PvXwiki talk:Real Vetting

Archives

---

1. /Archive 1
2. /Archive 2
3. /Archive 3
4. /Archive 4
5. /Archive 5
6. /Archive 6

PvE HM

Should we perhaps have a PvE HM tag? That way we can identify builds designed for HM more easily (instead of having to perhaps look at the build) PheNaxKian Sysop 10:57, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

I was actually thinking of clearer criteria for all the tags, and my idea for PvE is that they must be able to perform consistently in Hard Mode. Many inferior builds can run through Normal Mode without much trouble; the true test of PvE builds is to complete the harder parts of the game, especially in Hard Mode. If a build does well in NM but not in HM, it's not a great build. -- Scottie_theNerd (talk/contribs/complain) 21:00, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

the problem with that is there are GW players that aren't lvl 20/haven't beaten the game, so if they come here looking for builds, all they'll find are builds that they can't use. i agree with phenax about a PvE HM tag and a PvE NM tag. CABOSE(LVPoW)_{"Hey chicka bum bum!"} 21:15, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Same here, it's not PvP, there should be more tags. The thing is, we don't need a Raptor Farm normal mode so... --The Gates Assassin 22:12, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

New players don't need to look at builds on PvX to get through the game. If you're not Level 20, you don't even have the skills and attribute points to use any build on PvX. Looking up and using builds from PvX does inherently require a certain amount of experience with the game, and creating a category for inexperienced characters is going to defeat the purpose of creating a build database in which we vet the most effective builds. PvE NM is going to become redundant as a category if implemented. -- Scottie_theNerd (talk/contribs/complain) 03:55, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I vaguely recall having a half arsed conversation in one of the archives about this actually (think it's archive 4). I think we thought it might be a good idea to say that PvE builds have to be able to compete well in late areas of the game (so ring of fire islands, elite areas etc.) in NM at least, and anything designed for earlier on (say dessert region in Proph.) would be considered not to work, or trash or something. I have no objections to saying that only the great builds are the ones that can perform consistently in HM, but I don't think you should say all NM builds are trash. It's a bit unreasonable when you consider the higher end areas such as DoA and Slaver's, for such areas I think it's reasonable if the build performs well in NM. PheNaxKian Sysop 07:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Outside of DoT Nukers, most any PvE general build works in Hard Mode. Even then, Hard Mode is usually just narrowed down to Sabway and Racnothway. Or just take an Imbagon, load up with physicals and Splinter, and make things go boom. -- Guild of Deals 07:21, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Why not just have the tag state if the build is effective in NM and HM as in: A nuker build as you said is effective in HM and NM so you would put a NM and HM tag on it. A farming build such as the Raptor farm is only good in HM, so you would only put in the HM tag. Running builds would be only PvE NM. Some of the very high end farming builds can only be run in HM, or if you are inexperienced, can be run in NM for practice.--The Gates Assassin 09:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

The point is, by having a PvE HM tag, we can create a separate category for them. Plus i means only one new tag, if it's a farming build designed for Hm, jsut ahve farming and HM, if it's designed for NM just have the farming tag on. PheNaxKian Sysop 09:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

But what if it's effective, drops wise and effectiveness wise, in NM and HM?--The Gates Assassin 09:33, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

i see what you mean, in terms of farming it might be an issue yes. If generaly (as in not farming) it works in both HM and NM, tag for HM (for what i hope are obvious reasons). I'm inclined to say the same for farming. PheNaxKian Sysop 09:50, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

But any PvE general/farming/hero build is generally accepted to work in HM, not NM as stated before, almost anything works in NM. Running is basically a given that its in NM. To me a NM/HM tag is redundant. I is *Jebus*Enter my contest! 18:54, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

It's not just functionality. As I've said, Raptor farm normal works, but it's not worth it. --The Gates Assassin 19:18, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Which is precisely the reason that all farming builds are assumed for HM:All drops are better, more xp (although u should be on lv 20) more gold, etc. Even in high level areas *cough domain of anguish cough fissure of woe cough tomb of da KINGS OF DA PRIMEVAL HOOD* it is more advantageous to run HM. I is *Jebus*Enter my contest! 21:09, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Yea, most 8 man team builds are suited fine for HM, and if you're farming and have a choice of HM or NM of course you're gonna go for HM but what about more specific farms that simply don't work in HM? Ok, so there are some noob desert hydra farming builds out there that only work in NM, but forget those---more specifically, what about green farmers or quest runners and similar ones that do their job just as well or literally easier in NM? I propose we have a different tag for HM and NM for both Farming and General because it's not fair (and not even accurate) to assume that every build is HM-worthy---and not in a bad way. ~ Jujipoo talk 16:07, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

Any build that works in NM but not HM is just bad. -- Jebus_contests 21:43, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

Proposed amendment

I have raised an issue with Auron regarding the current policy and practice on the wiki in regards to the use of the Trial and Testing phases. I believe that, currently, the VETTING policy does not clearly outline the purpose of the two untested phases. The current wording is as follows:

---

• All new build articles submitted to PvXwiki should be stored in the Build Stubs category. This is accomplished by placing the {{build-stub}} tag at the top of the build page.
• As soon as an article is finished, it can be moved to the Trial category by changing the tag to {{Untested-Trial|Type 1|Type 2|...}}. At this point community discussion on the build should start, improvements and additions can be made and the types of gameplay the build is adapted for are laid down.
• Finally, the build is moved to the Testing category by changing the tag to {{Untested-Testing|Type 1|Type 2|...}}, and vetting can begin.

