I think the flaw in the wiki was the vetting system. It made things aggressive from the start. The metagame wasn't understood or developed during the inception of this site, so we kind of needed it, but if we could have always said "Go look on obs, if it is there, good, if not, GTFO" and made that the entire goal of the site, documentation, we could have avoided the whole creative beautiful butterfly syndrome. If we had made it, from the start, that this site was only for documenting the metagame with all beautiful snowflakes kept within user spaces, and some way of accessing builds within the user space reliably, I think the environment could have been friendlier. Unfortunately the PvE meta is harder to reference, but I would say the standard there would be go to the outpost, if there is a bunch of "lfg fagway"s, then it gets an article. RA should never have been documented and I still maintain that section of the site should be removed.

However, given a choice between PvXwiki and Gamependium, the people who built this site made the right fucking choice. It's not like GWW isn't a shithole that burns people out either. We just do it faster. I think if some of the better sysops had come at the same time instead of spread out just after one burnt out they could have gone on longer too. Misery 15:19, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, also, making Tab an admin on the forum site was the worst call ever, but GCardinal nigger raged at the one thing that might have gotten most of the faggotry off of this site, so who cares? Misery 15:20, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

In my honest opinion, if the PvX admins of old had been allowed to simply exercise their right to ban whoever the fuck they wanted, PvX would be a much friendlier and generally much more intelligent place. Mostly because it probably would've kept those admins from getting so burnt out. I don't think you could ever have a friendly PvX, given its nature, but I'm sure it could've been better. Anything else I'd have to say would just be stating the obvious, or re-stating things that have been said a dozen times. Daññy 17:17, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. One thing we might want to do for the GW2 version of pvx would be to make a dedicated split from the beginning between theorycrafts and meta. Make separate categories in the build space for recording the metagame and a category for voting where people can create theorycrafts. I think that will let us be a friendlier community while still storing the best builds out there.--TahiriVeila 17:56, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
">>implying there will be a PvX2"
Wikia won't go out of their way to create the new extension required to create a PvX2 (given it's an extension only that wiki would benefit from) and I don't see anyone putting in their own time and money to develop and host a PvX2 on their own. ~ PheNaxKian talk 18:01, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully we can find someone to host it...not having a builds wiki for the new game would be bad :< --TahiriVeila 18:22, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
If gw2 isn't horrible and someone buys it for me, I could be willing to dedicate time/a little money. But that's two big "if"s. Plus, it wouldn't be in wiki format. It'd be Drupal-based. And there wouldn't be anonymous editing. And I probably wouldn't be willing to support a Theorycraft section. Daññy 02:19, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

I'm an outsider who doesn't know hardly anything about this place other than what people say, so I don't know how accurate this opinion is, but here it is anyway. As there are no examples for the contrary, this is just conjecture, but I believe being a dick place is systemic to a site like PvX, because it's a "PvP" site. (Yes, there are builds for farming and shit, but no one really cares about those, or at least they don't provoke the same level of "drama". I think.) Compared to, say, GuildWiki or GWW, those sites are "PvE" sites - they stay the hell away from all things builds. Whenever there is some article that does deal with builds - for example, to kill Rotscale, or complete some quest - those sections are almost always contested. That's not to say that more inane things like timestamps and signatures are not also hot debate topics, stupid things which aren't worth arguing about -- but, my point is, I think having a focus on builds inherently leads to an elitist atmosphere that discourages familiarity and community closeness. Unless a builds site is solely devoted to "recording" builds, i.e. things that are actually in play, you can see it on obs, other words, if it becomes merely a documentation place of facts rather than a place to create new builds, vote on them, blah's going to end up like this place has.

See also Daññy's post above. If you're going to be an elitist place, then go for it wholeheartedly. Showing any weaknesses, pretending to be nice, trying to perhaps cater to and baby more sensitive people - that doesn't work. It causes problems because such things go against the innate grain of the site's culture. Those few beginning steps are crucially important and set the tone for how things will be forevermore, barring some great revolutions...because PvX started out elitist, it needed to stay that way. Such steps down another road needed to be done years ago if they were to have any meaningful effect. Places like GuildWiki, or even GWW, started out more friendly and so that's a big reason why they are the way they are today. Entropy Sig (T/C) 20:02, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Danny was talking about banning the sensitive types, we pretty much do that on a whim anyway, I think he meant more banning the "fuck you because I am good at the game" types. They built the foundation of elitism on this site, but also trolled the fuck out of everyone. No one knows how that would have gone. Misery 07:42, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Phen's Wall of Text

this whole idea might have worked better as a blog post or something. In my opinion, there were (are?) a couple of issues. The main one that I see is what exactly PvX is meant to record. Most current users seem to think, like Misery said, that it's "meta". That we should store meta builds and everything else should be relegated to the userspace/somewhere less important (I believe we discussed a "Theorycraft" name space at one point). Me personally (I may be completely alone in this view now, but certainly a long time ago there were others who shared this view), I think we should store builds that work and do a reasonable job, and then sort those builds via the rating system, and allow the users to chose what build they want to do.

