Build talk:Main Page

From GuildWiki

test

[edit] Template redesign

I'm not touching the build and vetting proposal changes for now - but I did have an idea that I think would simplify things regardless of if/when a new procedure of policy is resolved.

It has to do with updating the "untested", "tested", and "unfavored" tags to make them more informative about the contents of the attached build. The idea can be viewed here:

Build talk:Main Page/redesign templates

I believe that this proposal will greatly simplify the whole build categorization thing, making the process easier for all to use - experienced and new contributors alike. I would like to hear others views on this as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:16, 6 January 2007 (CST)

UPDATE: I have prototypes of the revised untested template on that page now, and can load up prototypes of the tested and unfavored templates as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:22, 9 January 2007 (CST)

Simply put: that's awesome. It's definately better than having people ignore the categories completely. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 15:53, 9 January 2007 (CST)

[edit] IW guide

I think we really need to make an Illusionary Weaponry guide. the IW builds are getting put of hand. not as bad as the 55 builds, but still bad. just a summary of what IW does, and the useful skills, and mabye a few example builds should be enogh to get rid of most of the IW builds.--Coloneh RIP 20:18, 7 January 2007 (CST)

A well-written guide is 10 times more useful than a plethora of build articles. Do it. — 130.58 (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2007 (CST)

alright, i guess i will start a guide in my userspace soon. check my works in progress section for a link soon. ill need help on this one.--Coloneh RIP

17:39, 8 January 2007 (CST)

Two points:

Definately a good idea.
There will still be the builds, being the staple Me/W and Me/A ones.

Just like we have iconic builds for the MM's and 55's. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 15:55, 9 January 2007 (CST)

Well, i still think its a good idea. but im not going to write it, im done with builds on wiki. It just dosnt work and im staying out of the builds section from now on.--Coloneh RIP

14:40, 13 January 2007 (CST)

Hell man. Half the builds could be swept up in guides like that, and I like it. Maybe not half, but a bunch.--

Windjammer 11:40, 5 February 2007 (CST)

alright, against my better judgement, im back. I might right this up sometime soon.--Coloneh RIP

22:11, 21 February 2007 (CST)

We also need a barrage guide. so many variants, almost exactly the same.--Coloneh RIP

17:31, 3 March 2007 (CST)

[edit] Hero Builds

I think in the pve section there should be a hero builds section. Like builds that are optimal for heros and that dont require much of telling what the hero to do. These would be pve builds. Hoax —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.227.111.11 (contribs) .

With a few tweaks, you can just use a Tested Build. You'll have to shuffle around the order of the skills, so that the AI can use them correctly, but other than that, the AI is pretty darn good. (Curse you, Olias the Minion Master, stop ninja-ing my corpses! Grr.) And of course, interrupting at the speed of code is pretty darn nice. BarGamer 17:40, 12 January 2007 (CST)

Template for Gate of Madess:

Psychic Distraction

Optional

Cool, huh? — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 17:53, 12 January 2007 (CST)

Lol thats awesome Rapta, very clever.

In all seriousness though, in response to the original question, as part of Barek's new template tags for builds (Build talk:Main Page/redesign templates), and my proposed redesign of the builds page (User:BrianG/Build Page Redesign Proposal 1), we have proposed a PvE Hero build category. Builds would not have to be submitted specifically for this category, but any build that has been tested and found to work well for heroes could be tagged appropriately to help people find builds for their heroes. The proposals are just about complete and I'll be posting more info about this shortly. -- BrianG 19:39, 12 January 2007 (CST)

Yes. But in all reality, any build we have can be modified into a hero build; if the main template isn't already good enough to use. I really don't see heros getting any specialized builds other than interrupt builds, as those are the only things that heros excel at in comparison to a human player. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 20:05, 12 January 2007 (CST)

P.S. Rapta, have you tested that build out? Does the hero just spam it till he runs out of energy? You should put it on an elementalist and max energy storage. :) -- BrianG 00:22, 13 January 2007 (CST)

Rapta, I agree, most builds can be modified to run on a hero, and I'm not suggesting we should encourage builds designed specifically for a hero, as they should also work on a real person. All I'm proposing is that any build we currently have on the wiki that will work successfully on a hero without much modification should be tagged so it shows up in a category of hero builds. From my experience, the AI is not that impressive, especially when it comes to enchantment management or proper use of skills with conditional requirements, so there are definitely many builds that won't work well. This system can be used as a flag for which ones do or don't. -- BrianG 15:58, 15 January 2007 (CST)

I'm still of the opinion that we shouldn't have hero builds, but should rather document skills hero's use well (and unwell) as part of the skill section of the site. --

Oblio (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Oblio, I agree with the general idea you've suggested. Why not write up a brief proposal for it? I think it would be helpful. The AI really frustrates me, my elementalist sometimes uses Arcane Echo on Stoneflesh Aura instead of his elite, that really upsets me. :( -- BrianG 12:36, 17 January 2007 (CST)

@ Brian, I usually just leave him out for most of the journey, and when we get to Shiro, I lock him onto him. All you need to stop Impossible Odds. =P — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 16:27, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Well, that's true for human builds too: they all can be modified and derived from each others, so that's a moot point. Also if your builds are just tweaked humans builds, I think that you don't have yet grasped the efficiency of a "designed-for-heroes" build. There are several on guru that are just plain scary in a PvE or PvP environment, and are unplayable for humans because they rely on target selection, insta-casting, knowing energy levels of others, etc. 83.159.9.78 03:03, 3 February 2007 (CST)

[edit] Proposed Build Page Resdesign

Hi all. My proposal for a redesign of the Build Page can be found at Build:Main Page/Build Page Redesign. This has been designed to work together with Barek's new templates and categories (discussed above and found here), to categorize builds by their intended purpose and arena of play. Please review this proposal and let me know if there is opposition or support for this design. Thanks! -- BrianG 11:24, 15 January 2007 (CST)

I support it. ^_^ --

Vallen Frostweaver 12:45, 15 January 2007 (CST)

Agreed =) --Midnight08

(talk|contribs) 12:57, 15 January 2007 (CST)

Yup, me too :) Since builds has its own main page now, I figure its about time to clean it up. (Not a fifty five 13:46, 15 January 2007 (CST))

I'd also like to support this proposition. Looks very nice. Doom Music 14:11, 15 January 2007 (CST)

I realize we discuss and come to a concensus on things of this nature but I'm just curious, how many people liking a proposal like this does it take before it's implemented as I've never really seen something of this nature come to fruition before and would like to know if there is some kind of standard procedure.-- Vallen Frostweaver 14:26, 15 January 2007 (CST)

Vallen, good question. I'm not sure if there is a specific policy on this, but I assume that as long as you post a proposed change publically and do not meet any serious opposition, and show a reasonable demonstration of support, that should be sufficient. Although I suppose it is also helpful to have at least one of the admins on board so that any high level changes can be performed or green lighted. -- BrianG 14:57, 15 January 2007 (CST)

Admins don't have any more say on the contents of articles than regular contributors - although in the act of enforcing policy, we frequently arbitrate or decide if particular content is a violation of policies or guidelines (if you ever disagree with an admin's actions, you can take it to another admin - such as LordBiro - he has the power to grant and revoke admin access).

So, basically - even if no admins commented on this, it would still be okay to implement if there are no objections from the community a few days after the proposal. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:39, 15 January 2007 (CST)

Give it a few days. people will notice by then and if they don't care to comment then its as good as a yes vote ;) However, keep in mind we'll have to have people willing to actually organize the whole mess into the catgeories.(Not a fifty five 15:15, 15 January 2007 (CST))

I agree with NA55. On regular articles, it's safe to just make the changes. On high visibility articles / templates / etc, I think it's usually best to let several days pass before implementing a change. If no unresolved objections, it's usually safe to just make the change at that point. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:35, 15 January 2007 (CST)

Yeah I agree, at least a few days is needed. If there is any debate, a longer period might be needed. Luckily for us the build section is at a low point, and Barek's templates seem well designed and easy to use, so the task of organizing the categories shouldn't be too painful. I for one will volunteer to assist. If we were talking about this a month ago though, I'd be running and hiding. ;) -- BrianG 15:41, 15 January 2007 (CST)

Cool. Thanks for the info guys. Glad to know I wasn't totally out of it. If no significant number of admins have voiced their opinions in a few days time I'll drop a link on said talk pages to let them know it's here.--

Vallen Frostweaver 15:42, 15 January 2007 (CST)

Barek, on a related note, I was thinking the easiest way to implement this (assuming no opposition) might be to begin the categorization of the builds using your templates first, and then change the build page once a considerable portion of the builds are categorized. That way we don't have a build page linking to categories with no entries. Let me know if/when you decide to go ahead with the template plan, and I will try to help out with the tagging. -- BrianG 15:47, 15 January 2007 (CST)

See my comment above. On this sort of thing, if no one objects after a few days and it follows current policy, then admin comments are optional. The only exception are pages that are protected so that only admins can edit them - which is usually only done on articles/images/templates/etc that have been targets of vandalism, or which could greatly disrupt the site if edited.

