Talk: News/20080107

PvXwiki was in news

http://guildwars.com/community/news/default.php check 21 June 2007.

If you're looking for a new and creative build, you might want to visit PvX, a resource containing nothing but sweet, sweet builds. The database includes both PvE and PvP builds, and has ambitious plans to improve the structure. One of the currently featured builds is an Build:A/W Shadow Prison Assassin.

Appropriateness?

While I do consider it important to be recognised as a fansite (and ignoring whatever disagreement is happening admin-side), is it really appropriate to plaster this as breaking news on the main page? "ArenaNet ignores PvXwiki" is not exactly the sort of public relations statement that would benefit the community and the potential userbase. I don't think many people (if anyone) knew that you had been emailing ANET to obtain recognition, so the news doesn't make sense to me at least. That's just my opinion, however. -- Scottie_theNerd (argue) 13:04, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Hm yeah good point. I was thinking about it as well. But from what I feel it seems like ArenaNet does not want to see any GW Builds here - there for ignoring us and not adding to official fun site roster. It is backed up by strongly anti build policy on the official Wiki. The News on guildwars.com shows their do know about us - but do not add us to the fan site list.

Not sure how it will effect our user database - but I think community needs to know that all hard work that goes into pvxwiki is not really recognized by anet. gcardinal 15:07, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Has anyone else tried to contact ArenaNet to promote awareness of the site? The anti-build policy on Guild Wars Wiki is understandable, but that (in theory, at least) should not be applicable to Guild Wars fansites as a whole. That ArenaNet hasn't acknowledged PvXwiki on its fansite list doesn't necessarily mean that they are ignoring us. I think that this news announcement is premature and not good for our public relations. I think it would be better if we moved this elsewhere and try to get other members of the wiki community to petition ArenaNet through email to get this site ratified. -- Scottie_theNerd (argue) 15:12, 7 January 2008 (EST)

if you remember the GW:EoTN edition of PC gamer you would realize that a-net isnt very interested in character builds at all..lol... im not sure if this has any relation except for the fact that they might be pushing against any type of meta-game. Beast194(talk) 21:04, 7 January 2008 (EST)

another thing that might be a clue is the Izzy issue, if it could be called that, he seems to want to nerf all popular builds if you havent noticed, again it might be them pushing for a less meta GW. Beast194(talk) 21:05, 7 January 2008 (EST)

I would ignore you too if i were Anet... You published sin casters. Nuff said :) Chris 21:31, 7 January 2008 (EST)

lawlz, but thats not the issue. Beast194(talk) 21:48, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Just as a note, Guildwiki isnt on Anet's list either so it might be that they dont recognise wikis as fansites, or that because this is not regulated in a way that a-net would like (prohibiting racial things, swearing, etc.) it might not want to associate itself with us. --- Ressmonkey (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Although GuildWiki cant be on there cuz they have gold-selling ads, which area against their terms of support. Anyways, we dont need Anet to support our work. All of Guild Wars knows and respects our work, and I think thats enough. --- Ressmonkey (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2008 (EST)

...support our work. All of Guild Wars knows..

So far so good.

...and respects our work...

HA! --71.229 22:09, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Meh, so there are those pve wierdo warriors in RA who call u "noob wikiers" or something like that. Screw them. --- Ressmonkey (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2008 (EST)

And anyone in a guild that considers themselves good, whether they are or not. And anyone who HAs and thinks they're good. And anyone who TAs and thinks they're good. And anyone who gets raped in RA because they Frenzy/Healsigged just in time to catch a BoS to the face. --71.229 22:13, 7 January 2008 (EST)

yea its the russians fault. heh jk. Beast194(talk) 22:06, 7 January 2008 (EST)

No, we beat the russians (or they beat themselves). Now we gotta beat the Iranians, but we just dont know it yet... --- Ressmonkey (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2008 (EST)

we gotta beat izzy first :P Beast194(talk) 22:11, 7 January 2008 (EST)

This is probably because they like most of the community consider our other-pve builds to be an excellent summary of our site, and why this site sucks and should never be used. Idiots on guru threads compound the matter. 11:51, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Well, I was suprised too. During my ban, I was bored so searched the Guild Wars list for sites they /approve, and PvX wasn't on it... Despite the fact that PvX probably is the source of the biggest, best, and most ingenious builds for Guild Wars. Gamependium, which is basically a soft PvX that has no rating system and where you submit crappy builds, is on there though. /sighPvXdeservestobeonthelistdespitewhatArenaNetthinks. --GuildofDeals 17:30, 9 January 2008 (EST)

I think its newsworthy both, from a site perspective and a community perspective. Anet not giving even a terse explanation is not very community-like. As far as why? ...Can't be traffic; they link to many sites which would draw traffic away from theirs...can't be gold ads; Gamependium has gold ads, buy GW char ads, and download GW cheats right on the main page as well as a build voting system ("Most Favorited Builds" :) Competition? They did make their own wiki which obviously comptetes with Guildwiki (I don't know why they bothered...day late and many dollars short) and PvXwiki is probably lumped with Guildwiki. Guildwiki/PvXwiki are well-maintained, current, and very useful sites. The only other more feasible thing I can think of is that they deliberately leave things "for the community to figure out" and this isn't quite what they had in mind for they may see it as something which does not add longevity to the game but rather reduces replayability. --Rolo 19:40, 9 January 2008 (EST)