Talk:Builds/Archive 5

From GuildWiki

Contents 1 Hero Builds 2 Builds by Campaign 3 A dilema... 3.1 New direction/policy 4 Request for Purge of 55-related builds 5 Request to Keep (and move?) 55 Builds 6 Another Direction in the Builds Section Debate

[edit] Hero Builds

There is still a demand for Hero Builds (AI friendly builds). Should these be started here or placed as an addendum or linked section from Hero since the Builds sections is being stalled by debate? I can see two subsections for Hero Builds being useful: one for "enhanced hench" builds and one for special/advanced builds. The "enhanced hench" wouldn't require extensive categorizing, and could be centered on roles (healer hero, prot hero, MM hero, shutdown hero etc.), and those builds should be cheap, fire & forget and accessible, ie. should not involve any form of micromanagement, should not require expensive runes to reach attribute threshold, shouldn't use non-core skills, and ideally should still work decently enough on heros with lvl below 20. Special/advanced builds would be for farming/tackling special areas, forming heroway teams, etc. Caths 02:09, 13 December 2006 (CST)

I'm not sure if having hero builds is a good idea or not. They would add a lof of confusion to the really confused build section, but they might be usefull. I think we would get a million unworkable builds as everyone is submitting stuff that they made up with their crappy unlocked skill lists, but only a few really good ones. -- (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2006 (CST)

Most of the confusion in the builds section arose AFAICT from PvP builds, which are by design, opinion vs opinion unless tested in the field. There is quite a bit less confusion in the PvE or farming builds, which is what Hero builds would relate to IMO. I guess a lot of the difference comes from PvE pages being more read than they're argued about. Caths 14:30, 15 December 2006 (CST)

I am sure that having hero builds is a good idea. The point is that a hero build is very different from the normal builds. The skill placement is a deciding factor and it often helps to keep the number of skills to a minimun (my hero MM only has six skills active). - Jeppe 17:56, 14 December 2006 (CST)

True. Now you just need to get people to support your idea and form a policy for hero builds. -- (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2006 (CST)

Let's get started on the policy then :) Let's start with the "enhanced hench" part. Any suggestions on the restrictions/requirements for those, in addition or in opposition to what I listed in the paragraph above? Caths 14:30, 15 December 2006 (CST)

The way to do this is to make a new article for the policy proposal. The best place might be your own user name space. When you have a fully formed policy suggestion ready, tell about it here and people might actually comment on it. -- (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2006 (CST)

[edit] Builds by Campaign

Why are like, none of the build organized by campaign? I think a bot or manually adding them is the way to go. For example: I have a friend who is getting guildwars (prophecies) and doesn't know what build to lean toward for PvE and PvP. Adding to this section (in tested builds only) would be a fine move that couldn't possibly hurt. --Mgrinshpon 16:16, 14 December 2006 (CST)

[edit] A dilema...

I wish to delete/get a bunch of testeds put in un favoured. Bunch of crap pointed out here [1] shows how our system doesn't work. How would I go about this? — Skuld 02:52, 15 December 2006 (CST)

Can we have an outdated category? Clicking on a couple it seems that they've either got nerfed skills or skills which are inferior to newer skills. If we had an outdated category to move them into they wouldn't be vetted anymore and if someone wanted to fix them up they could. If you wanted to take it a step further (which I suspect you do) I suppose you could also put an abandoned tag on them as well. --Xasxas256 03:15, 15 December 2006 (CST)

Stick them in Category: archived builds and make a renamed copy in Category: untested builds if they have the potential to be fixed up? --NieA7 03:56, 15 December 2006 (CST)

This removal of "bad builds" is rather un-Wiki. Several of those builds had 3-4 favored votes and no unfavored, and yet were moved into the Archived category. I'm not saying these builds are good, or defending any of them specifically; it's an issue of principle and policy. Under current GuildWiki policy, the opinion of one user is not worth more than the opinions of several others on a subjective issue like build merit, even if that user is an admin. It's perfectly possible that there are more GuildWiki users who think those builds are bad, but either until those users vote on the builds or Wiki poilicy is changed, those builds should stay in the Tested section. I may not think they belong there, but apparently several other users do. I support cleaning up the Tested section, but if we're going to do it we should do it legitimately. --Chris with Lime 13:06, 15 December 2006 (CST)

