m (because english is hard)
Line 237: Line 237:
:::ok but regular members can do that anyway? - [[User:Athrun Feya|<font color="SteelBlue">''Athrun''</font>]][[User talk:Athrun Feya|<font color="Black">'''''Feya'''''</font>]] [[Image:Lau_bfly.gif]] - 20:39, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
:::ok but regular members can do that anyway? - [[User:Athrun Feya|<font color="SteelBlue">''Athrun''</font>]][[User talk:Athrun Feya|<font color="Black">'''''Feya'''''</font>]] [[Image:Lau_bfly.gif]] - 20:39, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
::::Because sometimes obs throws up a bad build that shitters run and people here would easily mistake it for meta because they pressed B and saw it. --[[User:Frosty|<b><font color="Black">Frosty</font></b>]] [[Image:Frostcharge.jpg|19px]] 21:17, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
::::Because sometimes obs throws up a bad build that shitters run and people here would easily mistake it for meta because they pressed B and saw it. --[[User:Frosty|<b><font color="Black">Frosty</font></b>]] [[Image:Frostcharge.jpg|19px]] 21:17, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
::::There's a lot of things going on behind the scenes regarding build selection that aren't immediately obvious just from watching observer. Not everything that shows up is meta, and not everything that doesn't show up isn't meta. (Pardon the triple negative.) Playing GvG regularly far better equips one for this type of classification. --[[User:Lemming|Lemming]] 21:32, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
:::::borat lol [[Special:Contributions/|]] 21:24, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
:::::borat lol [[Special:Contributions/|]] 21:24, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
::::::Indeed Novii --[[User:Frosty|<b><font color="Black">Frosty</font></b>]] [[Image:Frostcharge.jpg|19px]] 21:29, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
::::::Indeed Novii --[[User:Frosty|<b><font color="Black">Frosty</font></b>]] [[Image:Frostcharge.jpg|19px]] 21:29, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:32, May 4, 2010

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 Lau bfly - 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 Lau bfly - 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)


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)


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 Lau bfly - 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 Lau bfly - 12:36, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
forgot to add that retaining consensus makes it more pve-compatible too. - AthrunFeya Lau bfly - 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)
This should roughly translate to having meta-great builds and meta-good builds (the latter would be exclusive to GvG and HA). If not, could the current system be changed to indicate a "level of meta" and tagged linked on the main page next to good/great/all/testing etc. There's huge scope in extending the current meta tagging method - AthrunFeya Lau bfly - 00:08, May 4, 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)

I refer you to what Auron said when we removed BM's in the first place - consensus should be there - the community should be left to fight things out. After all, that's who PvX is for. - AthrunFeya Lau bfly - 00:07, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
I vote you have to be/have been top 10 core to get position. ··· Danny So Cute 00:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Woah, I apparently missed some things....

But "meta caretakers" sound a lot like BMs, and we've already sunken that ship once. How about we just ask people to go to obs and prove that it's meta? If there's an argument about it, then we could always pull the old-fashioned "pics or stfu". Karate KJ for sig Jesus 15:27, 3 May 2010