On implementation - you're probably right - easier to implement the templates first. I posted last week that I think the templates can go live Jan 17th if no objections are made, allowing nearly a week for comments on the final versions - thus far, no unresolved objections (just minor comments which suggested tweaks, which have been addressed). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:54, 15 January 2007 (CST)

Sounds great, I'll prepare for the 17th (*exercises mouse finger*). That should allow plenty of time for feedback regarding the build page. -- BrianG 16:05, 15 January 2007 (CST)

Two days left :p (I like the proposed page, if anyone cares/wonders) -Auron

18:27, 15 January 2007 (CST)

Okay, its the 17th. I think its safe to try it out. Doom Music 15:58, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Doom Music, Barek has implemented the template tags today, and I think most of the builds have been categorized at this point. I was thinking we should let things settle on that for a day or 2 as loose ends are tied up and we make sure everything is good. This will also give people a bit more time to be aware and respond. Anyone have a suggestion for a date to update the build page? -- BrianG 00:44, 18 January 2007 (CST)

Okay, I'm proposing tomorrow, January 19th, for the update to the build page. Should be relatively simple and painless. If there are any objections please let me know now. -- BrianG 14:39, 18 January 2007 (CST)

Go for it!--

Vallen Frostweaver 14:46, 18 January 2007 (CST)

Ah! So much better! Yay!-- Vallen Frostweaver 11:38, 19 January 2007 (CST)

Yep, looking good. Now let's see if the categories help with the whole builds thing. --NieA7 11:39, 19 January 2007 (CST)

I hope so. The only minor change I made was to remove the "All PvP" and "All PvE" lines. I realized these sections were not working as I had intended, and were just displaying a list of the subcategories. Since those links are already displayed on the front page, it was redundant. Barek, is there any way to make parent category pages display all the pages in all the sub categories? Thats how I had imagined it to work, in case people want to view all the untested pvp builds without having them filtered by arena. -- BrianG 11:54, 19 January 2007 (CST)

It requires a modification of the templates to add each build to the appropriate category. The problem is that the main templates are generic, not specifying PvE or PvP. I suppose that we could add the categories to the build type tags, as those are in their own entries. Personally, I would prefer keeping the current "PvE builds" as parent categories without individual builds; but we could create new ones such as "All PvE builds" as a listing of the individual builds.

I'll look at it at lunch today. The change is one of the proposed changes on the list of refinements - feel free to comment on it more over there. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:04, 19 January 2007 (CST)

Barek, sounds good to me. I realize the template does not currently specify PvE or PvP, but was hoping the template could calculate this based on what icons were included. Although I admit I have no idea how that part works so I'll leave it to you to figure out whatever way it can work. The functionality is the important thing for me, your suggestion to maintain the current parent categories and create new ones for this functionality is fine. My suggestions would be "all untested pve", "all untested pvp", "all tested pve" and "all tested pvp". I've simply commented out the table rows for now, so they can be easily added back in later. -- BrianG 12:12, 19 January 2007 (CST)

[edit] Main Page

Just wanted to say it looks much more organized, nice work!--Lord Oranos 14:44, 19 January 2007 (CST)

I would like there to be a link to view all tested builds, like the way it was organized before. Keeping everything else is fine, but adding that link would be very useful. Sometimes I find some builds might be classified as a PvE and TA build, but I find it could also perform just as well in RA, or it might not be a good build for TA. Jktstance 15:29, 19 January 2007 (CST)

Those lists do exist at Category:Untested builds and Category:Tested builds; they're just not on the page at this time. There is a current request to split those lists by PvE / PvP, you may want to weigh into that discussions at Build_talk:Main_Page/redesign_templates#Remove_auto_.22Tested_build.22_and_.22Untested_build.22_usage_from_the_tags. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:38, 19 January 2007 (CST)

Having so many narrow categories is restricting. At the very least there needs 2 b a link to all untested/tested builds somewhere on the main page. --Hyrim 16:01, 19 January 2007 (CST)

The proposed change at the site I linked is:

This proposal involves splitting the current Category:Untested builds category into seperate lists of "All untested PvE builds" and "All untested PvP builds". The same type of split would be done for the Category:Tested builds category.

While smaller than the existing full list of all untested, it would only have two sub types, not super narrow. The advantage is that the existing lists on the current build page could have the tables on the current build page already have the words "All" in appropriate places to insert lists of all PvE untested, all PvP untested, all PvE tested, and all PvP tested. So, it's easier to incorporate into the build page layout. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:06, 19 January 2007 (CST)

The cats for all PvP and PvE tested and untested are now in the table, and the categories populated. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:22, 20 January 2007 (CST)

[edit] Additional Build Section

I just want to say that I think there should be an additional build section for early PvE builds. This would help people just starting out who don't have the resources or required level for most of the builds on Gwiki. These builds shouldn't usually utilize elites and should still be pretty good. Mabye make two early build sections. One for lvls 6-10 and annother for lvls 11-17. Just a suggestion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.252.104.6 (talk • contribs) 17:54, January 22, 2007 (CST).

gasp* Actually help newbies! Heretic! —Blastedt — 18:14, 22 January 2007 (CST)

This is a bit problematic as there is a really limited selection of skills, and the selection is completely different for each campaign. I'm not opposed to it, but it would need some contributors who really would go through the available skills and make some builds. --

(talk) 19:23, 22 January 2007 (CST)

I'm also concerned that our current vetting process won't treat these types of submissions kindly. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:39, 22 January 2007 (CST)

Yes, I think this is a good idea, but it should be more of a guide that could be designed by profession and by campaign, and not submitted through the normal builds section. It wouldn't make sense to attempt to get something like that vetted. I can see how this would be useful for beginners, but it really doesn't take long to get up to full level and its pretty easy to find a build to get you there. So I'm not sure if it would be worth the amount of effort involved. -- BrianG 00:16, 23 January 2007 (CST)

[edit] Conceptual error in the vetting process

I first want to say that the new build pages is really nice. Much more organized, excellent work.

Then about the vetting process; The glaring error in the concept is the broken feedback loop. A build is an iterating process that involves testing. In that iteration it also must exist a measurable goal. Now, the wetting process as it is today does not have a working feedback loop, nor does it have any measurable goals to iterate the builds up against. It does not even have a well defined unmeasurable goal, ie. what is the overall goal of this build section?

The end result is a series of subjective votes that does no good to improve the builds, and even worse, does no good to reach the overall aim of this section, because there are none.

I don't have time at the moment to elaborate this, but one improvement would be to stack similarly aimed builds up against each other, and then vote on which ones does the job best. This could be done continuously and/or the votes can be reset every no and then. Doing this, it will also be much easier to express an overall goal of the build section.--Siemens 01:43, 23 January 2007 (CST)

The Build section simply lists builds. Judging by all the angry users zealously defending their questionable builds, one goal for an author is to have his/her build make it to the Tested category. The way things basically work (provided there is sufficient participation from the communtiy) is a build is drafted, submitted to the community, and evaluated. If it is found unfavorable, it goes to the unfavored section. If significant changes are made to the build (i.e. taking the community's criticism constructively and altering the build accordingly), it can be re-submitted for evaluation. The Build section is in place to i) document builds that are now, or at one time were, a coomon occurence in the metagame, and i) act as a resource to assist in the development of new builds. I guess that is the ultimate objective of the build section; to provide a comprehensive resource for the research and developement of builds in GW. - Krowman 01:54, 23 January 2007 (CST)

OK, here is is a bit more of what my point is. Since there are no clear cut objective definitions of what/how a good build should be (and it probably never will be), then the next best obtion is to stack builds with similar aim up against each other. This requires:

Sections grouped after what the objective of the build is.
Points given according to how well the buld fullfill its objective.
Subcategories under the more general sections.
The 1-3 builds with most points will be vetted builds while the others will be recycled (put back into a candidate category).

For instance, there could be one section called PvE healer with subcategories like general PvE campaign Healer Monk, general PvE campaign Healer Ritualist etc. Now, the basic objective of a general PvE campaign healer Monk is to be able to heal the party satisfactory in all quests and missions to complete the PvE campaign, and that's it. That is the only thing the build shall be given point for, not by some particular skill that will function marginally better than the one chosen etc. An exception is if the skills used are taken from the very end of the campaign, then it would be placed in another category like Perfect PvE healer monk or something. Anyway, this is just an example.

The other thing is the feedback loop. The three builds with most points per vote will be vetted. If there are only three builds or less, then those will be the vetted because there aren't any other around. Negative voting shall not be possible, it is only destructive and does not enforce creativity, nor does it enhance feedback. If a build is OK (or much less than OK), and you see that it will work better with some changes, then submit that new build and call it XXX ver 02 (or something like that, or some other name if it is very different) with an explanation of what makes that new build better. Then according to the theory of the survival of the fittest, that new build will eventually rise up to the top. On every build page there shall be a notice saying: please test and vote, or similar. Four main benefits will come as a result of this procedure: 1. The best builds will much more likely come to the top. 2. The bad build will most likely fall down very quickly. 3. The good ideas within bad builds will survive and not fall into a bottomless pit like today. 4. It enhances creativity and positive attitude, not the opposite (negativity, peer pressure etc) like today.--Siemens 11:36, 23 January 2007 (CST)

I sure think this is asking for trouble... there are times when a ZB/prot can be a better healer than a WoH/low energy spammer- it's so situational, but you would have these builds "compete" (nevermind that a canthan healer has no access to ZB)? I think you would get more of what you want by including a ratings system and ranking system like online stores use for goods. But then sock puppetry comes into play. I'm inclined to keep everything as it is for a few weeks to fully realize the impact of the new category/UI changes, then revisit voting proceedures. --

Oblio (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2007 (CST)

I agree, I'm not sure if this system will work exactly as described, and it is a big change from where we are now, but there are some good ideas here. I agree that there must be some way we can move away from negative voting, and instead try to get everyone to collaborate on the best build for the job. Instead of voting against each other about whether the suggested skillbar should be favored, maybe people should need to place competing positive votes on several skillbars as to which one they think is the best for that specific role. The only problem is that there are sometimes many different ways to perform a role, and sometimes which one is best depends on a lot of different circumstances. So it would be difficult to decide how many builds would be allowed to exist for a certain role. Its a step in the right direction, but its very likely though that we'd end up in a similar situation, except now people would be arguing over what roles should exist and whether there is room for different approaches to that role. -- BrianG 12:34, 23 January 2007 (CST)

