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)
That's what I get for writing at 2 AM - coherence suffers.
There's no link to the meta category on the front page. All you can access from there are the good and great categories.
Going into the great category tells you nothing about what is being run at the moment. Meta builds are lumped in the same category as fringe meta builds and nonmeta builds, with no ability to distinguish between them without actually opening them.
Even when the tag is used, it's m there's nothing indicating that a shackles runner is seen about 10% as much as an hb runner, since the former has been relegated to a fringe meta build.
I've tried the build talk process for revetting some builds (see my contribs). It does not seem like there's much response.
@Danny: before I requested removal, there was a Shatterstorm ranger in GvG good. What does that tell you?
--Lemming 20:12, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

I'm with lemming on this one. As it is now, the wiki doesn't do a good job of reflecting which builds are currently in play. The vetting system for gvg needs to just be scrapped and the wiki needs to appoint 4-5 members of the gvg scene to maintain a list of build pages that document builds, how they're played, and their current prevalence in the meta. They should be responsible for maintaining the category so that it reflects current standards, and would be responsible for moving gvg builds into and out of the archives(which should happen much more frequently then it does now). Essentially we need build janitors for a gvg section, not a vetting system.--TahiriVeila 20:23, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

I also agree, better than current system. p.s LEMLEMLEM ^O^ --Crow 20:50, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Having a meta tag essentially serves the same purpose, and Phen linked them on the main page now, so it should be fine. Otherwise, there's really no point in meta tags. Karate KJ for sig Jesus 21:05, 1 May 2010
just a quick note, I'm talking to Jake (Tahiri), and we're discussing some options, I'll make a sub page with the proposal when we settle on something a bit more solid, and link you all then =p. ~ PheNaxKian talk 21:13, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

I think everyone knows that I support what Lemming is saying. I've been pushing to change effectiveness to metaness since, oh, forever. Also, part of the reason why old meta builds are in Great is because they were vetted in when they were meta, but now that they aren't no one goes back and bad votes them. Misery 21:28, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

proposal here. The changes are summarised on the talk page ~ PheNaxKian talk 22:07, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Pay Attention

Some team builds are being plagued by "teams" of trolls giving rogue votings, incorrectly skewing the natural method of decent builds coming out top. In particular I am refering to Build:Team - The Deep Spiteful Spike & Build:Team - Deep Physway. If one looks at the vote pages you can clearly see evidence of blatant copy paste reasoning. To stop this ridiculous trolling should there not be some administrators who could remove a) the offending votes. b) all of the votes - to go back to square one and start anew. (Small note: some of the offending votes ARE admins and I don't know if their votes can be removed.. ). Someone fix the trolls. --Chieftain Alex 17:56, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

we allow C+P votes, so none will be removed just for that reason. I removed the 3 on the first link, because "not pug-able and needs VoIP" aren't reasons to vote it down, it's a fair assumption that you can make a competent team and that because it's an online game, everyone will have VoIP. For the second build i've left them, I explain my reason on the AN on said builds issue, I see no discrepancy between the votes and their reasoning. If people think the reasoning is wrong, they should do what everyone else does, talk to the voters and convince them that they're misinformed.
Let me explain why admins don't look into vote reasoning to much, we had a system in place which did exactly that (the build master system), but it became apparent that allowing a select few to have that kind of control over a build, lead to more drama then any benefit it created (i.e. weeding out bad builds, pushing good out of trash builds etc.)
Also, yes, admin votes can be removed, they don't get any special "god powers" when it comes to their votes, they're treated as regular users. Any admin can have their vote removed by themselves or another admin if needed, but as i've said, I don't see the need here.
Those votes on Physway, are in no way troll votes, the users feel that way, they explained their reasoning, and their reasoning explains why they voted what they did quite well. They gave it a 3 out of 5, just think about that, that's basically a "this build is 'ok' but 'there's room for improvement'/'better choices' ", not "this build sucks balls and should be deleted ASAP".
We're fairly lax, if people want to come here just to have a place to store builds, that's fine, they have their userspace, for all we care, you can have whatever build you like there and it won't be judged. However once a build is submitted into the build namespace, it will looked at, and scrutinised by people, per this policy. If you feel this is somehow wrong, then make a new section on this page and say what you thinks wrong, and how you think it should be solved. People will discuss it, and things will move from there (that's not to say you're suggestions will be implemented, but we will discuss it and say why if that happens to be the case). ~ PheNaxKian talk 18:29, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
k you've fixed half the problem. if you did look at the second one you perhaps would have noticed the 6 identical copy pastes of Andy's vote. don't tell me people can't make their own reason up. would probably make more sense for a votewipe.. --Chieftain Alex 19:52, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
"we allow C+P votes, so none will be removed just for that reason." " For the second build i've left them, I explain my reason on the AN on said builds issue, I see no discrepancy between the votes and their reasoning.". Life Guardian 19:56, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
Frankly I would think this should inspire the addition of no C+P for votes.--Chieftain Alex 20:06, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
Another butthurt Physway crew member. Yay. There are only so many reasons why a build is good or bad. If someone rates a build, and then you want to give it the same rating for the same reasons, you have to type it out in your own words? Stop being retarded. Andy 20:20, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
In all seriousness have I asked for anything unjust? I do not wield offense against other users that I don't know unlike you. It seems to me, if someone wishes to vote for something in a particular way then they probably have reasoning for it, if you can't raise the effort to hammer your keys in rage to type out a few words of reasoning - why are you voting?--Chieftain Alex 21:05, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
k we know you have mods in your pocket. NPA also.
We allow C+P votes, we've discussed not allowing them before, but general consensus was it's ok, because there's no point in typing out "it's good/bad for XYZ reasons" however many times, just with different wording. As a rule of thumb though, we generally say that if you C+P the reasoning, you should have the same rating as well.
Also, Andy wasn't NPA'ing, I think he merely misunderstood your issue (he though you were specifically complaining about the Physway build because you're on of the users that's defending it like it's the best thing since sliced bread) ~ PheNaxKian talk 21:50, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
No offense phenaxkain; he called me butthurt. I am 100% sure thats a personal attack lol.--Chieftain Alex 21:55, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
like i said, probably a misunderstanding, and if you consider "butthurt" as a personal attack you're in for a shock... ~ PheNaxKian talk 22:04, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
unless things have seriously changed around here, i believe "autistic nigger" is still considered a casual greeting. Daññy 07:07, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
That actually hasn't been said in a while. We need to fix that. Life Guardian 07:14, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
on a completely unrelated note, i accidentally learned how to cross-site script today. i've never really looked into it before, but NoScript threw up a billion warnings when I clicked a link on my own site. apparently all you have to do is make a javascript call inside any sort of link call. Daññy 08:10, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