they literally just go "this is/isn't meta", no special user group or special rights. That said, I'm not that attached to them though so if people don't want them I'm happy with removing it. ~ PheNaxKian talk 15:34, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
Tbh, that just sounds like another way to cause shitstorms. I think it would be a lot easier to just post a build as meta, and if it's questioned, provide screenshots or other proof. It shouldn't be that hard, if it's meta. Karate KJ for sig Jesus 15:44, 3 May 2010
That'd probably work tbh. Who besides me, saint, occasionally frosty, (and i guess now maybe lemming if he cares enough?) actually post gvg builds anyway? If there's a dispute msn an admin and pull screens from various obs matches.--TahiriVeila 15:47, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
(EC) I'll have a small edit session later to change a few things then. ~ PheNaxKian talk 15:50, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
Jake, that's what I'm thinking. And then it promotes others to actually challenge meta builds and if proof is provided, then there's no bandwaggoning/shitstorming to be had. Karate KJ for sig Jesus 15:57, 3 May 2010
can't say i like that idea much, because it will eventually turn into "well how many screenshots deem it to be meta?". i think people are overthinking this honestly, even if something wasn't meta and had a meta tag on it, it wouldn't be the end of the world. if 1 of us 3 deems it to be meta, we can tag it, and if both the other 2 disagree we can untag it, simple as that imo. Gringo 16:29, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
^that's basically what (and why) I suggested MC's. ~ PheNaxKian talk 16:45, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
Let me put it this way, one of the biggest problems with BMs wasn't that they did a terrible job; it was the perception of the position. They held the power to declare whether or not a build was good, and people just don't like that. We are a build wiki after all, and community consensus should be the goal rather than a group of 3. If a build is meta, then it shouldn't be too hard to prove it. Screenshots are one way, but I wasn't suggesting that they should be the only. It wouldn't be hard to ask someone to go obs and see for themselves whether or not it's meta. Karate KJ for sig Jesus 17:04, 3 May 2010
I know this is a wiki, but why is everybody so obsessed with consensus? If you need that many people to decide whether or not a build is meta, it probably isn't going to be meta. If the 3/whatever people who are MCs say a build is meta, it's meta (1 of them would be enough anyway, unless you pick some dumbfuck trying to prove a point all the time). Why make it excessively difficult? --Crow 18:57, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
why would it take more then 3 people to decide if something is meta? we dont need idiots parading around announcing what is and isn't meta, its bad enough we let those people vote on builds. Gringo 19:05, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
also, who cares if people dislike our position. we're here so people can come and get builds, if they are mad that they dont get to decide if something is meta, then they can go have a tantrum in a corner. Gringo 19:06, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
What makes you think you'd be one? We've had enough shittery from you for a lifetime, and on top of that, I'm almost 100% sure you'd find a way to antagonize people with it. No thanks. Karate KJ for sig Jesus 20:12, 3 May 2010
I didn't assume shit, i'm just offering my help. if you're dumb enough to turn it down because you think that i'll make people mad by meta tagging a build (lol?!) then you're just a dumbass. Gringo 20:43, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
Only another example of why you shouldn't hold this position. Karate KJ for sig Jesus 20:47, 3 May 2010
because i tell stupid admins they are stupid, i shouldn't be allowed to sacrifice my time and help the wiki by tagging meta builds. top notch logic retardo. Gringo 20:53, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
1) Chill out. 2) Read Chaos's section below. We don't need drama-whores to fill this position, regardless of how good they are at the game. Karate KJ for sig Jesus 20:55, 3 May 2010
do you not understand what the mc's would do? its meta tagging a build, its not rocket science. the only way people could get mad is if you un-meta'd one of their precious little builds, in which case you just ask them to provide obs screens of ppl running it. how hard is that really kj? jesus youre thick (best. pun. ever.) Gringo 20:58, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
I asked you to chill. And I fully understand the point of the position, I just have no doubts that it would be exploited just as the BM position was. Karate KJ for sig Jesus 21:01, 3 May 2010
I just talked to KJ about this, so he already knows, but everyone else might not have understood it from the policy (i thought it was clear, but maybe not). MC's are there only for when an argument occurs about "this build is/isn't meta" to give the final say on the matter, other than that they're regular users. ~ PheNaxKian talk 22:56, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

I am opposed to this

Every PvX user deserves the right to vote on every build stored here. Every user deserves an equal say on whether a build is tagged as meta.

  • Certain meta builds are better than others. The policy above, in its current form, does not allow users to express their opinions about meta build's quality using the "Rate" feature.
  • This policy hands final say on the meta tag to a small group. It fails to allow for the fact that there are people who exist who are more qualified than the "meta caretakers" to say what is meta and what isn't. The current policy lacks a path for such a person to enter the "meta caretakers" group, and this discourages the participation of those more qualified people. It also lacks a policy for removing people from the group if they become unqualified in the future (for example through inactivity in game).
  • This policy wastes peoples' time. Preventing users from voting on a build with a certain tag is a time consuming project (whether it is accomplished by users (for example, vote removal) or by software (removal of the "Rate" tab)). Creating a "commonality" section for meta builds is another waste of time. That information could be included in the notes section.