Yes, I see the problem that we may end up with as many categories as there are builds since each build do something special or do it differently for some special situations etc. I think this question really only can be answered by defining what the overall and ultimate purpose of the build section is. My personal opinion on this is that it should probably not be a place for people to put their personal builds like some repository, at least not exclusively. A repository needs only some counter or meter that say how many people liked the build, and does not need to have any general aim towards anything. As it is now, it works for all practical purposes as a repository, but mixed with personal highly subjective opinions that equally well can favour totally useless builds as it can disfavour very good builds due to lack of a working feedback mechanism, lack of positive competition between similar builds and lack of generalization and objectivism in the purpose of the categorization of the build. A common repository would therefore work much better than the situation is here today. It would give much better feedback, and will be much more accurate, as to what is a good build and what is a bad build. I think that a good starting point would be archeotypes. Archeotypical healer monk, archeotypical axe warrior and so on. For descriptive purposes (like describing the game of GW), this would cover a lot, at least for PvE. Then add some different PvP builds for each category there, runners etc. For the more exotic highly specialized builds, then maybe an ordinary repository is a better choice, because those builds does not really do much in describing GW. They are ment to do special things in special ways, and often the purpose is doing it different in special circumstances, not neccesarily doing it best in a more general context.--Siemens 16:36, 23 January 2007 (CST)

Thats funny, I had actually written a lengthier comment giving examples of how this type of system could work, and I had the word "archetype" in there a few times. But I ended up editing the comment down cause I was rambling. But anyway, I totally get what you're saying. In fact, I think something like this could even be worked into the "non-build" area of guild wars, where each profession page has links for each of its archetyped roles, with an example build decided on by the community. This would be a great help to beginners, who don't know a ranger's purpose in a group for example. But on the other hand, I really enjoy having a "repository" of build ideas to read through, both for fun and also to stimulate my own creativity. And it doesn't bother me that the build section doesn't have a clear purpose. So maybe both of these things need to exist. But the big problem with any ideas like these is that in order to achieve them you need consensus from everyone, which can be a difficult and time consuming process. So my current position is to just try to make the best of the current situation and see how that goes for awhile. With just completing the build page revamp, I'm taking a break from thinking about ways to improve the build section for at least a little while to see how things settle, but I'd be interested in talking about these ideas more in a little while. -- BrianG 22:30, 23 January 2007 (CST)

Indeed. GWiki is in no position at the moment to make such a massive shift. What you describe is a valid concern, Siemens, and most of the answer thus far (and for the forseeable future) is that this is a Wiki, and not a build-oriented website. Moreover, due to the fact that the actual ratio of build testers to non-testers is grossly imbalanced, a continuous feedback loop - while indeed a most effective vetting process - is simply out of the Wiki's resource limits as of now. Like BrianG says, most of us here just try to run with the system as is, for now...use it as best as it can be used, and deal with the faults when they come up. But there probably won't/can't be large sweeping changes to the general policy for quite awhile. Lastly, you should be glad you haven't got any dissenting opinions yet, there are wide-ranging disputes over the entire build section in general, so implementing a new policy that is widely approved of (in relation to Builds) is tricky at best. Entropy 02:56, 24 January 2007 (CST)

I seriously doubt that any more than 5-10 % of the builds here are actually tested. I think this is just one of the results of the broken feedback loop together with the lack of direction. Most of the builds are only interresting for a very few persons at any one time, maybe only for the author himself. I mean, this is a game, it is made for fun, and a large fraction of that fun consists of creating a skill template that do the job. However, if the categories were narrowed down and divided into objectives or tasks of the builds instead of professions, i think this will change drastically. Runner and farmer builds are two examples of good categories. These builds are tested and used a lot because they are made to do a general task that most people see usefull. I also think archetypes would be good categories (we already have complete guides for MM and pet rangers for instance). Archetype builds will be used by many, and therefore also tested by many and they will describe the game instead of creating game content, which is basically what many if not most the other builds do. Warriors may be divided into 4 sub (archetype)categories: Axe, hammer, sword and tank. A tank is also a somewhat more general concept and therefore should probably be a category by itself. I think this way a feedback loop will work, because a general interrest is created.--Siemens 03:55, 26 January 2007 (CST)

I"m with you on the bit about the tank. I have a monk and an assassin that tank stuff. (Though I suppose they would probably be better under a "solo farming" category.)

Is anyone against this idea? If not, time to start brainstorming categories and implementing them. --Armond Warblade (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2007 (CST)

I have no problem with additional categories; I just don't want to see so many that such a list becomes unweildy. We also need to consider ease of use and navigability of the page. I could easilly see 20+ new categories coming from the above discussion. I would rather take slower steps and break out major categories first - refining the granularity on each step rather than more than doubling the list all at one time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:07, 26 January 2007 (CST)

[edit] Logged in as...

Does anyone else see themselves logged in as Hyprodimus Prime when they open the builds main page? --Barrage

See GuildWiki:Software_and_technical_issues/Bugs#Logging_in_as_other_users. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:02, 23 January 2007 (CST)

I was just pointing it out, thanks. -- Barrage

[edit] Previous featured builds bug...

For the previous featured builds links, both the PvP and the PvE take you to the PvE featured builds page.

Well, not quite. There only used to be one featured build, for either PvP and PvE, so there is only one page for all past featured builds. I wasn't sure how to handle this when the build page was split by PvE and PvP. Should we create 2 "past featured build" pages? Or should we just stick both featured builds into the same page when we change them? Anyone have an opinion on that? -- BrianG 12:17, 24 January 2007 (CST)

Is that page auto-generated? If not, when we change featured builds do we add them to the past featured builds page (that seems like a bad idea)? Anyway, the programmers answer is to start 2 pages and have a single page that archives builds done before the split. But that is stated without understanding the way people use "past featured builds". If people are digging in there for other "good idea's", then we probably should go to the effort of creating seperate PvP and PvE pages. Just IMO. --

Oblio (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2007 (CST)

No it is not auto-generated, and yes I believe we are supposed to update it when the featured build is changed. Only tested ones though, not untested. I suppose its main use is to make sure we don't re-feature the same build a month later or something. I suppose splitting it to 2 pages is the best answer unless there are other suggestions. Maybe it could be kept on one page with 2 sections or columns? -- BrianG 12:54, 24 January 2007 (CST)

Boy it would be sweet if we could somehow auto-generate that page. Maybe through use of templates+categories? Something like {{featured build|20070124}}. I'm far out of my league with these ideas though. I need to learn a lot more about mediawiki. --

Oblio (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2007 (CST)

Hmmmm I think I know about as much as you when it comes to categories, but it sounds like that could work. -- BrianG 13:33, 24 January 2007 (CST)

A template/cat could create a central page for the builds; but it wouldn't show on the category page the date when it had been a featured build - you would need to click into the article, and from there the template could show a tag someplace in it that identified the date when it had been featured. It would also need to be decided where in the article to place the tag (banner at top or bottom, or an info box on the right or left). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:45, 24 January 2007 (CST)

Thats true, the date would not show on the category page, so maybe this is not an ideal solution. Any other ideas? -- BrianG 14:33, 24 January 2007 (CST)

[edit] build vetting

Should hav a link to GuildWiki:Build vetting procedure somewhere in the builds section --Hyrim 18:49, 28 January 2007 (CST)

Done. Good idea. :) -- BrianG 01:17, 29 January 2007 (CST)

[edit] New bug?

Before I go reporting this as a bug I figured I'd see what others thought. I clicked on "All PvE" under the "Untested" heading and saw a list of the untested PvE builds. That part is fine but when I clicked on a letter (from the alphabet list at the top - let's use "R" in this case) it listed all untested builds and not just PvE. For example, when I clicked "R" Build:R/A Expert's Daggers came up on the list (as well as others) and it is clearly only labeled as a PvP build. I think removal of the alpha list will probably fix any further problems but otherwise, a new alpha list that is linked with only PvE and a new one for PvP may be in order for those 2 "all" pages. Suggestions?-- Vallen Frostweaver 07:54, 29 January 2007 (CST)

I just modified the Category page, see this diff. I think it should work now. I haven't checked the other categories, they might have the same problem. I wonder if this could be simplified somehow to get the category name from the article within which it is included? <LordBiro>/<Talk> 08:24, 29 January 2007 (CST)

Thanks. I just did the same to the PvP as it was doing the same thing. If I see anything else amiss I'll either fix or ask for more help.--

Vallen Frostweaver 08:59, 29 January 2007 (CST)

Looks like all the "All" categories weren't broken up into PvP or PvE separations so I fixed it to apply tot he page it was for. Thanks again for your help LordBiro.--

Vallen Frostweaver 09:04, 29 January 2007 (CST)

No problem, Vallen, good work! <LordBiro>/<Talk> 09:05, 29 January 2007 (CST)

[edit] Build copies and deletion

For complicated reasons best summed up as "i didn't follow a reasonable standard of care", I did some administrative work to Build:N/Mo 55hp Solo Necromancer not knowing that Build:N/Mo_Solo_SS_Necromancer existed (they are the same build essentially but the previous one is unfavored and the second one is favored).

A couple quick questions....

1. I have since walked the "what links here" pages of the unfavored build to change non-user/non-talk links to point at the favored build. If that needs discussion before I do that kind of thing in the future, please say so.

2. Should we be throwing delete tags on things like this (the unfavored duplicate)? I've read argument on this point in the past on this page- did policy come of that? (my current feeling is that deletion is a bad idea, but we need to not link to unfavored builds if possible (from guides, etc.)