---

The issue is that users are putting builds straight into Testing. Previous discussions have shown that a mandatory Trial period is not universally acceptable. However, the bigger problem is that users are making changes to builds while vetting is taking place. That is, users are making changes immediately after someone provides a vote and comment. While improving the build is certainly one of the objectives of the Vetting system, doing so while the build is still in the Testing phase will disrupt the vetting system and invalidate many of the votes, wasting the efforts of users who have contributed to the vetting process. I therefore propose the following amendment:

• Builds in the Testing phase cannot be modified. If the build author wishes to make a change, the user must place it into Trial. If the user does not do so, other editors are permitted to carry out the template swap.

The amendment will affect the Real Vetting policy in that the distinction between Trial and Testing will be formalised and the practice of using the correct template will be enforced. The Testing phase is meant to represent a complete build and no changes should be made once voting has begun. The Trial and Testing templates will also be rephrased to reflect this amended policy.

In a nutshell: Changes to builds in Testing will automatically end the vetting process, and the build must be returned to Trial before vetting recommences.

Please provide comments and thoughts here. -- Scottie_theNerd (talk/contribs/complain) 17:44, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

k, so lets say I want to replace 1 skill in a team build. I'd have to move it to trial, change the skill, ask for a votewipe and put it in testing again? Big waste of time imo. Brandnew. 17:49, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

nice idea. It might be a tad hard to enforce though. i do have similar feelings to brandnew as well though. It does seem tedious to have to put it back into testing and then get a vote wipe, for 1 skill change or something simple like that. The main problem is that builds just aren't being looked at while they're in trial...the featured trial section helps but not by much. PheNaxKian Sysop 17:55, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

The flip side is what we have happening now: A build gets put into Featured Testing; four people vote, and then the build changes. It sounds like a lot of effort to swap templates and request a vote wipe -- but that's we have to do anyway at the moment because people are swapping out skills at whim. The heart of the problem is that the Rate page has largely subverted the Talk page, but build authors are treating votes like a talk page and making on-the-fly adjustments. The problem then is that a handful of users will vote one day, and the next day it's all been wiped because of one change -- and the change is often not any better. And if five people vote, it gets trashed and then the author puts it back into Testing with one skill change.

I'm not advocating that every build has to go into Trial first. I'm fine with maintaining the status quo. The problem is that this level of flexibility in swapping out skills during vetting undermines the process, because we generally won't know if our vote is going to remain valid, and few people bother voting more than once on a build. The purpose of re-Trialing a build is to get approval or discussion regarding a change instead of forcing a wipe/re-vote immediately. Let's also not forget that not everyone theorycrafts their vote -- some people actually want to test builds in practice, and swapping skills without warning means that if people actually used the builds, it's going to waste more effort.

In essence, this amendment is encouraging that a build put through testing be allowed to go through the whole process, and provide time for changes to be scrutinised before voting takes place again. It saves confusion and, in the long run, it saves time and effort. And you know what, it's not any more effort that what it currently is. You have to edit a page to change a skill; change the tag while you're at it; let the change settle in for a day; then get the voting going again. -- Scottie_theNerd (talk/contribs/complain) 18:52, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

elite areas

how about a tag for Elite areas in PvE (slavers, DoA, Urgoz, the deep, UW, FoW and TotPK)? ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 10:48, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

Sounds good, tbh. Normally we just put PvE Team or PvE Farming, which doesn't say much. PvE Elite? =P ــмıкεнaшк 10:54, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

anyone against it or have any concerns? ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 11:01, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

Sounds scrumtrilescent (aka, awesome) - STAR OF EXILE 11:15, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

There should be plenty of builds to fill that category, sounds good.--ツThe Gates Assassin 11:18, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

categories

→ moved from PvXwiki_talk:Policy

Hi all, newish to PvX, so please forgive me if this is a stupid question. I scanned through the policies and guidelines and couldn't find an answer to this. I would like to add a category for alliance faction farming builds, but I noticed that there was a proposed policy for a 'working in hard mode' category. The only other mention of categories I found was in the vetting policy. Is it against policy for me to simply create this category and add articles to it? Do all new categories require approval in the form of a policy proposal? While the category itself is not required, I feel that it could be useful to some players. That, combined with the fact that creation/maintenance are trivial, seems like enough justification for the category to me. Thanks! --Belker 12:09, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

well we'd typically just say put a farming tag on it. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 12:55, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

Alliance faction farming falls under Farming. Not much we can stretch with that. -- Scottie_theNerd (talk/contribs/complain) 22:50, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

