FANDOM


SUP--Goldenstar 00:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Never understood why we vet builds anyways--Relyk 00:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I like it, but one question: Has PvX ever CREATED a meta? LifeWikiLOD7 00:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
No build site "makes" a meta, PvX simply documents it. --☭Guild*talk* 00:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
So we've never theorycrafted something that became meta? LifeWikiLOD7 01:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
That's what "Good" and "Other" sections are for. --☭Guild*talk* 01:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
That's why the Great section should be moved to Meta and the Good/Other builds be deleted--Relyk 01:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Nah, Good/Other should stay. There should just be a lot less Great builds. Theorycrafting has a place and that place is the other section. KJ needed a new sig....sig 01:56, 19 March 2009
I wouldn't say that it's the worst thing happening on the site, but we should definitely encourage people having a build sandbox, think about their builds thoroughly, and THEN submit them if it works okay. Right now, the new user simply has no guidance into what to do, so they fuck shit up. I dunno, but simply having a big notice about "theorycrafting" and keeping it to userspaces is probably a good idea. A policy isn't needed, you can simply just WELL bad theorycrafted builds. Benjammn311Sig5 06:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
You can't really tell people theorycraft since they will always play ra--Relyk 09:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

TBH i'd be all for getting rid of the current category system for builds. If it were up to me i'd simply change categories to "Meta-Documented" and "Theorycraft". For theorycraft we'd still leave rating system in, but i'd get rid of the good/great/other system, just give them a hard number out of 5 for effectiveness and utility. If a build in theorycraft eventually sees meta use it can be moved over to the meta buildspace. You can leave ratings on meta section, idrc, but tbh there's not a point. If it's meta it usually is meta because it best deals with whatever the current meta is. My thoughts--Goldenstar 10:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Better idea; Scrap everything that's not meta. --> Archive only builds that fell out of the meta. --> Attract good players to actually keep up with the meta. --> Delete current vetting system. :> Brandnew. 12:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
^A fansite forum could do this. I know we're supposed to have standards, but only providing ONLY meta builds is fucking retarded. It's like a Ford dealership that only sells Mustangs: people come to this sites for builds, not metatracking. I like the "Meta"/"Theorycraft" section idea, as it allows for PvX to fully morph into a metatracking site WHILE ADDITIONALLY having the old way of PvX where people can craft builds and (potentially) make good ones. Benjammn311Sig5 18:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What about shit like the Distortion MB ele, that was not used at all when posted, but look now (wasn't used because it was here but something nH were going to run or something) Frostysig9000FrostytheAdmin 18:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

tbh, there is a lot of meta shit that is just as terrible as theorycrafted stuff. also, not everyone is bad at theorycraft. 128.255.216.144 18:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Do what we normally do: vote-wipe. Or resubmit. Either way, the system we currently have in place for that is fine. As it was said above, if a build that's in "TC" goes meta ingame, then it should obviously be moved to "Meta" with a vote-wipe. Benjammn311Sig5 18:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I propose

We change the "Welcome to PvXwiki, the largest database of Guild Wars character builds!" heading on the main page to "Welcome to PvXwiki, the largest database of Guild Wars meta builds!" per this policy--Relyk 00:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

no, the latter suggests we deal exclusively with meta builds, and as me and others have repeatedly said, the wiki was made for documenting builds, not just meta. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 00:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
It is precisely the fact that we allow every bad tom dick and harry to post bad builds and give bad reasoning to persuade other bad players to give bad sympathy votes to keep said bad builds in the mainspace that we have such a bad reputation. 220.255.7.142 00:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Well people keep referring to this policy saying that pvxwiki should only document meta builds. I don't think the policy should be talking as much about theorycraft as much as failed concepts. Theorycraft is usually based on knowledge and experienced players are involved with such builds imo. And automatically deleting people's builds just because they are failed concepts (which would be given with a reason similar to WELL tag) isn't good for reputation either. I don't understand whether or not people want to only keep builds that should be used, because that leaves around 20 builds for PvP--Relyk 01:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
We could have a new tag denoting the build as theorycraft. >.> Zyke-Sig 01:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
no--Relyk 01:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
there's no need to distinguish builds as theorycraft. We don't need to know if they're theorycrafted or not, we just need to say "yes this build deserves this rating". For all we care they could have Obs'ed it, theorycrafted it, or blown it out their arse for all we care, in the end we just have to decide what rating it deserves, regardless of how it came into existence. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 17:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that there are nearly no theorycrafted builds in great and hardly any theorycrafted builds are even played. What i'm trying to say is we have SOOO many builds that don't ever get played because they're not very good but could work in theory. We need to distinguish between what builds are actually played and which ones could work but don't really see play.--Goldenstar 20:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with theory-crafted builds being documented on the wiki. In any intellectual community, people need the freedom to express new ideas in order for progress and growth to continue. It's about creating a culture in which ideas can be freely discussed, whether they are immediately useful or not. You see this in the real world communities of Physics, mathematics, political science, etc. where not everything must be immediately valuable, but can be build up and extended over time until a useful result is obtained. Clamping down on new ideas because they aren't immediately great only serves to further starve the community of innovation. Bulldozer1 Captain Bulldozer Don't TELL me that you're right... prove it. 20:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

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