2. The redirect points at the unfavored build. Is it reasonably to change redirects based on build status?

Thanks. -- Oblio (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2007 (CST)

[edit] Moving the ALL cats to the bottom

Good idea Rapta, I had thought of doing this myself but didn't know what everyones' opinion would be, and then I forgot about it. I support this change, it makes more sense and should encourage people to use the smaller cats first. -- BrianG 12:17, 31 January 2007 (CST)

I also like the "all" cats at the bottom. But, just a minor detail ... users have no choice but to use the smaller cats. The "all" cats don't have tags in the untested or tested boxes - they're just summary categories that combine the contents of all the other smaller cats of that game-type together. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:27, 31 January 2007 (CST)

Barek, I see what you mean, but I think by "use" Rapta means when they are browsing builds, not when they are submitting builds. Hence putting the "All" at the bottom to encourage users to browse by category. -- BrianG 12:47, 31 January 2007 (CST)

I usually see the "ALL" cats as just a place for us regular contributors to keep the categories maintained and such, rather than being the place to go through looking for builds to use. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 12:54, 31 January 2007 (CST)

[edit] Vote striking

Hey back on guild wars/guildwiki. Just read yet another build where literally none of the voters tested the build. It seems like people are shifting to the no voting without testing standard (but not actually doing it in practice), I was gonna go through some of the builds and start striking out votes of OBVIOUS non-testing like:

-(Not a fifty five 19:54, 31 January 2007 (CST)) This can't POSSIBLY work, skullcrack wtf? (Not a fifty five 19:54, 31 January 2007 (CST)) Other builds of similar types are just much better, you've done nothing that build X can't execute more relaibly. (Not a fifty five 19:54, 31 January 2007 (CST))

etc. etc

Time and again we're always making policies that are like "Cool lets do it!" and nobody does it, including the people that say it. (Not a fifty five 19:54, 31 January 2007 (CST))

You can't start striking out votes. The urrent wiki policy allows people to vote without testing. If this irritates you, please take part in the endless discussion on changing the wiki build policies. --

(talk) 20:02, 31 January 2007 (CST)

No it doesn't...? Isn't the rate-abuild now even have do not vote unless you tested in BOLD? (Not a fifty five 20:06, 31 January 2007 (CST))

It doesn't matter what the RaB says as long as there is a policy. The policy hasn't been changed and will probably not change soon. --

(talk) 20:14, 31 January 2007 (CST)

I think they modified the text in the RaB so that people would actually test the builds, but they can't force people to do so. The wording is misleading, but I think that's the point. --

(talk) 20:15, 31 January 2007 (CST)

Hmm.. I think we should change the RAB then since most people see that more than the actual policy. (Not a fifty five 20:17, 31 January 2007 (CST))

I've also looked at the policy page and it hasn't been updated in eons. It doesn't even say how many votes would make a build tested/untested. Mind if I go through the archives and add the one or two things we have agreed on? (Not a fifty five 20:20, 31 January 2007 (CST))

Feel free to discuss on the talk page of the RaB template. Btw: Would you please indent your comments. It is done by adding one or more colons ( : ) at the start of the line. Always indent one time more than the user who you are replying to. --

(talk) 20:21, 31 January 2007 (CST)

Like it matters when there's only two people talking :P (Not a fifty five 20:22, 31 January 2007 (CST))

Indenting makes the conversations easier to read for those who want to read it later. --

(talk) 20:24, 31 January 2007 (CST)

There were a set of changes done to it a while ago - including fixing that text. Most of the other changes were disliked, so all or the changes were reverted. I think they should've kept the change to the "testing" text in it, even when reverting the other changes - not sure why they didn't - no one had objected to that particular change. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:25, 31 January 2007 (CST)

Just so I have this right... this is the only policy on builds right? May I add at least some minor things from the archives like it takes three extra votes either way to change a builds status? (Not a fifty five 20:32, 31 January 2007 (CST))

Okay nevermind, missed the vetting procedure link (Not a fifty five 20:40, 31 January 2007 (CST))

I juut want to make sure that you understand how wiki policies work. No one, not even an admin, can just go and change them. A discussion and agreement is needed first. --

(talk) 20:45, 31 January 2007 (CST)

Okay I made a really minor change to rate-a-build just "Please test before voting... to testing is encouraged but not mandatory" or whatever word it was I used. (Not a fifty five 21:13, 31 January 2007 (CST))

[edit] Zergway

i know this seems weird, but can someone please post the Zergway Build? i tried the guru forums but some ass face closed my thread saying to run m own build........ w/e. may the unavoidable flames begin, but i dont mind just as long i learn the zergway build =P Echo ftw 21:41, 31 January 2007 (CST)

o.O they closed your thread for that? weird. What's zergway I haven't played gw in a month (Not a fifty five 21:45, 31 January 2007 (CST))

zergway is 3 paragons and 3 warriors and is considered the new IWAY. the douches over in guru just arent freindly. i love wiki, there is allways someone nice. so im gunna go use my old guru account and spam threads just piss admin off =PEcho ftw 21:48, 31 January 2007 (CST)

The three paragons are spamming regeneration chants while the all of the warriors have "fear me!" with them. Oh, and what keeps you from copying that stuff from television anyway? ~ Nilles (msg) 00:34, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Search the guru forums. And for future reference, observer or http://gwshack.us — Skuld 03:47, 1 February 2007 (CST)

its not on the guru forums b/c everytime someone asks for it an admin with an incredibly emo avatar named Nurse with a wound closes the thread. i got banned last night because i spammed the fourms in rage =P. anyway... thanks for the suggestions Echo ftw 14:39, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Can't help the feeling, but I guess they were right to do just that. ~ Nilles (msg) 14:57, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Wow, build suppression on Guild Wars Guru. I guess there's a reason I've only used it on the test weekends. VegJed 02:02, 3 February 2007 (CST)

They are afraid of it being abused like IWAY. I don't think there is anything to worry about that, since IWAY was very easy to use where as Zergway isn't quite so easy. Here is a build in my user space that is a sample skill setup.. Sample Zergway --Lania Elderfire 01:44, 4 February 2007 (CST)

Teh nerf. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 01:50, 4 February 2007 (CST)

[edit] Hero Builds take two

So, one tested, two untested. We don't need this category, we can just have a guide. =P — Rapta (talk|contribs) 16:42, 1 February 2007 (CST)

While I don't necessarily disagree with Rapta, I would suggest that its a bit soon to be making such judgments. I think the section should be given some time to develop before anything is done one way or the other. Lojiin 16:46, 1 February 2007 (CST)

The thing is, a normal section would have 60 in there by now. This section is just out of it. General builds pretty much cover it, as heroes can run those build competantly anyways. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 16:47, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Perhaps so, but hero usage is also relatively new. It also could be viewed from a usefulness perspective as people can come to the wiki looking for builds specifically for their heroes. It might also be useful to tag some of the existing PvE builds for that category if they can be tested for usage by the AI. Lojiin 16:48, 1 February 2007 (CST)

The AI runs most builds just fine. I'd think if a build didn't work on a Hero, it would be brought up there. Also note how many individual skillpages have specific notes on talkpage about Hero usage. I just don't like having a Hero builds category, considering all the stupid "Hero" builds have been posted lately. Entropy 16:50, 1 February 2007 (CST)

For the record, the hero section was created based on requests for such a section, but I'm not personally tied to it if people decide it is not useful. The idea when I added it was that it could be used to tag current builds based on whether they worked well for a hero, NOT so much for the purpose of adding new builds to it, as Lojiin suggested. However I haven't personally had much time to go through and do this, and its apparently not been a priority for other users. If used in this way, the hero section would be something that grows gradually as users flag certain builds, as opposed to growing quickly based on new submissions, so I do think we should give it some more time to see if it may become useful. -- BrianG 16:58, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Ah, I understand now. If that's the way it is meant to be used, I have no argument. Sorry Brian. Entropy 16:59, 1 February 2007 (CST)

No problem. I do see it as a bit problematic if users take the existence of the section as encouragement to try to create builds for that section, but perhaps this can be handled by unfavoring the builds, or explaining to the submitters of these builds that the purpose of the category is to flag builds that work on real people but can also work on heroes. I'm willing to admit that it may not be worth the trouble but I'd like to give it a bit more time. -- BrianG 17:02, 1 February 2007 (CST)

It's really up to the user to see if a build works or not on a hero, rather than it be up to us. We've already chosen the build primary profession, secondary profession, attributes, skills, usage, variants... do we really have to bother to decide whether a build works or not on a hero? It's sort of unnecessary, in my opinion. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 17:06, 1 February 2007 (CST)

And not only that, users have to take into consideration how the heroes are being used in general. Users can simply send all of their heroes/henchies into two mobs at once, get wiped, then come back complaining that the build "didn't work". It's not really a task we can deal with. And with proper use of heroes, really, anything can be used. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 17:07, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Yeah these are all good points. Although "we" and "users" are really the same thing, I figured it would be helpful for we the users to keep track of which builds we found useful for heroes. The main problem I am having though is that I am usually too busy using my own skills to pay enough attention to how effectively a hero is using a build. And the fact that you can't see how much damage they are dealing is an additional problem. Anyway, like I said, I don't feel strongly about it either way, but considering many users requested this feature, I think we should give it more of a chance, or at least hear from more people about it before making a decision. -- BrianG 17:58, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Didn't only like... 2 users want it? =P — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 21:15, 1 February 2007 (CST)

I'm with rapta, we don't rly need a hero builds section, a guide, if indeed a very lengthy one, is all that's needed. Hero builds are just like any other working build with the exception that one or two skills need to be changed due to the hero AI's stupidity. It's pretty redundant, they belong on user pagers. And honestly, we're just barely managing normal untested, would people seriously want some of the focus shifted to some lame "here's the build I use on my pet" section? (Not a fifty five 09:23, 2 February 2007 (CST))

..zzZ

This user is long winded in his replies and often rambles on beyond control so watch out...