In summation, we should continue to allow voting on builds with the meta tag. If we want to know what individual users think is meta, then we could add a "meta" check-box to the "Rate this build" section, similar to the "innovation" check-box.--War_Pig5 20:38, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Why does every user deserve the right to vote, especially if the large majority of PvX consistently proves that they don't understand the game? --Crow 20:42, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
If that's how you feel, then create a policy that takes away the voting rights of users who are bad. What's the point of just taking away their right to express their idea of what is meta?--War_Pig5 21:39, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
The policy actually makes sense. Most PvX users don't have a firm grip on the high-end PvP meta and often the meta is full of builds that would normally be trashed. This policy is needed. Karate KJ for sig Jesus 20:43, 3 May 2010
I agree that most users are bad, but I do not see how this policy assures us that those 4 people know the meta better than some other 4 people. --War_Pig5 21:39, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
does it matter if someone can't express whether or not they think a build is good? if good people are running it, why would we need the opinions of bad players on how good it is? how can someone be better qualified to judge meta then the people who play every day? and not telling idiots to go vote on a build saves time, unless im misunderstanding what time is. Gringo 20:46, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
Lets assume that everything you just wrote is correct. I just don't see how this policy that assures us that these 4 users play every day, and I do not see how it assures us that they know the meta better than some other group of people.--War_Pig5 21:39, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

I'll respond to the OP post only here (point by point).

  • That's true. You've read the full changes so you noticed I said meta builds have to include a new section on the page, which details how much the build is run in the current meta, and what's run instead of it (as well as reasons). So I feel that point's covered.
  • The policy hands final say in an argument about if something is meta to a small group of people. That's it, if we see them going "no you're bad this is meta" without talking about it on the page, we'll ban them (or I will). It doesn't, you're right, but neither does our current policy allow for users who are better than all of us to get the truth out (we can think a build is shit but the best player out their could realise it's pure gold, and it'd still get deleted).
  • Preventing people from voting on certain builds is time consuming...they're taking the time to not vote? you're misunderstanding, they can vote and we won't remove them, but the votes wouldn't mean anything really (similar to page ID 0's rate page (the one that has no attached article page and everyone 5-5-Xs)). Yes it could be included in the notes section, but I wanted this information to stand out, which meant giving it it's own heading.

~ PheNaxKian talk 23:04, May 3, 2010 (UTC)


Do you really need to be a very good player to know what's meta? You just need to obs enough/play enough GvG/HA. --Chaos? -- 20:53, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

People who are bad tend to sometimes mistake a few builds to be meta, especially if there is 1 guild that runs a build quite often but nobody else runs it. There are a couple of other circumstances too where people who don't understand what's happening in higher level play come up with a false positive, or a false negative. --Crow 21:01, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
People who consistently play at a high level would be more aware of what specifically is going on. This most specifically applies to fringe meta builds - it takes a lot of familiarity with the metagame to be aware of how often and why an infrequently seen build is being run. --Lemming 21:05, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
That's a good point, but it still wouldn't be hard to prove a build was meta. 99% of the time, no one would even question the tag, whether we had the position or not. It's that 1% of the time that I worry about, and my main concern would be exactly what happened with BMs. Karate KJ for sig Jesus 21:04, 3 May 2010
People overreacted with the BM thing, I still think keeping them would have been a better idea (not that it matters much in a game where the meta changes every 2 months, or less), and that the few problems we had because of having them were less annoying than the problems we have without them. --Crow 21:06, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
Depends on your perspective. We've had so much less drama, it's been freeing (short of that PvE Physical build). Sure, there have been shitter votes that haven't been removed, but from what I can tell it hasn't affected the category of any specific build.
However, I can tell that I may be the only one against this position, so I'll withdraw from the argument for the time being. I will reserve the right to say "I told you so" if it goes South, though. Karate KJ for sig Jesus 21:10, 3 May 2010
The game/wiki/updates has/have slowed down as of late, especially around the time of the BM removal. Also, I still think the 99% of people who drama'd with the BM's were dumb cunts anyway. --Crow 21:38, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