meta proposal

has been implemented. feel free to start some kind of RfMCs or what ever. Remember the changes only apply to HA and GvG. ~ PheNaxKian talk 22:01, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Good catagory

Many builds seem to be coming close to being vetted that really shouldnt be on the wiki. Most people agree that a build with an overall rating of say, 3.9 is pretty shit. It seems like the argument for slipping something into the good category is just if it works or not. I suggest we raise the minimum rating for good builds to 4 or even 4.25 to stop builds that 'work' but are still extremely ineffective from being placed on the wiki. Builds that are geared towards new players but are only slightly easier while being hugely slower seem to be on the verge of acceptance on the wiki, which differs from the point of the wiki being to store the meta and the most effective builds, rather than builds geared towards new players.--Oskar 22:03, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Speed clears and none speed clears

Recently we've been having some issues with a few builds (specifically the Physway ones). Currently we allow both speed clear builds and none speed clear builds to be submitted, but what do we do when say a none speed clear build is submitted for an area that a speed clear exists for? Obviously you can't trash vote the none speed clear because "it's slower than a speed clear", jsut like you can't trash a speed clear because "It's not PuG friendly" (these are just a few examples, but you get the idea).

So my question is how does the community want to handle this issue? ~ PheNaxKian talk 18:40, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Imo, non SC builds are all good for areas which people are often trying to pug (UW, FoW etc) however, areas which dont see pugging (the deep) have no need of non SC builds as theyre almost always organised groups that are perfectly capable of SCing.--Oskar 18:43, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
I vote for WELLing non-speed clears for an area where an SC exists. There's no point in running a slower build simply b/c you don't want to grind the necessary characters/titles/equipment to run the speedclear or b/c a few players aren't good enough to run the SC builds. If people want to run less efficient builds (or even keep them in their userspace) that's fine, but PvX is all about storing the best builds available. Storing non-SC builds (like physways for any area other than UW) goes against that philosophy of only storing the best builds.--TahiriVeila 18:45, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
^ Keeping non-SCs where SCs are viable would be like keeping various shitway builds for HA (like all the retarded farmways that my leet botting skills took to halls). Daññy 19:13, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Build:Team - PvE Every Area Way NOT A SC