I don't know if removing it is a good idea. I mean, my archer Hero works wonders with a general interrupter build and olias does great with a sub-par MM build but when I slap the fevered archer build on my archer hero she can't figure out the proper enemy to attack/hex and when or what order to use the skills as it takes a lot of decision making to make that build work properly. So there are some builds that work and some that don't but perhaps the untested category is removed from Hero builds or the hero builds section is better described. I like knowing which ones work for my heroes and which ones don't and I won't be able to tell all the time from a guide (though I guess so far I'm noticing decision making is poor but timing and non-synergy use skill set-ups work best). BUT, I've often supported the idea of a guide for each of the common roles for each profession and the builds be moved elsewhere with a format change. Though I know that isn't the topic it still should be taken into account on my previous hero build comments here. Overall, what's wrong with having them anyway? They aren't full like the normal builds sections and they don't require much maintenance. Why not have it there? Some want it and those that don't use it won't care that it's there. Some things to think about. If the section does stay then I'll start testing the builds that have been tested (for Rangers of course *wink*) and add a hero box to it or if they don't do well, leave a note about how heroes can't handle it. Might be worth mentioning if heroes can use the build in the build template page too if this section stays. Or it can be added/checked after it's vetted.-- Vallen Frostweaver 09:38, 2 February 2007 (CST)

In response to Rapta, yes I think only 2 or 3 people requested it on this page, but I also saw requests about it in other discussion pages. It is possible that I overestimated demand though. I do agree with Vallen's comments though that heroes do seem to use certain builds poorly and certain builds well, so it seems like it would be useful to have some way to flag builds like that. But it doesn't really need an untested category, as that just encourages people to submit builds specifically for heroes. What if we instead had only a tested category, and moved this to the "Misc" section, with an explanation that it is intended only for flagging existing tested builds that work well on a hero? -- BrianG 11:18, 2 February 2007 (CST)

I'm for that.--

Vallen Frostweaver 11:22, 2 February 2007 (CST)

The point I'm sort of trying to make is this: we simply ignore Hero builds altogether (that's up to and including Tagging builds). It's just too complicated and stretched procedure, figuring out if a build is used properly by a hero or not. Equipping heroes with General builds is also completely up to the user to decide whether a hero would be suited for a build at all. Simply put - leave hero builds out, since it's unnecessary. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 16:18, 5 February 2007 (CST)

I lean against the hero category myself, but we should have something on skills that hero's don't use well. E.g. I haven't tested it in a while, but my Koss used to NEVER use Dragon Slash, even when it was the only skill on his bar. No comments about that on the skill page. Personally, I think such things SHOULD be part of the skill pages, but in the template? on the page? not sure- either way, there is much more sensitivity to changing things on skill pages than there is in builds. --

Oblio (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2007 (CST)

My Koss spamms Dragon Slash, with a normal build. Doom Music 18:53, 5 February 2007 (CST)

That is certainly what I would hope for. --

Oblio (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2007 (CST)

Rapta, I do see where you're coming from, it is difficult to determine how good the build is, and its largely up to personal preference. I won't dispute it if people want to remove this section. I do think we need to decide how to document the skills that are not used effectively by heroes though. There are certain skills that are definitely not used properly. -- BrianG 19:52, 5 February 2007 (CST)

That makes even more sense. I could see the Hero builds section leaving if there is a new == Hero Notes == section added to skills. It could describe if heroes use the skill normally, rarely, never, or have trouble combining it as intended. For example, I know that from recent posts on the talk page, Heal as One is rarely used by heroes whether for a heal or a pet res, thus it's generally a bad choice for a hero unless you plan to click it for them. If no one knows how a skill works for a hero then it would be easy enough not to include a new section about it. Only add the skill note to those that have tried it or something?--

Vallen Frostweaver 07:32, 6 February 2007 (CST)

[edit] Builds Affected By Recent Update

As many may know, many builds may have been affected by the recent update. But this is still a testing weekend. The changes, even though ANet has said they may become permanent, have nerfed perhaps a few of the Tested builds. However, at least until the weekend has concluded and the new updates are made, I'm calling for users to stop posting "NERFED!" on every build that was affected. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 23:25, 2 February 2007 (CST)

I full heartedly agree. Nothing is final, and even when it is, I don't see it appropriate to cry "Bloody Nerf!" I'm sure some builds will be toned down, but new votes may be necessary to determine if these builds are still viable.

I also would like to archive those builds that may be nerfed instead of throwing them in the junk bin. Doom Music 23:41, 2 February 2007 (CST)

Not sure where to ask.. but are the second testing weekend changes permanent? If not, which is my guess, than why the hell are all the skills changed? on the wiki? (Not a fifty five 00:33, 3 February 2007 (CST))

They're permanent in the sense that "we think these are the refined updates from the last weekend", as from what's being said by ANet. Testing weekend. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 13:44, 3 February 2007 (CST)

Bearing in mind that these changes are as permanent as any changes in a game like GW would be, it's probably time to bring in that build change template we worked out a while ago. Damned if I can remember what it's called though :\ --NieA7 19:23, 3 February 2007 (CST)

Got it, discussed/agreed/used back in Archive 3. The template is Template:Build update, which'll dump builds in Category:Builds that need updating. --NieA7 13:07, 6 February 2007 (CST)

[edit] Minor build policy changes

Just a coupla things I think everyone can agree to. Two of these are from a deceased talk from guildwiki talk:builds made by NeiA7 which has been pretty much dead once builds got it's talk page. I'm only showing the ones that xeeron liked (and not ones already implemented), because they're in fact the only ones I liked too :)

-Tested builds renamed to favo(u)red builds.
-A template "requires checking" to any tested build (I'm not wafting through 1000 unfavored builds) where a skill has been nerfed/buffed at any time, excluding temp changes like this weekend
-Tested/unfavored builds would now be able to to reenter untested as a middle step if the vote begins to sway. Once the votes are equalized (x favored to x unfavored) it is then reassgined to untested. (Not a fifty five 23:46, 2 February 2007 (CST))

Just some feedback to the respective points:

Wouldn't change much, IMO. I prefer to have the "good" builds as far away from the "bad" builds category name as possible.
Too many templates.
Sort of what I've been thinking of gunning for. Simply put, if unfavored votes begins to gain up on tested votes by X number of votes (lower than three), the build would have to be re-tested.

Just some ideas. Just to expand on the last point, probably if a build has the same number of unfavored as tested votes, it would be moved to untested, rather than the "3 up 3 down" with the tested builds as well. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 23:56, 2 February 2007 (CST)

[edit] PvP Farming Builds

Just an idea here. This is actually two idears under one heading.

How about a single page for all the silly "I'm really hard to kill but don't do anything else" RA PvP builds. Subjectively, the builds are next to worthless. OK. So occasionally a W/R using all the evasion stances will end up one on one with another meleer and win the match for his team that way, or an E/D will just sit their and stay alive against another team that has no interrupts or dazes until they all get tired of it and just quit. Typically they are all worthless though. However, it doesn't change the fact that for what the build is, they are good. Plus if a page could be made for them it could be explained on that page why the builds are typically not any good to use. These builds are a part of GW and Gwiki should document them IMO.
What about team builds and builds that are used for farming faction but are not good at dependably winning? I can't think of an example of an individual build like this but I suppose one that was a bit gimmicky, very powerful, but easily counterable would be such a build. Maybe somthing like the above heading ,with the being hard to kill builds, except it is somthing that will generally kill a lot but are so easily countered you don't expect to take them for 10 consec. For a team build, Jagged Bones teams are an example of this. You don't expect to really win the big match with that build, but it will easily steamroll enough stuff that it can just be used to quickly farm fame and faction. I think builds like these should also be on the wiki.

Windjammer 11:38, 5 February 2007 (CST)

Sorry, sounds useless to me. Doom Music 12:45, 6 February 2007 (CST)

"I'm really hard to kill but don't do anything else" RA PvP builds . In all sports there are strict rules against being too defencive and/or not offencive enough. There is a reason for this: Boredom. I think what you are pointing at is one of the major flaws of this game, but nevertheless a flaw that could easely be fixed.--Siemens 00:39, 7 February 2007 (CST)

To point 1:bleagh, so what oif they're good at tanking. If a build is rly good at sucking we don;'t need it ;) Point 2, perhaps :) After all, we do include some famous ones like that, notably IWAY. It's not fantastic, but it works for fame farming. (Not a fifty five 11:31, 7 February 2007 (CST))

I don't think a category for the second example is really needed; but it seems reasonable to place a note into any build where it is applicable. It could even be done as a template, to keep the note consistent wherever it's used. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:34, 7 February 2007 (CST)

[edit] Skill Page Links

Newer players can find it useful to see a skill used in order to get a feel for it. The closest we can get to this on the wiki is to link to tested builds from the skill page (bottom of page).

There is some tentative support for this from the group I play with, what sort of procedure is required to get this officially considered?