Let me give you an example. Lets say that we have some stupidly awesome Farming build (for sake of ease I'll just say the old Shadow form builds for this example, but it could be anything in any given area). Under the first view (Meta only), this would pretty much be the only farming build, and the only others would be ones that covered areas this one couldn't, or for whatever reason managed to do a certain area (or areas) better. However under the second view (It does an OK job), we might say "well this one is a different profession" or "requires less (title) grinding to use, so it's worth a small drop in efficiency". Obviously this doesn't translate so easily to the PvP aspect of the game where it's a bit more "X beats Y" and less "I'm using a worse build, but I have more skill to compensate" (at least it is now).

I think we've slowly moved towards that former view of "meta only" (see removing "other" builds and up-ing the rating requirements). I think it was DE who said "I vote thinking the build should be in trash/(other/)good/great so I rate so that it falls into that category". That to me seems like the more logical thing, where as now we see people who go "this build should be trashed, I'm not going to bother giving it an actual rating, I'll just 0-0 it into the ground" (or the opposite). People seem to be forgetting there is a middle ground (and removing the other section just reinforced that view in my eyes).

It would have been better to (as you said on the main page Auron) "lower the standard of quality a bit in order to foster a more friendly community". That to me doesn't say a change to the RV system (or at least it didn't, it would now =p), but instead peoples attitudes towards builds. I think there is of course a means in which we could incorporate the best of both worlds, which would have been this theorycraft namespace, and then having the build namespace specifically for builds which are meta, or builds from the theorycraft namespace that people have gone "yeh this build is awesome" (obviously there would still be some form of vetting in both namespaces so people can still go "this is better than that", but the point is there's a clear "these are builds everyone thinks are awesome and these are works in progress")

While the main issue to me is the vetting system, I do think it spreads slightly into the admin domain as well. Due to the nature of the vetting system, there will, obviously, be incorrect votes, and it's (or was) the job of the admins to correct this by removing them or informing the user their vote is wrong for XYZ. But the issue with that is, we're assuming we have half a clue about the game, and as such have the right to remove it. I know in the past, we did judge RfAs with how good a person is at the game in mind (with the odd exception (Hhhippo and Wiz. spring to mind mainly)), and that we even had the BM system in place. Again though, the Vetting system allows for such subjective views of a build, it makes it difficult for anybody (regardless of skill i'd argue) to say "This is a crap/bad/good/great build because of XYZ", there are too many things that you'd have to take into account. Yes we can say "it uses these skills, so the math tells us it pumps out 5 million doomages a second", but can you take into account every possible little thing you come up against? Opponents play styles and own builds in the case of PvP? What spawns you'll encounter, and how they'll move or react to various situations in PvE (I know you can to some extent, but I'm making a point =p)?

I could keep going, but I'm finding it hard to keep my train of thought any longer, i'll post again if anything springs to mind. /WoT ~ PheNaxKian talk 17:54, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

I do kind of agree that the current voting system makes a lot of problems. People either 5-5-x or trash vote. I'd much rather have a 10 point rating system (so that there's more of a middle ground) or switch to a qualitative rating system where you vote a build either trash/other/good/great.--TahiriVeila 17:59, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
people would still trash/great the stuff. everyone tends to polarize. the biggest issue, imo, is that you can store "OK" builds, as long as those builds are still used. in pve, not everyone has an assassin to vaettir farm with (back in the day), so the e/me was just fine, too. it just has to come down to reason and the willingness to just ban people for being dumb. Daññy 02:24, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

I'm an idiot

I would have to agree with Danny, in all honesty if the site attracted more actual good players and just told the idiots to fuck off it could have worked, but because PvX never really got the higher quality of players to contribute (only a very rare few), it was left with mostly bad players. Bad players vetting builds that good players run makes sense right?

Or of course the documentation way that Misery mentioned would have worked, but the great category was basically that + random Zurrie theorycrafts. Frosty 18:01, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Frostels admits csb. --Crow 21:56, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
Very rare few! Crow so Rare! Frosty 22:33, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Builds on a wiki? No Thanks

Also: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

I'll give you my actual thoughts later (either here or via msn or something). Kinda running out the door with a bleeding lip at the moment.

-- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{Bacon}} 20:07, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Time passes on...

Definately a statement of value worth some amounts of reflection on!