PvE Builds

I know we've had this disscussion before, but we start and never finish. Currently we accept any PvE build. I'd like suggestions on where we draw the for the point at which PvE builds become viable (e.g. how far along story prograssion in NM, and from where in HM). It's ridiculus that we have a crap laod of Sanctum cay running builds (when the mission's a piece of piss anyway), and the fact a minute ago i deleted a "minister Cho's estate runner" which was just Necrotic transversal...I'm suggesting that after we've decided where the "line" is, that anything that is designed for anything before the line be immediately WELLed as inferior. Anyway, suggestions. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 18:43, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

We don't accept any PvE build tbh. People post builds that can be done MUCH better (and probably have been done so either WELL or Trash) or builds that are just plain bad. Team builds, however, lately, are just a collection of already vetted builds. ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹ 18:53, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

From what I understand, Sanctum running is a leftover from old Prophecies-only days, which required dedicated runners to get new characters to Ascension. Since the other campaigns offer easier methods, Sanctum Cay running is mostly redundant now. I think that for particular running build, it needs an actual demand rather than making a build just for the sake of running a mission (e.g. Minister Cho's estate). -- Scottie_theNerd (talk/contribs/complain) 19:05, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

And the fact that you could get ran through all of prophecies in three hours is sorta funny. Droks runs are far more common because they save far more time, as opposed to doing to mission or running through Sanctum and the preceding/following missions. -- Jebus_contests 20:36, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Though it depends on why you're getting run in the first place. -- Scottie_theNerd (talk/contribs/complain) 05:35, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

lulz tru. -- Jebus_contests 13:46, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Tbh, it would make more sense to have a Guide for each Mission, but both of the other Wikis cover that, already. ــмıкεнaшк 13:53, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

The point is that some people are making "running" builds for missions that don't need to be run. From a build perspective (i.e. a PvX perspective), most missions don't require specific attention. For example, you don't need a build, or even a general article, for the Great Northern Wall. -- Scottie_theNerd (talk/contribs/complain) 18:55, 2 November 2008 (EST)

There are separate builds for farming different areas, like the great northen wall in HM, or other places, that are essentially the same. It makes more sense to create a generic article (like sliver 55 in this case i think) and just list the locations it can farm. -- Jebus_contests 19:47, 2 November 2008 (EST)

That makes a lot more sense. -- Scottie_theNerd (talk/contribs/complain) 21:03, 2 November 2008 (EST)

On a side note, we have this, this, and this. They're all essentially the same build with one or two attacks from the weapon line thrown in. Merge:yes/no? -- Jebus_contests 22:37, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Innovation

I haven't seen any innovation from this site in a while, so innovate already (requires thinking, I know too much to ask) 68.47.192.6 02:12, 15 November 2008 (EST)

There's nothing left to innovate, everything that works has already been done. --Ojamo (>.<(O=(- -Q) 12:01, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Ups, we don't care. New builds only get made with a skill update these days. - Misery Is Friendly 12:02, 15 November 2008 (EST)

(EC)Expert's Dexterity and Warrior's Endurance builds were innovative. Tbh, the only time good new builds come out are when there are skill updates, whether they're nerfs to try to compensate for or buffs to abuse. ــмıкεнaшк 12:03, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Or whenever some top x guild decides to run something usually considered crap. ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹ 12:04, 15 November 2008 (EST)

"many other optional options"

Maybe just "many other options"? Kind of repetitively redundant... -- 20:37, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Frosty's Omighty suggestions

Hello everyone one, it is 5AM here so please accept the odd grammatical error/spelling mistakes.

Other Builds

Ok, so we have these "Other Builds"; they're not Good/Great or even meta, they are just builds that are meant to "work". Any build can work so there is a flaw already in these sections. Secondly, PvX has a reputation for what you could call "lolbuilds". None of these Other builds would be run by anyone with common sense. People run Great builds to win, and if they want to have fun then they can go to userpages.

I am suggesting we remove the Other builds section because it does not contribute positively to the wiki and the whole idea of the section is dragging PvX down. Many people post a build with the sense of "well it's at least an Other build" which is not what we want. Builds like that are all well and good for userspace, but in the main build space we want the best builds, not the ones that got a 5 win streak in RA and are claimed to be amazing.

Why do people come to PvX

Obviously there are regular users who go round the wiki daily, these people will see the other section more often, but I highly doubt any of them come on the specifically look at builds in the other section. Then there is the majority of visiters, those who come to see whats in the meta, whats great, and most importantly to get the meta/great builds, I can guarentee you nobody comes to see the other section (maybe the good). So whats the point in having it, if no one comes here to see it?

Making a smooth transition

A week before the removal a news message will be placed on the main page telling people to move any Other builds that they want to their userspaces. this means if anyone actually used builds regularly from that section, they have time to save the builds they use.

Implications on the other build types (Good/Great)

Now since there is no Other section, Good builds will be the lowest on the pecking order, but to make sure no one simply aims for a good build (instead of just using a great build) the Good threshold should be move to 4.0 to make sure that the Good builds really are good. The great threashold will remain at 4.5 (although it could be raised to 4.8 which is an average 5/4 rating) to keep with continuity. This will require a lot of work but with the active and very determined users of PvX it could be done in a jiffy.