Discussion here

[edit] Sort by Classes

Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I didn't see anything skimming the archives. It seems to me that, if not instead of the current system, there should atleast also be pages organizing builds by Profession, with links from the Quick Access page as well. Whenever I'm looking for a build I tend to go to the closest approximation category and then looking for the Profession in question, alphabetically. I suppose I'm proposing Links from the Build page to a page for each Profession, and then have that page sorted by different uses. For example, if I'm looking for a monk build, I'd click Monk, then have a Farming, PvE, RA, TA, HA, etc. section assembled the same way the current page for General PvE Builds is divided by letter. I'll go try and make a mock page for that, now, though I'm not very comfortable with GWiki syntax. Mortius Medici 18:46, 11 February 2007 (CST)

Alright, here's the mock up. Just grabbed a few of the different categories as examples, I'm visioning all of them, not just PvE, HA, RA, and Farming. Mortius Medici 18:57, 11 February 2007 (CST)

Anything like that would require manual maintenance, and be prone to errors. The current categories are already sorted internally by profession, so this would just be redundant anyways. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:08, 12 February 2007 (CST)

I only suggest this because whenever I'm looking for a build, it's usually for a profession in my mind, rather than a specific sphere of the game. Unless I'm in the minority with this, doesn't it make more sense to align the build organization with the thought process? - Mortius Medici 08:49, 12 February 2007 (CST)

No, Barek pretty much summed it up. If you're looking for builds for a specific class, you just have to open the several categories and look under the letter for your class. Re-organising the builds by class is really too much efford. I understand that you have the need for such list, but I really don't find myself in your position very often. ~ Nilles (msg) 11:20, 12 February 2007 (CST)

If you only care about the builds by profession and not by intended purpose, then for tested builds I would say just look at Category:All tested PvP builds, Category:All tested PvE builds, or even Category:Tested builds. Comparable categories exist for untested builds as well. Those categories are all sorted alphabetically by primary profession. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:33, 12 February 2007 (CST)

That's fine, then. I'm aware of how to find builds for a given class under the current system, just wanted to propose an alternative. - Mortius Medici 14:55, 12 February 2007 (CST)

[edit] Build Templates

Many top PvP builds that have separate articles here all follow basically the same template. Case in point: Mending Touch Cripshot and Burning Arrow Ganker in GvG builds, and most ranger builds. They all have something in common, namely:

plus a money elite, a condition preparation (commonly Apply Poison) and a resurrection signet. I think many of the monk builds have many same skills, too. Wouldn't it just be easier to put up a template for each build and a primer on how to play the build generally?--Spawn 06:39, 15 February 2007 (CST)

[edit] Vote: Transition of builds

Anyways, everyone seems to support this view that I talked about, so I'd like to call a vote here. Six votes on pages people usually dont vote anymore on seems a bit silly to me to change a builds status.

A)No change. Builds need still require 6 votes to have any change of status once assigned to tested/untested, skipping the step back to untested.

(sign)
(sign)
.
.
.
B) Builds need only 3 votes against/for while in tested/unfavored to re-enter untested status. e.g. a 9 for 6 against while in tested needs only to have 3 "against" votes to drop back to untested status.

(sign)
.
.
.

C) Builds need only 2 or 1 votes against/for while in tested/unfavored to re-enter untested status. put the amount of votes needed by your sig

Not a fifty five 10:44, 20 February 2007 (CST) 1 vote
--Lania Elderfire 11:27, 20 February 2007 (CST) 1 vote
(sign)
(sign)

Please, policy changes are not to be made by votes. A wiki works on consensus. GuildWiki:Policy shows how you policies should be handled. ~ Nilles (msg) 13:48, 20 February 2007 (CST)

right right concensus and all that :P So we have a little box that says discussion below the vote :) votes of course are allowed for informational purposes regardless (Not a fifty five 14:45, 20 February 2007 (CST))

[edit] Discussion

Reason for suggested policy is stated above. People have changed the status of builds with less than the 6 required so many times anyways so the fact that their is support beyond me is pretty much established. People rarely vote on already vetted builds, so this change in policy allows people to bring more questioning and testing to a build they consider below/above par without having to highlight the build in "featured builds" which isn't even an uption of unfavore dbuilds anyways (Not a fifty five 14:53, 20 February 2007 (CST))

What what? What's going on? What is Transition of builds? Can someone fill me in please? :x (T/C) 14:50, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Basically voting goes even after builds are approved or dissaproved. this would allow the process to be more fluid after a build reaches its designated area (Not a fifty five 14:53, 20 February 2007 (CST))

This refers to the "3 up, 3 down" rule for vetting, right? And after that you need another 3 up or 3 down - 6 total - to change build status. Is that what is being questioned here?

(T/C) 14:55, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Kinda. This referes to only AFTER a build is has reached tested or untested. So it is possible with the current system to end up with a unfavored build with 7 votes for and 5 votes against, if initially it had received 0 for 3 against. The change suggested is that once it reaches 3 for to 3 against or even less it reverts to untested again rather than stay unfavored. Same goes for teste builds(Not a fifty five 14:57, 20 February 2007 (CST))

Hmmmm I see...I can predict a substantial amount of upheaval over this, with many tested builds going back to scrutiny. I'm also predicting an increase in bad Builds getting to Favored status. So...no thanks. It is a good idea in democratic principle but I don't think it would help the Wiki out of the build section quagmire (mostly).

(T/C) 15:00, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Well the point of this is that, currently, builds are supposed to be in a continuous vetting process and they are not in reality. There are some pretty lame tested builds that got shuffled in by one person voting followed by two more who agreed and it;s almost impossible to remove them even with massive approval for their removal. Likewise for unfavored. It's not meant to solve the build "dilemma" but I think its a harmless plus is what I'm saying(Not a fifty five 22:07, 20 February 2007 (CST))

I just think that if the favored and unfavored votes end up being equal after being vetted or unfavored, they should go back to testing. Why should a build with 7 votes against and 5 votes for it stay in the vetted section? Especially when vetted builds are supposed to be a compilation of the best builds in Guildwars. --Lania Elderfire

23:28, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Drop democracy altogether. And remove build submission. Harsh, I know, but it has come to this for a reason, the current system lets for lots of builds of a user's own creation, but aren't notable to be put on a build namespace. So right now it can either be full-on 3 up, 3 down voting, or remove voting altogether. Increasing vote limit doesn't do anything. — Rapta

(talk|contribs) 22:07, 21 February 2007 (CST)

Eh thats what I say but I'd rather if only very experienced peopel were allowed to submit buils. I liek that lack of democracy better :) (Not a fifty five 03:29, 22 February 2007 (CST))

[edit] starting off site build forum

Well a lot of people don't want original builds because 90% of the people who post them suck. So, my solution is rather than completely eliminate the builds section and original builds is to keep documented builds on the site and original ones in a forum I'm making. It is of course going to be "elitist" cause I don't won't it to be full of crappy builds. That's what gwiki namespaces are for :)

Anyways, the rules will be you have to have 400k faction to submit a build or you can submit the build to someone with 400k for an "okay" to submit it. Not that anyone even around 100k faction cannot make a build, but if you can't find one of the several peopel with 400k+ to okay it, chances are very high it is below par. You need a mere 50k faction for voting to ensure we don't get people who spam spells while under backfire and then say the build sucks.

Also since this is off-wiki, you can see "Ooo I made this build I rock!" and you will also get credit for making the build if you did not have 400k faction and had to get an okay for it.

Anwyays here's a sign up for those who wanna participate:

Not a fifty five 07:06, 22 February 2007 (CST)
You won't see me annoyed much on this Wiki, if the build sucks, I just hit the "back" button. Nevertheless, this is a good idea. Doom Music 19:07, 23 February 2007 (CST)
~~Good Idea but I think 400k is a bit harsh, A person could be great at pvp and making builds but not play as much and as a result have low faction.--Sefre 19:58, 23 February 2007~~ (CST)See Below--Sefre 23:18, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
(sign)
(sign)
(sign)

[edit] Discussion

Note:The forum is being created anyways and without change to the above stated rules, so this is just for you to express your views on it :P Also, what correlation would be allowed between the forum and the wiki? (Would a "elitist forum approves this build!" tag be allowed if original builds are kept on wiki e.g.?) Not a fifty five 07:22, 22 February 2007 (CST)

Also, what mention of the forum would be allowed on wiki? If original builds are kept and the forum has a link on the site, it'll basically amount to "Post good builds there, post crappy builds here" which is obviously not okay. (Not a fifty five 07:23, 22 February 2007 (CST))

And how do you intend to enforce the voteing/submitting rules? Are you going to require a screenshot of thier faction page cause that could be duplicated without much trouble.