"Save Yourselves!" Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional

Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional

Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional

Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional

Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional

Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional

Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional

Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional

Hey guiz, it mightn't be fast, but it's clearly stated that this is not a SC, 5-5-x plz. --Brandnew 19:19, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of players that don't SC. In fact probably more so than ones that do. There are many instances where guilds that do not SC may want to attempt the areas being mentioned, that would fail miserably using the SC builds. This means there are groups that are not PUGs that don't SC for these areas. Having other options on PvX would be a benefit for those. If PvX only maintained the "best SC builds" only the SC with the current record for a specific area should be allowed.....i.e. no variants....b/c by SC is the best. See how that doesn't work? As for voting/vetting?....I think I recall "Effectiveness" being the criteria not "Efficiency". Remember that there are players that simply don't like SCs, that actually like fighting through things.--NonRegistered
That's fine for them. Let them make their own builds, b/c we're not going to host them here b/c they're not effcieint. And when it comes to PvE, being effective means being efficient since the only thing required to clear an area is SY!--TahiriVeila 19:27, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
Just for clarification..These are the 2 policies that account to 100% of vetting, 80% for "Effectiveness" and 20% for "Universality". .."Effectiveness...This criterion describes how effectively the build does what it was designed for. That is, how much damage does a spiker build deal, a healer build heal or a protector build prevent? How good is the chance to get through the specified area with a running build or to reach and defeat the specified foes with a farming build?Note that this criterion is not efficiency. It describes only the performance of the build, and does not compare this to the player's effort required to use it or to acquire the needed skills and items.Universality...This criterion describes how flexible the build is when used in a situation slightly different from what the build was designed for. This includes the ability to change strategy in case a foe shows unexpected actions, in case an ally does not perform as expected, or when used in a different location than originally intended." Having a non specific definition for "Effectiveness" allows for different views. Are SC's "Efficient" at getting end chests?...Yes..Do SCs have "Universality"?...No...--NonRegistered
Well then the description needs to be changed since the bench-mark for effectiveness in PvE has always been efficiency and P vX has been operating on the understanding that effectiveness=efficiency in elite areas for months if not years.--TahiriVeila 20:34, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
Now let me ask a few questions...What is/is not considered "Efficient? Is speed the only critia for "Efficiency"? Do other criteria (profit/titles) play a role too? If the main goal of a SC is profit, then they are not very "Efficient".--NonRegistered
Efficiency means using skills and builds that synergize in order to finish an area in the most expedient manner. It means using bars that complement one another to complete an area in the fastest way possible. Profit does factor into efficiency as well, because speed means more profit. SC will always be the most efficient in terms of profit, even if they require the sue of pcons. Take UW terraway vs UW physway. While Tway requires the use of pcons, a group can finish UW in 3x during the time it take sphysway to finish once. So while Tway is more expensive on a per-run basis, it generates more overall profit b/c it opens the chest more times than physway. Therefore Tway must be considered more efficient b/c it finishes the area faster and generates a greater net profit--TahiriVeila 20:55, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
(EC)If the build is commonly enough run, like a pug physway or glaiveway, it's pretty much the metagame even if it's not a speedclear. I don't see any reason not to have such "pug-friendly" groups on the wiki since people come here to look at the builds first and foremost. The policy can be flexible up to that point. It's not like we're the ones that decide what build people should or are suppose to run. --Relyk talk 21:02, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
No but we're the people who record the best and most commonly used build. There's no point in hosting a pug-friendly build for an area that doesn't get pugged (like the deep)--TahiriVeila 21:03, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
You're forgetting a couple things. Not all of GW PvE is made up of SCers and PUGs. There are guild groups and "friend list" groups that don't SC........Profit is not simply, [(%chance of rare drop X time X price of rare drop)-price of cons] there are many more factors involved. When calculating profit one needs to examine all variables, not just a few.--NonRegistered
PvX isn't about making shitters feel good about themselves. We're about recording the best builds for completing any given area. You're perfectly within your rights as a gamer to use bad builds to play guild wars. That doesn't mean we have to record them.--TahiriVeila 22:06, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

PvX isn't strictly about SCs either and as such should not be limited to. Having multiple catagories is a reflection of this. PvE as it stands has 6 catagories, SC only being one of them. Forcing all builds into the SC catagory effects the overall helpfulness of PvX. Since GW is not limited to SCs neither should PvX.--NonRegistered

Apart from the OP i've not read any of this section so i might be repeating someone but here goes: pvx should provide for both the pugging market and more skilled guild-teams. This answer seems, at least to me, extremely obvious when you take into account commonly run non-SC builds like glaiveway doa and physway uw. PvX is here to document the game and while we're here to inform skilled guilds on 'optimum' set ups, we're also here to inform pugs of the builds they should load to get accepted into a team and just finish the damn area. As long as builds are used by more then a niche group of the community, they should be documented on pvx (subject to vetting).
It's not that simple though. I think problems are occurring because for a long time we have not simply "documented the game". Instead of pvx users looking at what is currently ran at documenting the optimum, theorycraft has become known because it somehow landed in the Great category (e.g., fow cryway, uw physway, etc). It is necessary to think about this more carefully, then.
I think it's reasonably safe to assume the only areas that are pugged now in game are FoW, UW and DoA (and a few dungeons, but there SC teams make a lot of sense because runs are short and the end chest is the most important part) so i'm tempted to say puggy builds should only exist for these places. It's hard to call really because then you're blocking out builds for terrible guilds like KISS who may occasionally want to do Urgoz, or something. This also reminds me that someone needs to make some hero builds for elite areas... Athrun Feya 23:21, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

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