Notes

Although BM's are not the most active around here, that is only a bigger reason for their votes to make more of an impact. A weighted 200% does make a difference, upping this to 300% will make a BM's vote shine and push a build towards it's proper build destination (Great/Good).

These changes would help the reputation of PvX being a place for bad builds and turn it to a reputation for the BEST builds, we all want the BEST don't we?

Frosty po! 06:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

so we're back on this issue again :/ (there are more but not quite as relevant). Basically we don't keep them solely because, they can work. We keep them so users can see what's wrong with them, and avoid the same mistakes. It may also give them inspiration. As such I'm against this, however i am open to the idea of raising the threshold to 3.0 (which has also been brought up numerous times). ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 12:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

So basically, the other section is a gallery of failed builds where you go fetch inspiration for your own failing builds =/ ---Chaos- 12:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

if you want to put it bluntly, yeh why not (though it's more to see how to not make your build fail). ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 12:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

entire builds section needs either revetting or going through+tagging all the bad/outdated stuff. DE was going to wipe all the votes a while ago, but then he went inactive. Tab 12:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well there's about 160 builds in other, so if I get chance later today I can at least vote ipe a few of em. But then is there anything anyone wants to change about the other section, before that happens (like raising the criteria to 3.0 etc.) ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 12:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Trashvoting other builds is a good hobby. Raise bar to 3.0 imo, most builds get trashed if they're too close anyways. But leave my R/D alone D:< ---Chaos- 12:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the "Other" section is just holding back pvx. It's like we are sragging around a tonne of crap (literally). I understand the point you are coming from Phen (Other builds are a show of whats bad) but if people are just looking at Other builds and Great builds to compare, their not going to be good enough to actually know why Other builds are bad, it would be better of if we removed them (to not give these people bad ideas that don't work/are bad) and explain to them why the Great builds (or meta ones) are great/meta. Explaining to someone why on their usertalk why a great build is there would be a tone more help then that person seeing a bunch of Terrible builds compared to a bunch of great builds.

But if removing the other section is something you are not fond of, raising the threashold as well as increasing BM's voting weight to 300% would help to clear out more of the other builds, Tab has already offered to help me shift some of the bad bad from the Other section, but in truth, it really shouldn't be there at all. Frosty po! 14:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because i'm not fond of the idea doesn't mean it can't go ahead, if the majority decide to trash the other section then i won't argue. It's jsut i see uses in it still =p. I'm all for raising the threshold, it's also something that's been brought up numerous times. As for the 300% voting, that I'm strongly against, it's giving a BM too much influence over a builds rating. Having it as 200% already influences builds plenty. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 14:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

But that's why they are Build Masters, I did say 200% makes a difference but since most BM's do not vote no where near as much as the pvx community, they need a more balancing vote. Or maybe a smaller increase, say 250%. Frosty po! 14:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how the BM's voting less then everyone else, has anything to do with their rating...unless I'm misunderstanding you, i read that as they vote on less builds. If you mean in terms of rating value, you have to remember they also have the ability to remove votes, so anything that's clearly wrong can be removed. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 15:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The BM's really powerful vote swaying ability comes in removals, and less so in weighing, at least thats how I see it. 200% is fine. But if we are going to remove the Other section and make good 4.0, then we should increase the number of votes required to vett a build. One dissenter of 5 can bring a build from 4.6 to 3.8 with one vote, which then becomes trash. While admins and BMs can remove it, I think it would increasse the amount that BMs and admins have to do in term of vote removal. Overall, I like the idea since PvX is hosting close to 1000 vetted builds excluding archived ones, which is just way too much. --- Ressmonkey (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

We currently host 845 builds in great, good and other combined. and jsut under half of those builds are in great, there's a mere 122 builds in other atm....I'm intrigued by this, it would appear that the real issue is people are 5-5ing most things, or just 0-0ing everything that's not meta...in either case there's no issue with the other section in terms of builds held there tbh... ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 21:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the problem lies in the Great builds. There isn't enough of a choice in ratings to have a truly accurate rating. Raise to 10-10-x? Life 21:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Discussions pages usually tell why a build is in Great, Good, or Other. We don't have to explain the mechanics of Guildwars to every new player because they should figure it out for themselves. And getting rid of Other is just being elitist. Last time I checked, PvXwiki was for everyone to use, not just the more experienced players who would rather get rid of the crappy builds they would never use. Other people may still want to play the Other builds anyways.--Relyk 21:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Relyk, there is difference between being elitist and keeping bad builds. You cant using elitism as a reason for keeping bad builds on the site. Were talking about builds vetted around 2.5, thats not a build that anyone should be using unless they just want to have fun. And if they are just want to have fun then they wont have a problem going to a user page to find the build. Rawrawr Dinosaur 22:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Elitism is nothing to do with it, infact keeping bad buils on PvX just makes bad people even worse :/ Frosty po! 22:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No it doesnt--Relyk 22:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If they want to have fun, I'd rather they go to a different site than use the builds on people's user pages--Relyk 22:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