2 cents

Just thought I would put in my word. I think the idea is good, and if applied correctly will make sure that Meta builds are properly recognized. The only type of drama there could be is if someone who clearly lacks experience in HA/GvG thinks a build is meta and provides a couple of screens of bad teams running a build, but hopefully the people who are appointed will have a clear enough head (and ofcourse be good enough) to be able to disclaim such things. If we are going to go ahead with something like this however, we need a way to appoint said "MC's" (lol MC's). I was thinking a simple page with nominated names and support/oppose, and after that the admin team and ofcourse Auron discuss/decide who should have the duties. Ofcourse this is assuming we go ahead with it. Anyway, discuss away, this is the first meta build tagging idea that actually sounds good. --Frosty Frostcharge 21:38, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Frostels also noticed the MC thing :>. Fsg --Crow 21:40, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
If we do elections, bcrats (or just Auron) should make the final call. However, do we even need elections? We could make it like a "Helper" list, and allow people to sign up to help. Although, we'd have to have a way to dispute some of the people who add themselves......
Maybe we just do elections... Karate KJ for sig Jesus 21:46, 3 May 2010
I would agree with Bcrats making the final call, but there are no powers to be handed out and such, so it's not really a big deal. I'm not bothered either way. --Frosty Frostcharge 21:50, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
I would like to be one. As it would allow me to be called "MC Crow" :> --Crow 21:52, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
Having the Bcrats make the final call makes sense if the Bcrats are aware of which users play every day and somehow maintain constant awareness that those people are continuing to play every day. I doubt this. --War_Pig5 22:54, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
Wat am punctuation --Crow 22:55, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
I mentioned on the policy apge itself that the position would be "community appointed", this means basically if the majority of suers go "this guy should be an MC!" then we'll say "you're an MC". I pictured this being done by something similar to an RfA (not as formal though, so like frosty said jsut a simple Support/oppose tally). I'm happy with the final call being that of the BCrat(s), as far as I'm aware, Auron does still have an idea of who's good/bad so make your own mind up on that point =p. ~ PheNaxKian talk 23:10, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
its not even so much of being good or bad as much as it is how much you play on a daily basis. im not saying you should be fucking terrible, but we can't elect someone who is a good player but doesnt log on on a regular basis. --Angelus 23:14, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
this is the thing, I don't really mind how we/you go about it, as long as it's the communities decision as to how it's done, and they're happy they get a say in who gets that position. ~ PheNaxKian talk 23:22, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
i think the choices are already pretty narrowed down. there are many people left on this wiki that pvp on a daily basis so it should be a no-brainer almost. --Angelus 23:25, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

the distinction between meta builds and effective builds

People are concerned about which builds are meta and who should have final say on the tag that indicates that a build is meta. Currently, we track all users' opinons on which builds are effective. However, we don't track anyone's opinions of which builds are meta. As I see it, we need we need to have a policy that allows people to report their findings of which builds are meta. We could certainly propose a policy to grant rights to rate what's meta only to specific people, but we could just as easily grant rights to rate what's effective only to certain users. If you think that everyone should be able to rate effectiveness but only 4 people should rate what's meta, then please state your reasons why. --War_Pig5 22:30, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Because it has nothing to do with rating, if anything it is more of a janitorial position, constantly having to update/change/etc meta tagged builds. If everyone had the option of rating which builds are meta, it would lead to more problems with people who clearly don't understand the metagame tagging/voting a build which isn't meta, into the meta category. --Frosty Frostcharge 22:36, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with rating the effectiveness of the build. It has everything to do with rating how commonly the build is played. Our current policy allows people to report build effectiveness who don't understand what's effective. I see this as a major problem. This proposal is written under the assumption that most users are unqualified to report which builds are a part of the meta. However, I see this as only a minor problem because people who don't understand the metagame can still find out what's meta and what's not through obs and through playing and seeing what other teams are running. On the other hand, people who don't understand how to play are cannot find out what's effective and what's ineffective. Why do you want to ask all users what's effective and then not ask all users what's meta? --War_Pig5 23:12, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
no it doesn't. This build is simply to make meta builds stand out. Everyone gets a say in what goes under the meta template (or not). You're worried about the MC's, and like I said further up, they're there only for when there's a dispute and there's no end in sight. ~ PheNaxKian talk 23:17, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
^ exactly, voting will still occur, and in all honesty any build which is meta should be voted into the Great category anyway by virtue that it is effective in the current metagame. Just because there will be Meta Caretakers doesn't mean everyone will have a say about whether a build is meta or not, but as the name suggests they are nothing more than caretakers of the category. --Frosty Frostcharge 23:20, May 3, 2010 (UTC)