First of all, I hope everyone's doing well - it's been some time since I've popped on to see how things are here. It's great to see that this site still hasn't completely diminished in the past few years, and many familiar names are still contributing actively. That's great to see! While I have not (at all) been keeping up to date with the activities on here on the Wiki, I would just like to say, at least from a fresher perspective, that all the contributors have done a great job in maintaining the state of this site.

A lot has happened since I last logged onto GW; it is without say, that this Wiki continued to evolve, for better or for worse. I see that the BM policy has been retired - while it is not something that I had expected to be appropriate in the first place, I would like to thank all of those who put their time and effort to try and make the role work. Despite its pertained legacy as a "failed experiment", it was a definately a worthwhile experience for the Wiki's users, especially if one takes the perspective of looking past the flame wars that erupted as the result of the implementation of this policy.

Now, as someone who has been inactive quite some time now, I would just like to offer my own perspective on PvXWiki, looking back at all the strides that were made - not all giant leaps forward, but even some backwards, but strides nonetheless.

The goal of a BuildWiki is to document builds. Now, at this pivotal point, is where the general perspectives diverge. A new user looks for a build that suits their particular interest of GW comes pass PvXWiki, and notices that build in one of our monstrous categorization schemes we call "build vetting". Should they:

  1. Look upon that particular build for its exact crypto-template code to load it into their class of choice?
  2. Try to mix & match skills that fit familiar purposes and work onwards from this point?

Should they take the second step, we end up in a position where we obtain a possibly-functional build that may or may not vary from its original design. Therein develops the most fundamental conundrum that users/contributors faced during their time on this Wiki. During our time here, while everyone had differing (often polar) opinions on how to manage our build vetting process, it is within their advocacy for certain advances - whether it's user rights, or build effectiveness - that we have truly developed a sense of duty to push forward our beliefs.

The Wiki continues to strive, and perhaps try to find a "balance" (note that one's definition of balance, in this case, may be much more extreme than another's) between the two main factors of build rating/upheaval:

  1. Maintain a builds database that represents high quality, effective builds that promote good play and effectiveness
  2. Promote comprehensiveness in our build collection while promoting openness to all contributors

It is this balance that many of us try to find. Where does the line get drawn? While numerous policies have been drafted to try and dictate our exact position between these two central ideas, it would seem as if they've all failed.

But it is within these debates, if you look past the trolling, that one would find the particular instance of constructive developments. Past the tl;dr walls of text, and past the spammed lines of "anymore the eviscerate executioners strike spike dont work but its fairly effective very weak against any type of anti-melee and shock is a costly interrupt skill", there is the moment of objective criticism that pushes us towards finding that much-sought-after balance of quality and comprehensiveness.

In the end, it was the conflicting opinions of the active that kept this site alive. While it was this particular quality of the PvXWiki community base that have given the site the notorious reputation that it has within the community, I would no way regard this as a complete failure. Sure, there have been many flame-wars with "urbad" and "lolpvx", underneath that, there is always the intention and push towards greater understanding of the game as a whole.

Time passes on. The "metagame" changes. People whose build ideas that were once dismissed as a joke might suddenly surge into a playing standard. But our regular contributors shan't forget that their contributions, while it may be seen as ineffective or pointless by the many, will have users that take a second glance and try to improve on it.

Time passes on. Eventually, GW2 will come out, with some users leaving, some users returning, some users continuing on in this game. The game will change, and builds will fall our of favour. It is understandable that many will, and have been for a long time, place a personal connection with their work on this Wiki. It is not within the goals of the voters, nor the administrative staff to respect users' wishes of maintaining these builds in the database, but please, don't take it personally.

Time passes on. While many of us have grown away from this game, there are those that have a sense of purpose in keeping this site alive, and continue to try to improve it.

I would like to give my thanks to those that have tried to make this a site of ideas, a site of comprehension, a site of quality. While not all of these ideas are quite entirely fulfilled in the eyes of everyone (i.e., those who play on often will see the pitfalls in quality, and those newcomers will see the elitism), I would just like to commend all those who are continuing to put their time towards improving this site in their own way.

It is 4 in the morning, and I have exams to write. As such, I'm not going to take much time to read over this and make my wording less obscure.

Good luck to you all. And damn those 4v4 reaper rushers. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 08:11, August 10, 2010 (UTC)


I'll name two:

  • GW/GWW decribes the game; there are ownership issues, but they're more severe when you have people defending builds they came up with / are running themselves. Ownership = drama. Having no sense of ownership means a low level of identification with the wiki, so "we'll just do obs builds" means a less lively community.
  • Rating: have a look at how Slashdot rates comments, with more Karma for more "senior" people. Everyone gets a voice, but some people may matter more. Doing this for PvX2 means getting Wikia onboard (or utilizing its article rating system), or setting up a separate server.

--◄mendel► 19:16, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

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