty nicely. For PvE, different sections of the community claim different things meta (we, for example, would meta-tag discordway while the guru community would not - this doesn't necessarily make them wrong since there's no real way of defining the PvE meta). It seems a step back into the BM-esque era that a few handpicked individuals would be able to override any meta decisions, at least at the moment there some effort towards consensus.

Also why exactly do we need a separate meta category? is the current meta tag not sufficient? this already differentiates between builds which are Great and builds which are meta-Great and meta builds rarely have a problem getting vetted. More proactive updating and obvious linking on the main page to those sections would be a lot more simple. - AthrunFeya - 09:26, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look in a little bit and re-word it so that it only applies to GvG/HA then.

As for the proposal itself, that's because there are a few users that are concerned meta builds don't stand out enough (even with the proposed links on the main page (See the editcopy if you don't know what I'm on about)).

The problem wasn't differentiating between meta-great and great builds, it was differentiating between meta builds themselves. In our current system we just have "this build is 5.0 and meta", with no indication of how much it's run (thus why this suggests an extra section on those pages to give such information).

"more proactive updating" means people going back and editing their vote, and given the uesrbase I don't see that happening any-time soon =/. ~ PheNaxKian talk 12:15, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying exactly - you want to differentiate between meta which is common and uncommon? surely something that isn't run as often isn't meta hence shouldn't be in the meta category in the first place (i.e., more proactive updating of meta categories). Why should votes need changing to slap a meta tag on (other than our, easily changeable policy of no "Good" builds in meta)?

Anyway, I am not against the idea of emphasising meta builds but I think we should just try and enhance the meta category system we currently have (maybe make the tag more descriptive and make one for each type of play). This would allow us change the headings on the tables in the mainspace to read more like "Meta, Great, Good, Testing, Trial", making it somewhat obvious what is meta. This method would retain at least some consensus. I see the current proposal as an excuse to bring elitism back - something which has been sorely missed by a few members after the removal of BMs. Meta has been wrongly perceived in the proposal as something which is factual (we know from past arguments with Saint and Jake this isn't the case). - AthrunFeya - 12:36, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

forgot to add that retaining consensus makes it more pve-compatible too. - AthrunFeya - 12:38, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Well this policy is to make meta builds clearly stand out (so you can without a doubt go "hey this build's meta!". The common/uncommon part is an issue User:Lemming had. If you see the actual real vetting talk page, he gave an example there (with 2 flaggers iirc) which should clarify what I mean by that.

The problem is the current system for meta builds is about as refined as we can make it, the only thing we can do is like you say, actually be more proactive with it. However given that we haven't been that proactive with it in the however long it's been in place, I can't see people being willing to put the extra effort in (hell I still have projects going from way back when, that people were saying they'd help with).

This is the thing, this new system would do just that. The new meta template would be like the trial/untested/good/great templates, it would be able to show what the areas the build is for on it (thus auto categorising the build).

This system isn't an attempt to bring back elitism, like i've said, I'm happy to change the system to GvG/HA only (where there's a clear meta), I'd even say we'd remove the "caretakers" if you want. ~ PheNaxKian talk 13:19, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

@Lau: There exists a metagame. Builds are present within this metagame. Some builds show up every second match, they are usually the great meta builds, some builds show up like one in every 15 matches, these are usually sub par, but run in specific circumstances, or just bad people insist on running them. They are still part of the meta game, just less common. Misery 13:37, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

By the way, what is the problem with having people who aren't terrible having more of a say over people who are? Without the BM position being around I've seen quite a lot of retarded votes and builds being pushed through because a lot of stupid people agree with each other (no I'm not going to go find examples for you). And Lau, meta/not meta is a lot more factual than great/good/bad, and citing arguments between Saint & Jake doesn't go to prove how it isn't factual, since most of the time they were just trying to annoy each other by taking two extremes of an argument to be cunts. Around that time, neither of them really knew completely what was meta anyway, but I'm not going to start flaming here. Also, fuck consensus, people are bad. --Crow 14:49, May 3, 2010 (UTC)