is going to need to fall under a different set of rules than "this is played commonly". not to mention, it's going to need serious clean up. ··· Danny So Cute 23:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Applying the proposed policy policy to RA and all other PvP areas would be very challenging. Not only would we need a team of MCs who understands the GvG meta, we would also need a team of MCs who understand the unique meta for RA and every other area of the game. We would also need a way to work out disputes that occur when the MCs who know the meta for one area disagree with the MCs who understand the meta in some other area. Many character builds are tagged for 5 areas of PvP. When the meta tag on one of these builds is disputed, this policy would look to all of those MCs to decide amongst themselves as to whether the build should be tagged as "meta." Does anyone think this is a good or practical idea? --War_Pig5 01:28, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
seriously, read up about 5 something sections to "scope", we've established that it should just be GvG/HA, i've not gotten round to a re-write yet, give it chance =/. Secondaly, if it's tagged for multiple areas and one of them is disputed, it's a s simple as removing that area from the tag (what we do currently, shockingly).


So Lem and I had a chat, and we both think there's some stuff that needs to have more importance with the policy. Some of these may repeat what's been said, but oh well!

  1. The meta category should be the premier category (at least for gvg) rather than great, and have the other, weirder builds that manage to get through vetting put into some shitty category.
  2. Commonality should possibly be done in groups. For example, Very Common, Common, and Niche. Something like Mo/E HB Runner would fall under Very Common, and Rt/E Shackles Runner would fall under Niche; which would better show their usefulness in the current meta, rather than having just both in Great.
  3. Maybe give some power to the MCs, rather than just having them as caretakers and that's it. They would be people with more knowledge of the meta and therefore and therefore should have a great say over people who don't.

I guess with the last point most people will moan about a return to elitism, but with the example Lem has given me of the Shatter Storm Ranger in Good, we believe that some autonomy should be given to those with knowledge.

Sorry if some of the sentences are shit, I should be in bed by now! ^O^ --Crow 00:43, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

^ My thoughts as well The preceding unsigned comment was added by TahiriVeila (talk • contribs) .
  1. the point is you have meta >( = (in some cases)) great > good.
  1. I don't mind how commonality is done, the point was some indication was needed for how much some thing's run, and Jake wanted it to be noticeable, so I figured a section detailing that information, which is linked to on the meta template (so is says "blah blah <some link to commonality section> more blah").
  1. MC's are there purely to settle disputes between users over what's meta and what's not, that's it, the rest of the time they're like every other user.

~ PheNaxKian talk 01:31, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

what i suggest is

that while under the Meta Tag, it is rated by how Often it is Played. For Example, (Insert GvG/HA build that Everyone is Running) would Go under a "Extremely run", (insert GvG/HA build that alot of People run) is "Commonly run", (insert GvG/HA build that a good amount of people run) would be known as "Moderatly run". Get it? so its kinda like Ranking, y/n voting on it? kinda like this:

  • Extreme=great
  • Common=Good
  • Moderatly=lower than good?

this will Determine Which Meta Builds are played the most out of other Meta Builds.

y/n?--Bluetapeboy 01:02, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

because a little not on the page saying "common/occasional/uncommon" is easier? (plus we can't change the rate page) ~ PheNaxKian talk 01:43, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
It's not a matter of opinion how often a build is played =\ --TahiriVeila 02:34, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Lau's Suggestion