D: You're such a baddie --Crowels[슴Mc슴]Mootles 22:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Also in response to phen about the balance of builds in good/great/other, you may also note my suggestion of upping the great section to 4.8 from 4.5 that would then reflect the real, great bars, also the 300% BM votes would make this much more true too. Frosty po! 22:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd rather throw out real vetting and just basically get consensus (i.e., BMs tell us because we are all too bad to have an opinion) which category builds should go into, at least for PvP. Realistically, this is what happens for all the important builds anyway. If it's meta, BMs push it into great. If shitters think it's great and the BMs know it's shit, it gets trashed hard. Then for PvP section I'd basically want "is this meta or not", if it's not, then no one runs it, you won't face it, you won't really want to run it yourself, so why bother storing it? I think practically the only PvP build that has ever come from PvX is Contagionway and lets face it, the majority of PvX contributors are not DE. Even just obs whoring we fuck it up. - Misery Says Moo 23:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, if we did something like this or something like Frosty is suggesting, it would make sense to make user builds more accessible. If a user build ever becomes meta it's trivial to move it into the build space. - Misery Says Moo 23:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That makes me think, we should delete all the builds in archive that were never really meta, because there are shitloads. Rickyvantof 23:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

We probably should. - Misery Says Moo 00:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Tai's suggestion

Make "Meta" part of the rating system, with an actual impact on rating. That is all. -- 16:40, 25 February 2009

Make new categories in stead of baed templates. GvG Meta, HA Meta and TA Meta categories imo.--Liger414 16:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not real vetting, that's categorizing -- 16:43, 25 February 2009

Exactly. Because if something is meta or not already affects if a build gets trashed. We have an Innovation tickbox, that is enough.-- Liger414 talk 16:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Builds aren't really innovative anymore since people have done everything :/--Relyk 16:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

can i ask how a build being meta makes it more effective? ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 19:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I hadn't thought it out fully, but I guess meta builds are generally rated higher -- 19:37, 25 February 2009

It doesn't make it more effective but people still vote higher on meta builds. If we had meta categories it would be quite good methinks.-- Liger414 talk 19:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

We now have a meta category (people have been tagging builds the past few days). Personally i'm happy with this. I don't think Meta should have an impact on a build though (at least not in the sense of, "OMG this is meta so i must 5-5 it") ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 19:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, and yes I know, i made the PvE one :) -- 19:45, 25 February 2009

I think the meta template is, well, ugly. Having it alongside the tags at the top as a GvG Meta etc. tag would look better and if we add a GvG Meta etc. link to the mainpage people can more easily look at them.-- Liger414 talk 19:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place to place it but...

Shouldn't there be a point where testing builds should be in the trash category, similar to how trial and stub builds have their periods? Ex. Build:R/P HB Pet Capper ☆Imbagon♥McSteve☆(LVPoW) _{Cuz Steve said so...} ツ 15:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Misery Says Moo 16:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The main reason why we shouldnt do that is because you can rate down testing builds, unlike stubs and trial builds. --- Ressmonkey (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

did we ever reach a conclusion about a template like this? ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 18:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

*cough*

PvX's vetting system needs a complete makeover. I'm not just talking some nice pink lipstick and heavy eyeliner like when I'm going out on a Friday night, I'm talking a facelift, a nose job, and maybe some lip injections. I'll be working on writing up a policy to match the current ideal here over the next day or two. Contributions and discussion will be highly encouraged and welcomed. I think we all know this is a long time coming and is pretty necessary for PvX to function as something besides a trolling board. ··· Danny Does Drugs 21:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Median vs Average

I was thinking the other day (oh there's a shocker). Wouldn't it better to use Median (middle vote decides) instead of Average vote weight (sum divided on number of votes), instead of removing all the extreme votes to "get the score BM wants" let the fittest decide, this way one or two extreme vote won't affect the a builds score. Why use this? you might say, it's because all too often players vote either 5-5-5 or 0-0-0, just to get the highest effect on the average vote, when using median, a build may be unfavoured if three ppl vote 2-3-0 and two votes 5-5-5 instead of like it is now where ppl vote 0-0-0 to rid the build of the extreme high score votes. Why is this useful? more honest votes and less need to remove votes. I mean just because a similar build isn't as good as the current meta doesn't mean it deservers a 1-1-0 or 0-0-0 rating they often work just not as good and shouldn't have to be down rated with scores given to echo mending builds.--√iktor(contribs) 11:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That wouldn't change anything tbh. In fact it could actually make it worse. If there's five 5-5 votes and four 0-0 votes then the build is suddenly Great instead of Other. C:\PvX>Abort, Retry, Panic? 12:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well depending on who the trolls are, decency and common sense usually wins in the long run, if the build is great material it would probably stay in great but if its not it wouldn't take long to vote it down (if its a voting raid of bad voters that's a mission for BMs). This way votes have equal impact instead of greater impact the further to the extremes you vote. This method is commonly used when dealing with extreme values. IMO its better than the constant removing of votes.--√iktor(contribs) 12:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Not only does the median vote have no statistical relevance, you're also the complete opposite of right by saying that votes would have an equal impact in that system. C:\PvX>Abort, Retry, Panic? 12:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The complete opposite of right? Each votes impact with median is either more or less of the current middle value as oppose to average where it is how much more or how much less. Lets say a troll despises a build and vote 0-0-0 even though its a vetted 5-5-5 build, this impacts its score and the troll gets a win by seeing its rating fall a bit and often leading to a plague of whiners on the administrator board and for the BMs to take action. Don't get me wrong average is great when working with honest people, however in this case just don't think average is the best method. The point I'm trying to make is that people all too often vote with a wrong reasoning seeing all those 0-0-0 and 5-5-5 votes to get maximum impact. It's the amount of vote removals that made me question this in the first place, does the system work better and more smoothly when each build has at least one or more votes removed? sure average is great but is it practical?--√iktor(contribs) 13:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Using the median is a worse solution than using the mean. All the problems you are describing are actually WORSE if you use the median. Which is why you're the complete opposite of right. C:\PvX>Abort, Retry, Panic? 14:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do explain, how do they get worse than it is now?--√iktor(contribs) 14:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