Second, a good portion of the non elitist pvp comunity I've played with find the so called elitists annyoing and cocky, I don't think a seal like that would help a build.--Sefre 08:48, 22 February 2007 (CST)

well.. if it isn't without trouble can you provide me with a screenshot of your having 1.6 million faction? (Not a fifty five 08:56, 22 February 2007 (CST))

If you could reply without a crappy attitude could you please? I brought up a reasonable issue and I have as much say on this page as you so. Take some freaking critisism.--Sefre 08:58, 22 February 2007 (CST)

??? No I'm serious. You said it's not without trouble.. and I'm pointing out it is with some trouble. To the point where I don't think anyone would do it just so they could submit a build. As to the elitism in gw, that is true some people are annoyed with it. I don't see why. It's more like separating teacher and student. Would we want 5 year olds writing bills for congress? I think we'd throw the bills out without looking at them, and I think it's embarassing that people would allow it. Sure you might get one 5 year old genius, but you would get 15,000 who aren't that are disrupting the process. This is how I view the builds section. It's obvious that people do want some elitism or there would be no vetting of builds, just builds. The unwikiness of "elitism" is what I think causes lack of support for something liek this, which is why I'm making the forums. Also, what I REALLY don't get is that the current system is so bad people are thinking of having no original builds whatsoever. Are people saying they'd rather have no original builds than builds thought up by only experienced players? Not a fifty five 09:47, 22 February 2007 (CST)

(heh, and if they did duplicate their faction screenshot they must really think their build is good anyways -.-)(Not a fifty five 09:30, 22 February 2007 (CST))

1.6 mil. would be to obvious.... http://img80.imageshack.us/my.php?image=modifiedwe2.jpg theres a odd shape on the 4th 0, it looks fine in photo shop though and its happened the second time I uploaded too. Any casual observer woudln't notice anything, and im sure there are people out there who would do what I did.--Sefre 17:59, 22 February 2007 (CST)

Wow.. how long did that take anyways?(Not a fifty five 20:17, 22 February 2007 (CST))

In any case that's my problem since it'll be my forums I guess. It isn't hard to tell who lied about faction after a while (Not a fifty five 21:03, 22 February 2007 (CST))

I spent like 5 minutes trying to figure out the why 4th 0 was showing wierd in web browser, re uploading and what not. But about 1 minute to move the numbers around and clean up the edges--Sefre 23:06, 22 February 2007 (CST)

About the 400k True people with even 50k can make a good build. Actually what I should prolly do is say anyone with 50k-150k can post without approval but anyone with 400k has the right to immediately remove a build with the agreement of another 400k. And removal would only be made if a build "reaks" not if e.g. the remover thinks one skill is questionable. (Not a fifty five 23:08, 23 February 2007 (CST))

Serious admin-ship granted to anyone who's donated enough of their life to PvP? It seems like a high liability for abuse. Even approval with another "400k admin" doesn't seem right. It's like our voting system here with the +/- 3 Ratio, except the only votes that matter are the 400k-users votes. And somebody said earlier "easily edited" (by Photoshop or whatever means), sounds like an extreme liability now. I've got 150K, I've only been playing for 6 months. I think I know the difference between a good build and a bad build.

Bottom line, make admins, but don't make every 400k an admin. --Doom Music 05:01, 25 February 2007 (CST)

I'm probably going to simply make myself the only admin to start out with, and have the other experienced members be required to answer to me if they believe a build needs to be ousted. (Not a fifty five 05:09, 25 February 2007 (CST))

Heh, I'm UAX, does that give me special powers? I've got enough faction and scheduled games, that, give it a week or two, I'll be chapter 4 UAX too. It's not the best system, to be honest.--Silk Weaker 05:17, 25 February 2007 (CST)

Sorry but what are you talking about? :( (Not a fifty five 05:21, 25 February 2007 (CST))

So anyways is there little support for this a) because the forum isn't made yet? (busy, mid-terms, guild creation) or because people don't like the idea?

Also I would like to here more on what connections to the site the admins deem appropriate. What I think would be a good idea is give a link right on untested builds simply for an experimental stage for the wiki to try it out. Then if it works it can be linked simply from my talk page or if the support is massive (unlikely) then original builds would be posted only on that site. (Not a fifty five 04:29, 6 March 2007 (CST))

Faction is easy to get. Rank shows experience only. Old champ points are worthless. Doh :P — Skuld 07:00, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Eh.. rank really doesn't.. I'm rank one and was doing much better than my rank 9 partner monk in a gvg battle, and some top 100 people have 0 rank. Besides the faction bar is a "no noob" thing, which I think anyone with 400k is not inexperienced. (Not a fifty five 20:43, 6 March 2007 (CST))

Anyways, last try to get attention, I'm going to simply put a link on untested and see what happens with the administration tonight I suppose. (Not a fifty five 20:44, 6 March 2007 (CST))

Hmm, I think you should make the site not by ppls Fac, but by how well ppl contribute. I am sure that some very good builds on the wiki were created by ppl who hve less then 50k. It just doesnt seem like a balanced system to me... just an opinion though. ~Readem

I'm sure there aren't :(. 50k means you have a vague idea of what skills are in the game and probably don't know 1/3 of them even by name. You should know not only how your build acts, but how peopel counter it which nobody <50k can do. I'm considering having a "build brainstorm" that anyone can contribute to. Kinda like stubs on wiki.. only made in a way so people would actually use it >.<Not a fifty five 01:59, 8 March 2007 (CST)

People can be de-adminned. If someone with 400k+ faction turns out to be an idiot, he loses his "powers." It's not a hard issue. People who are idiots generally show it quickly. Anyhoo, a dictatorship-style Forum is probably the best way to go; it's easily the most efficient, and much easier to moderate than a Wiki (what with not having to deal with AGF, YAV and all those hug-a-tree type policies). Go for it. -Auron

02:08, 8 March 2007 (CST)

[edit] Offsite Created

[1]

Here's the forum I've talked about above, has profiles and introduction complete, sample build to be added.

"400k+faction" has been a eliminated as a factor for showing experience due to screenshot abuse exampled above. Titles are now solely used, and gladiator has been reduced to min of 1 rather than 2 to reflect this, rank reduced to 5. (Not a fifty five 14:18, 8 March 2007 (CST))

Is that forum for real or just a test? If it is for real I think you should add FotL/K to one of the titles needed to be an experienced user, say rank 1 or 2. Also, is that for PVP only? If it isn't it'll be hard to determine whether a player is good or not at PVE (for the profiles thing). -BurnEmDown- 15:31, 8 March 2007 (CST)

5 rank.....? I personally hate hero's ascent due to the elitist attitude there and rarely ever play it. As for gladiator title its not easy to get especially when you get on teams with idiots. What about hero battle titles?--Sefre

15:39, 8 March 2007 (CST)

Hero title = /roll. Can't do that. AB.. I personally don't think that shows true pvp build creating experience. Don't get me wrong, its fun, and I've voted on an AB build here.. but honestly anything works in RA like AB: the difference is a mending paladin has a tough time getting a glad point while a mending paladin can efficiently win AB due to ther 12 vs 12 thing. It's not really a big deal to enter "experienced" You simply can't sign in screening, it doesn't stop you from voting. But yeah as for gladiator, you should eventually get it even with crappy groups. I've regrettedly gotten many mending whammos gladiator points by ZB/stancing.

As for how to determine if a person is good at pve.. working on that. As for now, get your profiles up if you support the idea to at least test it, it won't be running really today or tomorrow as my Social problems teacher is being a Social Problem(Not a fifty five 16:00, 8 March 2007 (CST))

And I do intend to make this forum fully if wiki supports it yes. It's just a "test" now until I can get admin support ^^ (Not a fifty five 16:01, 8 March 2007 (CST))

Seeing as people like talking about it, but only one person seems interested enough to actually make a profile, I'll close this new forum in a few days, not wasting time on it. (Not a fifty five 22:36, 19 March 2007 (CDT))

I've decided to say screw it to the build section. Theres to many people insisting on removing it or limiting it and getting rid of wiki ways with it, ect. So I wont realy bother with anything anymore, Sorry.--Sefre

23:18, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

I'm kind of confused here.. this forum should solve that permanently. (Not a fifty five 00:53, 20 March 2007 (CDT))

[edit] Builds by profesion

why don't we have a section for builds by profession?... maybe format it for it goes like,

prof- pve pvp all

~Soqed Hozi~ 04:36, 10 March 2007 (CST)

Take alot, of time... thats why lol. ~Readem

[edit] Notice pissing me off...

Yes, I know for the 800th time, that I am signing anon... I do it on purpose, leave me alone! lol ~Readem

[edit] Removal of RA Category

Is there anyway that we can remove the RA/CM/AB categories for builds? It's so worthless, and just encourages horrible builds that only work because of the abysmal player quality in these areas. It just seems like it would be a lot easier to try and keep the builds quality at a decent level if the categories were entirely deleted and any builds in them that aren't in another category deleted also.

I can kind of see the merits of the CM and AB categories, just because they have very different objectives, but the RA category in particular just seems worthless. Even if you manage to weed out all those bad builds, you're usually left with builds that are in other categories either way. It also tends to encourage less experienced PvPers to create these builds.

There's a reason why places like guildwarsguru don't have an RA section, simply because it isn't worth it. Just take one of the good split or self-sufficient characters from the GvG section and you have a decent RA build, and you can actually practice with a good build and try and get better at the game. --Theonemephisto 20:50, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

Don't even bother with it right now. You have to clean up the other sections first. They are full of trash that doesn't belong. -Warskull 02:02, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

Heck, you have my support. I concur with Warskull, in that there's a lot of trash in the builds section right now, but at least you're taking a step in helping clean it up. -

Krowman (talk • contribs) 02:18, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

I support that and this GuildWiki:No Original Builds --Lania Elderfire

12:21, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Unfavored Builds in Campaign-Specific Sections?!