I do like the proposal to emphasise the meta more but just skipping the vetting process is not the way to achieve it, especially considering builds that are meta currently have no problem getting vetted. No one has really answered why these builds specifically shouldn't go through testing. Essentially what we want out of the meta-tag is to say "look this is better than all those other builds in Great" and add additional information like meta-commonality ranking.
The idea of MCs are ... a step backwards. Since when is adding a category to a build a job for a specially appointed role? Particularly when this type tagging already takes place (albeit in a more primitive form than we would ideally like).
I propose no MCs, no vetting bypass. Instead replace the current meta tags for GvG and HA builds to something more intricate. The new tags, which would be in addition to the testing tag, would be along the lines of {{GvG-Meta|Common}} {{GvG-Meta|Niche}} {{GvG-Meta|Very Common}} and exist purely for GvG and HA. As i said earlier, make a very obvious link to the meta categories on the main page. There's no reason why people in the community in general shouldn't be able to add/remove these tags, especially in a definable meta.
My proposal basically looks at what we really are wanting meta tags to achieve and does it in a fairer way than the current proposed idea - AthrunFeya Lau bfly - 01:19, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

the point is because they get "great" anyway and everyone goes "oh it's meta", so there's no point what so ever having it vetted because we know exactly how it will turn up =/.
arrrrrrrrrghhhhh!! why doesn't anyone understand MCs do bugger all! When a situation arises where the community can't decide if something is/isn't meta, then and only then does an MC become needed, to settle if it should be meta or not. This by no means I care about the position. It's just I'm getting the impression people think they're supposed to do more than what they actually do =/.
The issue was that the meta tag was prominent enough on the build article, and so long as you have a good/great tag, I don't think it ever will be (or both tags on the same page will look a giant mess), which is why I wanted it as a separate tag.
They can though! that's the point, anyone can submit a "meta" build, and anyone can remove it, the point is the community decides what stays there and what doesn't =/. ~ PheNaxKian talk 01:41, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
If you just click on the main page "GvG meta" then you're still going to get exactly what you want, whether the Great tag is there or not is irrelevant. More problems will be caused by removing the need for it. - AthrunFeya Lau bfly - 07:46, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
Laus points are fair, but the idea of the MC has been created to counteract exactly what she is saying, i think she [like most of us did at first] misunderstands what the MC is to be used for. i doubt people will stir up drama over something as simple as a meta tag, so we shouldnt run into the elitism issues that people bitched about with BMs. Gringo 03:27, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
People will absolutely stir up drama over meta tags because "meta" builds are as good as or better than "Great" builds. It makes sense for the community itself to have the final say on which builds deserve the meta tag, because the community is large and in a large group is less likely that there will be an equal number of people on either side of the issue.--War_Pig5 07:21, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that you ignore every time I point out. The majority of people on the wiki are terrible at GW. --Crow 07:26, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
I don't ignore it. I know it. Most people posting here know it too, that's why we're all saying that "meta" is as good or better than "great". Of course it is, because the meta is determined by people actually playing the game and choosing to play one build over other builds. "Great" is determined by people clicking buttons on a wiki. The problem with this proposal is that it takes our system of tagging builds and replaces it with a system that's more complex, more drama-prone, more elitist etc. (worse in every way). --War_Pig5 07:58, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
Also, can somebody please answer me why a large consensus is so preferable? I find it ridiculous. --Crow 07:30, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
Because this is a community website and thus should be what the community want, not a few select individuals of the pvx circle want - Auron said it himself when we removed BMs. If the majority of players are terrible then they won't mind playing terrible builds that other terrible people have made. - AthrunFeya Lau bfly - 07:35, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
You really are missing the point... The community DOES decide whether a build gets a meta tag or not, only and ONLY when the community can't decide (no concensus) a MC or two will step in and resolve the issue. --Frosty Frostcharge 07:33, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not missing your point. You're missing my point: the community itself can decide. The community is a large group of people. In a large group there will be a greater number of people on one side of the argument than on the other side of it. A majority. There is no reason to create the elite group. This is my point. --War_Pig5 07:58, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
I think everyones confused because you've not really clarified. What you're saying now is, anyone can put a meta build in the meta category at any time? lol. yeah because that won't be a huge fucking nightmare when people realise they can just bypass the vetting process. And if you think slapping a title on a few members will make their decisions respected (because MCs can override any decisions) see how well that turned out for BMs... - AthrunFeya Lau bfly - 07:35, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
That's what i've been saying all along =/. The point is if someone slaps a meta tag as a means to bypass vettging everyone will just go "this isn't meta" and slap an untested tag on it instead. ~ PheNaxKian talk 11:13, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Concensus needed before Meta tag