BECAUSE INDIVIDUAL VALUES ARE NOT WEIGHTED EQUALLY WHEN USING THE MEDIAN. IT IS NOT A DESCRIPTIVE STATISTIC. C:\PvX>Abort, Retry, Panic? 14:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow that's quite the defensive all caps. True individual values are not weighted equally, but each vote carry the same weight. BTW where have you read that median isn't a descriptive statistic give me source please, last time I checked it was a descriptive statistic, it may not always the most accurate one but it is one method of doing so and is used when dealing with a few extreme values.--√iktor(contribs) 15:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No, they don't. Especially when the values are being consciously added into the dataset. Also, it's never used as a descriptive statistic despite what Wikipedia might tell you. It's almost always used in the context of the section "Measures of statistical dispersion". Just like how BMs and Admins remove bad votes on here, in real life you would either exclude outliers when calculating a mean or you would use other statistical measures to represent the spread of the data. C:\PvX>Abort, Retry, Panic? 15:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

My point was that the current system rewards extreme votes as it affects the outcome greater, hence the need to remove votes by BMs and Admins. The real question is how big would the difference be if bad votes weren't removed and median used as voting system as opposed to how it works now. It was a suggestion to reduce the amount of removed votes as well as making better votes as they don't carry the same amount of weight they could result in being more honest, but then again when I come to thinking about it harder it wouldn't work as the majority of PvX ppl are not that experienced :P--√iktor(contribs) 15:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Misery Says Moo 13:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

^ math and common sense both say Viktor is wrong. Median just makes it more likely that sock puppets and circle jerks come into play. Not to mention, what happens if everyone gives it the same a different rating? I'm assuming you'd use the mean, in that case, but why not use it in every case then? ··· Danny Does Drugs 17:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

why would you need to use the mean if everyone gave it the same rating Danny :/? The median value would still work in this case (though I don't like the idea) ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 17:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

ups. Fixed. ··· Danny Does Drugs 18:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

In median the majority decides 100% of the rating, in mean everyone gets to affect the rating, that is the difference. If 50% says its a 5-5 build then its a 5-5 rating using median regardless of what others say, but the flaw in it was to assume that 50% of voters are from experienced players, that is why it doesn't work I did reach that conclusion already.--√iktor(contribs) 05:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

In the median, a single person decides the outcome, the other votes may as well not exist (the median would be all the votes sorted into ascending order of overall rating, and then the middle person's vote would be the value used). The mean takes into account everyone's vote, which makes much more sense. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 11:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

True a single person does decides the outcome in median BUT not any person, it's the most average person and that person is decided depending on each players vote hence each vote is counted equally and of equal weight. It all depends on if you want extreme votes to count more than average votes, if 4 ppl vote 5-5 and one votes 0-0 its all of a sudden just a good build in the current system, and then ppl complain at the admin boards to get the 0-0 vote removed. Hence all votes are not weighted equally as the 0-0 votes brings down the average by 1-1 a build that four people voted 5-5. Isn't it unreasonable to think that build is a 0-0 build unless its four trolls that voted 5-5 or if there were a major change to the build, another possibility is that people reason like this: "Well I don't think it's a 5-5 build more like a 4-4 if I vote 0-0 then it will become a 4-4 build" or "I don't like this build, ok its maybe not as bad as echo mending but I don't think its good enough to be saved here" this reasoning does not work when median is used. I just think that removing votes is worse, it's like saying we don't count your opinion because I know I'm right, I'm an elitist. Although median only works if the majority votes correctly and that is not always the case here, hence using median wouldn't solve anything that being said I think its ok to keep things as they are, not perfect but doable.--√iktor(contribs) 15:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

tl;dr. Also, what happens when there isn't a median? (i.e. Everyone votes differently.) ··· Danny Does Drugs 16:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The system would have to take the next best option (average). FrostytheAdmin 16:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