Why the FROG are there unfavored builds in the campaign-specific build sections? It makes it harder for someone who only owns one campaign to find a DECENT build if a ton of builds there are unfavored and useless. =\ - -Sora267 12:48, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

Because peopel don't look at the campaign specific tags :( (Not a fifty five 15:19, 26 March 2007 (CDT))

I can name at least two people who DO. Either way, isn't it our job as a fansite to be as useful as possible? :) - -Sora267

19:13, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

Well guys, some builds to give feedback on: Just click my signature, thanks :D Og lo 17:25, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Changed Testing Build

The old build that was to be tested was unfavored. I have added a new build, hopefully you will all have a chance to test it. Og lo 13:21, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

You're not supposed to write it here, you should write it in the summary, and btw you can't put your own builds for featured. -BurnEmDown- 06:11, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

By summary BurnEmDown means in the "Summary" line for any edits you may do to a page. And BurnEm Down, you can put your own build up as featured you just can't vote on it. Not to mention builds will be gone soon anyway so I don't know why I'm saying this stuff. --

Vallen Frostweaver 07:28, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Getting rid of the Build quality problem

Maybe the only possible solution to this problem is to nominate build moderators for each build section. These mods who should be experts on their terrain, for example for the running builds, are in charge of the correct formatting of each build with sufficient information and guide the discussion to constructive reasoning. The mods however do not gain the power to veto builds if the main community vouched it. At the moment the process of cleaning up, tagging, etc. is done by random users or admins but it takes an aweful lot of time. In order to ensure a higher quality standard it is easier to have expert(s) for each build section being in charge of the quality of each. The main task for the specific build mods could be:

Uphold the GuildWiki formating standard
Tag builds if they are a stub, need editing, clean-up, etc.
Cleaning up builds, and updating them
Guide discussions to concrete reasoning

Above that, a reputation system for builds should be created in the form of stars ***** or even a negative !. — Luobailong (talk|contribs) 08:27, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

This was already kinda like that (minus the stars idea). No one was nominated but volunteers were accepted. Take a look at User:Xeeron/Build volunteers (and the discussion page too) and you can see the list. Some helped, others didn't. If we couldn't even get enough volunteers to do this effectively then getting a person nominated to each position would be even tougher. Not to mention that I've pretty much been doing what you listed for a long time in the Ranger builds but also voting on them as well (I thought it was actually going quite well). I've only recently gone a little lax on them since there hasn't been much to work on (that's the idea I thought) and they are all now going to be wiped anyway (too many PvP arguements and other profession builds causing trouble). I have tried to make things work better though and am now supporting the guides/roles project inspired from the General Barrager and General Interrupter combination guide/builds. --

Vallen Frostweaver 11:19, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

The problem is that the current build moderators are "volunteers", and they have no "rights" to do things. This section needs build mods who have certain privileges, like they are the only ones who may give star(s) to builds, veto on favoring builds (majority (of build mods) decides), ownership of "distinguished" (1..x star) builds (i. e., only build mods can edit them).--Vazze 12:26, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

Therein lies another problem. Who and how do we decide on who is to do this? Too much controversy was stirred up by this and you already know by now how "voting" is treated on this wiki so it was pretty much dropped altogether since it just causes more problems deciding on the hierarchy. Not saying I don't like the idea but I think it's too late for that now. --

Vallen Frostweaver 14:07, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

[edit] New Tag?

One main problem in Build Stubs is that you don't know if the build is designed for PvP or PvE unless it is stated in the introduction. So, how bout two new build stub tags which SAY "This PvE related build is a stub" or "This PvP related build is a stub". Just a suggestion :D - -Sora267 16:03, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

Same on Unfavored? --

16:10, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

[ edit] Consensus be damned, make policy voting via simple majority

Putting this in builds cause this is where this most applies. The builds section got screwed because policies were unable to reach consensus... so.. in the end two admins simply end up nuking the section. Thus "Democratic consensus in the build section" translated to "Dictatorship overhaul in the builds section". I think to avoid this maybe when constructing future policies only a simple majority should be needed.

My point is, if admins can simply make a policy out of nothing if the need arises, why are we the editors squabbling over making policies impossible to implement? Right, cause talking and not doing anything is fun, thats it :)

And this "concensus" is also pushing down voting on policies while even in "consensus" voting is really needed to get an idea of how much the idea is supported. Without voting, policy debate is just gonna peter out into 3 people talking back and forth while voting causes much more people to participate (And even discuss, considering voters on build policies HAVE in the past always discusses) (Not a fifty five 17:13, 31 March 2007 (CDT))

[edit] Offsite link?

I disagree with the offsite link for builds ... if we list one off-site location, then all offsite options should be listed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:04, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

Yeh, kill it — Skuld 11:05, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

I disagree (with killing it). The is an experiment for a guildwiki type vetting style only with policies I'm testing out. I do like listing all the offsite options tho :D I'd also like to point out that an admin didn't say anything for two weeks (four if you count before when I asked a few times if admins cared if I put a link to the acrtual build page on this talk page) <.< So the admins apparently don't give a damn about builds.

Actually I think with GW:PNB its paramount that we add external links.Not a fifty five 16:59, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

Okay, I saw those other build links. I clicked ont eh first one I saw...and they were ALL NOOB BUILDS. Even the mending wammo was in there. Not to mention all sorta wannabes.Cheese Slaya 19:02, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

Yeah these offsites were listed by somebody as being "link many link other link better" and the sites are pretty crappy. I'm not sure why people are saying Gwguru's gladiator is good for build bars (good for build ideas), since the builds in the build directory blow chunks. Other links would be appreciated.

I think team-iq has a builds area and I'm guessing that might be the famed "better than buildwiki" site because so far I'm just seeing crap(Not a fifty five 19:04, 2 April 2007 (CDT))

It is nothing more than advertising for an off-site build location. If we list this one, then all off-site loca should be documented. I'm not necessarilly against such a list, but an agreement should be reached first on what criteria the sites must meet in order to be included in such a list. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:28, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

Eh screw it, I'll just dump the site. So much for 70 gwiki users registering on it.(Not a fifty five 20:32, 2 April 2007 (CDT))

I think the offsite forum is a "viable test for a new policy". Misfate 9:41, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Aaarg fine you called my bluff Barek. Its just I'm honestly trying to make a guildwiki style builds process that will work and I'm getting very annoyed that anyone who tries to take an active stance in helping make a builds policy is getting stepped on. "consensus" we both know has 0 potential in builds policy creation. I can't make a policy with a simple majority on the wiki itself so I'm merely making a test forum offsite and if it works perhaps it can be implemented. Testing it on the wiki isn't an option because people think testing an idea out will result in the black plague.

The site has 63 registered users (all from guildwiki as it is the only link), and about 20 who have actively made a profile already so there is at least some support, not to mention there are no major disagreements as to how I'm running the site, with the possible exception of not allowing AB titles to count for experience in pvp. I would make a proposal for a criteria for off-site links if I have to.. but I really do not think I should have to in this case. Every day wasted on a 400 day debate on criteria for offsite links is just more wasted time on a year long builds policy debate.

So I'm asking you to please allow me to put the link up(Not a fifty five 04:26, 4 April 2007 (CDT))

So nobody cares? I figured that >.> Not a fifty five 18:19, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

Yay its officially dead now :) hope you're all happy. Not a fifty five 07:07, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

[edit] The Notice, The Solution

As you all know the Builds section is going to be wiped along with all the hardworked builds, teams have been put together to save those files that are desperately needed. So maybe I could contribute a little more This Is all the PvP and PvE files saved in HTML format and ready to be viewed, I only take credit for uploading them all credits goes to respective owners.Stellar 23:34, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

Too bad it didn't save the primary profession. --

numma_cway 10:44, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

True Ill look into that and maybe add the primarys. Stellar 21:45, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

[edit] The Torment Farmer Build

Hi, I created Build:E/Mo The Torment Farmer . Well, votes are there, 4 favored and 1 unfavored .. That was my first build. I read the build vetting process and it says to come here.. so, go see my build lol !

Indeed they are. I have switched it to a favored build according to current policy, and will now change the featured build. Congrats! --

18:41, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

[edit] How to put builds on userspaces

How do i put builds that i want to keep on my user space? if you copy and paste it all, it doesn't workRHCP Fan1 20:27, 18 April 2007 (CDT)

go to your userpage and type /builds at the end of the URL in the URL box...then click start this aricle. Then copy and paste builds you want (REMOVE VETTED OR UN-FAVORED TAGS B/C IT FLOODS IF YOU DONT!!!) to the link http://gw.gamewikis.org/user:RHCPFAN1/Builds/WHAT EVER YOU NAME THE BUILD. Then savev it. then copy the link and go back to the article named builds that you made. go to edit and type this ---> *[the link you copied (need this space here) type what you want it to be called]. look at mine, jsut go to my userpage then at the top it says builds for my own reference. make sure to save a link to the builds page on your userpage

[edit] goodbye

goodbye o fair builds section i loved you sooooo much. @v™ + contribs/talk 22:01, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Anyone want to...=

Count down like the last ten minutes? I'll be in bed but c'mon someone do like a last ten minutes countdown and save the page before they delete it? Goodbye, builds section =(.Dark0805 20:00, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

Retrieved from "http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Build_talk:Main_Page"

Build talk:Main Page

From GuildWiki

Contents

[edit] Template redesign

[edit] IW guide

[edit] Hero Builds

[edit] Proposed Build Page Resdesign

[edit] Main Page

[edit] Additional Build Section

[edit] Conceptual error in the vetting process

[edit] Logged in as...

[edit] Previous featured builds bug...

[edit] build vetting

[edit] New bug?

[edit] Build copies and deletion

[edit] Moving the ALL cats to the bottom

[edit] Vote striking

[edit] Zergway

[edit] Hero Builds take two

[edit] Builds Affected By Recent Update

[edit] Minor build policy changes

[edit] PvP Farming Builds

[edit] Skill Page Links

[edit] Sort by Classes

[edit] Build Templates

[edit] Vote: Transition of builds

[edit] Discussion

[edit] starting off site build forum

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Offsite Created

[edit] Builds by profesion

[edit] Notice pissing me off...

[edit] Removal of RA Category

[edit] Unfavored Builds in Campaign-Specific Sections?!

[edit] Changed Testing Build

[edit] Getting rid of the Build quality problem

[edit] New Tag?

[ edit] Consensus be damned, make policy voting via simple majority

[edit] Offsite link?

[edit] The Notice, The Solution

[edit] The Torment Farmer Build

[edit] How to put builds on userspaces

[edit] goodbye

[edit] Anyone want to...=

Views

Personal tools

Navigation

news

support

Search

Sponsors

Toolbox