In mainly response to Lau's comment, maybe what we could do is make it so there has to be a concensus on the builds talk page before the Meta tag can be applied. So if people want to be sneaky and tag their build as meta then they have to get everyone who is RC stalking to agree. Discuss? --Frosty Frostcharge 07:45, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Why the fuck does everyone think meta = better than great? Meta means people run it a lot. We then store it because like, we document the meta. COMPLICATED. Misery 07:47, May 4, 2010 (UTC)


You're ending up just giving a special "MC" title to people who know the meta, but beyond that, practically nothing will change? --Chaos? -- 09:48, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Except that we wouldn't vote on meta builds either. Karate KJ for sig Jesus 13:56, 4 May 2010

because english is hard

let me summarize. PvX is a builds wiki. We document the game's builds, just like the official wiki documents everything else. In PvP, documenting builds is pretty fucking easy - they're on TV. The top meta builds are easy to find. Even if you get consensus from a group of mouth-breathing autists that a certain build is meta, that doesn't mean jack shit - a build is only meta if it's all over obs mode in Guild Wars. Therefore, we're skipping the "getting consensus from the mouth-breathing autists" step and just going to the "documenting the meta" step.
Yes, that means we're ignoring voting for specific builds. Deal with it. You aren't better than the top 20 GvG guilds, stop trying to pretend you are. If your awesome firestorm ranger is better than their builds, go kick their ass in GvG with it and then we can talk about putting it on the wiki. Until then, shut the hell up.
People are way too focused on the Meta Caretaker bullshit. This isn't build masters 2.0. We're not giving them voting weight, the ability to remove votes, and I'm most certainly not promoting randoms simply to fill positions. They're just there to overrule someone who is wrong about the meta. At the moment, the only two I'm considering for it are Lemming and Crow. Either way, the people aren't as important as the concept.
I don't want this extending into PvE because there's too much carebear and not enough obs mode. We should probably just remove all references to PvE in the meta section. If they want to keep their own meta tag and discuss how to maintain it, feel free, but for GvG/HA builds, this proposed system is simply superior to our current one. -Auron 12:01, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with keeping this out of PvE. Maybe have a separate tag for PvE that works the same way meta tags currently do. As for PvP, this should probably be restricted to HA/GvG (which is basically what you said). Oh, and I'm fine with the "MC" position now, just so everyone knows. I'm still not a big fan of it, but after reviewing the policy a few more times, it's essential for this to work. Karate KJ for sig Jesus 13:59, 4 May 2010
I am fine with what Auron has suggested demanded, just a question of when and how to implement it. --Frosty Frostcharge 14:03, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to leave it a little longer before implementing to give people a chance to comment still. As for actually implementing it, it's not that difficult, it's just creating the meta tag (Which i can do in preperation if you want), and then being ready to re-tag things. ~ PheNaxKian talk 14:50, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
Auron, in the policy's current form any of what you call a "mouth-breathing autist" would be able to submit a meta build at any time. So what are MC's roles? Basically slapping delete tags on builds and telling people they're wrong..
A point I made earlier is why do people need some sort of title to achieve just slapping well tags on? Putting a title on people won't suddenly make them a figure of authority, regardless of who they are (and this was the downfall of BM's, double vote weighing fuckery never really meant anything).
I can see the merits of one of two very knowledgeable people creating and maintaining a special category of meta builds, I'm just extremely sceptical about how we are intending to interface this with other users. - AthrunFeya Lau bfly - 17:52, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
actually, MCs are just there to tell people they're wrong when they're really wrong. the idea is that the ideas MCs have will be supported by obs, and it's really, really hard to refute something you can just go watch. ··· Danny So Cute 20:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
ok but regular members can do that anyway? - AthrunFeya Lau bfly - 20:39, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
Because sometimes obs throws up a bad build that shitters run and people here would easily mistake it for meta because they pressed B and saw it. --Frosty Frostcharge 21:17, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
There's a lot of things going on behind the scenes regarding build selection that aren't immediately obvious just from watching observer. Not everything that shows up is meta, and not everything that doesn't show up isn't meta. (Pardon the triple negative.) Playing GvG regularly far better equips one for this type of classification. --Lemming 21:32, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
borat lol 21:24, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
Indeed Novii --Frosty Frostcharge 21:29, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.