| Line 180: | Line 180: | ||
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.--[[user:VIktor|√<small>iktor</small>]]<small>([[Special:Contributions/VIktor|contribs]])</small> 11:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
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.--[[user:VIktor|√<small>iktor</small>]]<small>([[Special:Contributions/VIktor|contribs]])</small> 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. <font face="Courier New">C:\PvX>Abort, Retry, Panic?[[Image:Panic_Sig_Cursor.gif]]</font> 12:11, 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. <font face="Courier New">C:\PvX>Abort, Retry, Panic?[[Image:Panic_Sig_Cursor.gif]]</font> 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.--[[user:VIktor|√<small>iktor</small>]]<small>([[Special:Contributions/VIktor|contribs]])</small> 12:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 12:39, 2 June 2009
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)
- 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*
- It's not just functionality. As I've said, Raptor farm normal works, but it's not worth it. --
- 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*
- 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 what if it's effective, drops wise and effectiveness wise, in NM and HM?--
- 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)
- 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.--
- 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. --
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. --
- 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 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- Alliance faction farming falls under Farming. Not much we can stretch with that. --
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)
- 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). --
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. -- Jebuscontests 19:47, 2 November 2008 (EST)
- That makes a lot more sense. -- Scottie_theNerd (talk/contribs/complain) 21:03, 2 November 2008 (EST)
- That makes a lot more sense. --
- 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. -- Jebuscontests 19:47, 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? -- Jebuscontests 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)
- Ups, we don't care. New builds only get made with a skill update these days. - Misery Is Friendly
"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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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
- 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)
- 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. ---
- 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)
- 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%.
- (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)
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)
- 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. -
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
- Fair enough, and yes I know, i made the PvE one :) --
- 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)
- 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.--
- Well I hadn't thought it out fully, but I guess meta builds are generally rated higher --
- can i ask how a build being meta makes it more effective? ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 19:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Builds aren't really innovative anymore since people have done everything :/--Relyk 16:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly. Because if something is meta or not already affects if a build gets trashed. We have an Innovation tickbox, that is enough.--
- That's not real vetting, that's categorizing --
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)
- 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)