ups. saw the word "elitist" in block of text and lol'd. you must be new to pvx. we aren't democratic. we're not even communists. hell, we're not even a proper wikiocracy. we're at best an oligarchy led by people who either play gw too much or don't give a damn because all our admins who actually fit the role gave up a long time ago. ··· Danny Does Drugs 16:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Funny thing about the average - it works every time anyway. ··· Danny Does Drugs 16:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

yes as long as you remove bad votes...--√iktor(contribs) 19:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Which is what we have BMs and Admins for. iirc, we have this thing called the AN, too. ··· Danny Does Drugs 19:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware of that. BMs could have been made obsolete if median would have worked as intended since the majority would completely decide and trolls generally speaking tend to be regarded as a minority hence their votes wouldn't weigh heavier than anyone else and their votes wouldn't have to be removed as often.--√iktor(contribs) 19:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, the majority is retarded. ··· Danny Does Drugs 20:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know, I dont know why I keep responding in this conversation :P, hehe I've already stated that it doesn't work due to the very fact you just gave. I guess I'm bored--√iktor(contribs) 20:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The Real Vetting Update has now taken place

^, not much to say, but lets hope for better times! --Frosty Mc Admin 20:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

So what the fuck was the point of all this? Personally, I don't think getting rid of all the terrible theorycrafts nobody gives a fuck about anyway is going to make pvx not terrible, but maybe I'm wrong. ^_^ Thunda 02:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

it's because it's easier to vote a build down then explain why a build is bad. explaining would theoretically make people better, of course, if they weren't too busy defending their shitty theorycraft to the last. ··· Danny Does Drugs 16:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Because we can't be fucked any more. In case you haven't noticed, this is Frostywiki now! :> Misery Says Moo 18:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that the Real Vetting has been updated, how are you going to change it so in the Recent Ratings, a 4.6 doesn't say great anymore? Drahgal Meir 20:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, good point, may need a wikia person to do something about that. --Frosty Mc Admin 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

use Special:Contact and request the adjustments (they're only tiny so i can't imagine they'd disagree to it). By similar token, Special:Myratings needs updating as well =p (remember other/acceptable has been removed) ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 20:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok I have done that, maybe TOR was going to do it anyway, but if not then hopefully it should be adjusted soon. --Frosty Mc Admin 20:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow that was quick! --Frosty Mc Admin 15:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

it would only have been the smallest change =p. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 15:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This place needs

A popular theorycraft/ General theorycrap section on the main page. For like Spirits Strength builds and other crap like that, no examples coming immediately to mind. Saying crap makes me cool amirite? amirite also makes me cool I believe. PvX is boring naow that most the builds are more efficient/fun than funny/fun (don't tell me you've never run Mending wammo with frenzy/healsig for shits.) It wouldn't be that hard to implement, just tag it for theorycraft and vote with that tag in mind. In the notes section just put why it wouldn't be run as a srs build. Builds that are welled frequently would just get the next instance of that build put in the theorycrap section209.136.71.235 03:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

it's been discussed, section would be useless though, keep those builds on userspace--Relyk 06:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that is that only a small portion of wiki users will ever find builds on someone's user space. If you had some kind of "review the theorycrap section before posting a build" rule you might cut down on the amount of repeat fail builds.209.136.71.235 14:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That won't help. People don't read policies (most common one broken is PvX:SIGN. Tons of people start off with multiple images, huge images, bad names , no links...). The build creator will only be aware of the rule after he/she is notified of it on his first build page. --- -- (contribs) (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

tl;dr no u. (Also, we only run 4x Healing Hands wammos in RA to get easy glad points.) ···  18:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Failed attempt at being funny with hard to read text failed Rikk Panda {a.k.a. Benny Lava} 23:28, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Rikk, you're replying to a post that's over 6 months old. Karate Jesus 23:29, 30 January 2010

"both Good and Great builds can obtain this tag"

I think the meta tag policy should be changed to read "only Good and Great builds can obtain this tag". The wording is currently a bit ambiguous. Obviously, this is what was originally intended to be in the policy and this would help clear things up. Karate Jesus 23:08, 30 January 2010

I always thought it was common sense not to post a meta tag until it was vetted. In the majority of cases when people do this things aren't actually meta, but if they are it will take like 0.5 seconds to get vetted anyway. - AthrunFeya - 02:39, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it's not common sense to everyone. And, as you said, most meta builds are vetted within only a few hours, so there's no real reason in adding the build prior to vetting. I'm going to go ahead and make the change, unless anyone opposes. It's pretty obvious that it's trying to say that anyway. Karate Jesus 14:38, 31 January 2010

votes with non-reasons

with our admin roles tweaked slightly, what are the new rules on removing votes with insufficient reasoning. should admins be able to remove votes at any time which do not have real reasoning? if so, should we emphasise this on the voting section of this page? e.g., "votes with insufficient reasoning may be deleted at any time by an admin" - AthrunFeya - 22:59, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

I've always thought we should remove such votes, but I always get "QQ everyone does it" in response whenever I remove such votes. That said, i've noticed said votes being removed (and people commenting on said votes), so i assume people are a bit more "you actually need a reason" now. If that's the case then i'm all for removing them and saying "you're vote /needs/ a reason if you don't want it removed". ~ PheNaxKian talk 23:12, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

I think if we enforced the rule we couldn't really make it retroactive, so all votes as of whatever date need to have sufficient reasoning or they will be deleted as per PvX:VETTING, or something. - AthrunFeya - 23:15, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

We have the same role we always had. We're supposed to remove votes that have no reasoning. I agree with Phen that being retroactive with it would be a waste, but in the future, we should enforce it. It doesn't really matter who whines about it. It should have been done all along. Karate Jesus 23:16, 2 February 2010

I'm pretty much going to do whatever the fuck I want. Incidentally, that won't be much. Misery Says Moo 23:17, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Msg :> --Crow 23:21, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Should we send a kind reminder to all users somewhere to put sufficient comments in? and change the wording on the policy slightly to emphasis they can just be deleted, as i said above? - AthrunFeya - 23:25, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

I can just do another Site Notice for it (did anyone remove the BM one? I forgot about it.), but it's already covered in the policy. I don't know what we'd need to re-write. Karate Jesus 23:43, 2 February 2010

Basically want "votes with insufficient reasoning may be deleted at any time by an admin" pasted somewhere, just to make it extremely clear. - AthrunFeya - 23:48, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

We already have a whole section of "don'ts" for vetting and this one should already have it covered, "A vote must constitute an objective judgment of the build's qualities..." and following. It's not written as bluntly as you suggest, but the policy obviously already covers this. Karate Jesus 15:42, 3 February 2010

i know we already have it (reading skills ftw) my actual point was make it very obvious, so people can see what's going on exactly before complaining (and replying that it's some little side note tucked away in a policy that realistically no new user is going to read really isn't acceptable - be realistic.) - AthrunFeya - 19:11, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as it's already in the policy, just go ahead and reword it however you like. Be powerful! Misery Says Moo 19:13, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Strong lau! - AthrunFeya - 19:14, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

I like voting occasionally. But seeing that I only vote to push a build through trash/testing, my votes are even sometimes lacking reason. I GUESS I CAN START FOLLOWING POLICY. However, would that not mean we'd have to go back through every build ever to fix this problem? -- Big McStrongfist 19:48, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

No, I said we should remind users that votes need to have reasoning but not really make it retroactive (as in only to apply from now onwards, so votes made before this date are exempt) - AthrunFeya - 19:52, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Tbh, in some cases, I really don't want to think of reasons. Like if I'm gonna 5-5-X Shock Axe, I'm not going to say it's incredibly effective because blablabla. Though it takes flavor out of voting, I do admit it improves this site by much. And ohell, just don't be all too zealous about it. --Chaos -- 20:30, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Vetting re: PvP builds

This has been alluded to in the past, but I have not seen anyone suggest it as an implementation.

Perhaps your opinions vary, but my belief is that for at least the 8v8 PvP formats, the only builds that deserve approval are those that are in the meta.

With that being said, the classification of approved builds between good and great are misleading. As it stands, the vetting process results in well-designed builds that are unsuitable in the current meta being deemed "great" erroneously. Additionally, the rating system does not offer the flexibility of adjusting a build's category according to metagame variations.

My proposal is that vetting for builds designed for 8v8 should be scrapped. The great categories for pvp game modes should be reserved for builds that are firmly established in the respective game type, while the good categories hold builds that are seen infrequently, either because they're inferior to what is currently being run (Rt/E Shackles flagger compared to Mo/E HB flagger) or because they're situational enough to be seen only rarely (WoH flagger versus HB flagger).

If implemented, this would make obsolete the meta tag, which is currently not very useful - the metagame consists of more than the bars in the handful of basic team builds; variants that are situational counters should be tagged with it too. Retooling the great and good categories to reflect the relative prevalence of meta builds would serve to make both categories more reflective of what is going on in PvP. --Lemming 12:58, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

We have the meta tag(s. We have one for PvP and one for PvE). This clearly shows what builds are (supposedly) in the current meta. From what i've read you have one of two issues with the tag:

1. The tag doesn't stand out enough so people don't always see it. If this is the case we can always change the tag slightly to make it stand out more (such as change colours or something)
2. Alternativly, you don't think the category(/ies) stand out much on the main page (at a quick glance i don't see any links actually, so I'll make a mock up on the edit copy). If this make a suggestion on the edit copy of the main page (i.e. edit it to how you think t should be) and we can disscuss what we think and implement a solution we're all happy with =p.

As for the the "great builds not being meta" part, some builds don't get their votes changed when the meta shifts. If that's the case just bring it up on the build talk and ask what people think should be done, it might be an archive, or a vote wipe (and then see if it needs archiving).

As for altering the system for PvP builds over all...I won't say i'm opposed to it, but I think some redundancy in the system is a good thing (in this case builds that aren't meta).

As for the "meta tag not being useful" thing, can I ask why you feel that way, i've not seen any point where you've really explained that point, and if we can change that we can avoid changing they system (which is preferable).

If I missed something I apologise =p ~ PheNaxKian talk 13:56, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

I thought PvX only vetted team builds that were on obs first, anyway? ··· Danny So Cute 19:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)