If someone is against the move of a specific build, they are welcome to say it on the articles talk page. Although we need a legit system for this sooner or later, it's a good thing that we are doing it now as soon as possible. The wiki image is really getting hurt for the crappy builds section. -- (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2006 (CST)

Well my arguing that this is ridiculous wont help now so ill just ask for an official way to get the good build back into the tested section. my build Build:D/E Icy Fighter has only been fetted for a few weeks, works well, and is obviously not out of date.--Coloneh RIP 17:07, 15 December 2006 (CST)

I understood that only ancient nerfed builds were moved. Imho feel free to revert such edits to recently vetted builds. -- (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2006 (CST)

I moved it back since there were already 2 comments on the talk page, but there definatly needs to be an actual policy on getting some of the non-crap builds moved back. alot of theme were moved based just on Skuld's opinion.--Coloneh RIP 17:14, 15 December 2006 (CST)

Not just my opinions. The opinions of much more experienced pvpers, to be blunt. Do we want what they think, or our own good-intentions? — Skuld 17:15, 15 December 2006 (CST)

If you can take the time to find them all and figure out this system for labeling them, you can certainly take the time to write a comment explaining why you don't think a particular build deserves to be "vetted" on its page. Particularly with something like Build:A/N Caster Doom, where your only comment on the build was "works well, hate the name" -- how are people supposed to infer your reasons for disliking it from that? Bottom line: if you're doing something people don't understand or disagree with, EXPLAIN, EXPLAIN, EXPLAIN! Anything else is really un-wiki-like. — 130.58 (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2006 (CST)

I agree with Skuld on this one (surprised?). GWGuru is a haven of experienced PvPers; much more of them there than here. If the general consensus on the Wiki is that a build is good (like those in Skuld's link, or even some he's already deleted) and it's utter crap, I think we need to listen more carefully to the outside community. Also... As Skuld and I (and others) have said countless times, PvE is too easy to defend your build by saying "it works." Yeah, so what? Echo Mending works in PvE; W/Me's with Conjure Phantasm work in PvE. If you want people to favor your build, make it the best; not merely something that "works." -Auron 17:49, 15 December 2006 (CST)

Well, if you can't get them involved in it themselves (which is a tall order sometimes, I know), I suggest at the least linking to Guru discussions from the talk pages. Either what complaints people have about specific builds or at least to the general theory stuff ("why nuking sucks" or whatever). To make sure that you're actually exposing build editors to the community's ideas rather than just saying "the larger PvP community thinks you suck" without teaching them anything. — 130.58 (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2006 (CST)

The beauty of a wiki is that people add their own input. If they don't like it, they don't even have to register! They can just add their input and say "Here, this is why I don't like it." They could go one step further and even fix it before adding a favored or unfavored vote. --Mgrinshpon 19:20, 15 December 2006 (CST)

Rushed the A/N, added my reasons, sry. — Skuld 17:53, 15 December 2006 (CST)

Thanks. — 130.58 (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2006 (CST)

"It's not my fault, an older boy told me to do it!" It doesn't matter if some Guru users don't like the builds. This is GuildWiki, where GuildWiki policy is in order. One user is just as valuable as the next, and each has an equal say. If these Guru people care if these builds are in the Tested section or not, then they can vote to unfavor them themselves. Right now, it seems as if the opinions of Guru users have suddenly become superior to the opinions of Wiki users, which is very much against both the spirit and the letter of GuildWiki policy. Are opinions voiced on an "elite" fansite more valuable, more worthy than those voiced on a "non-elite" site? Honestly, I can't say I believe any of the builds in that Guru topic belong in the Tested section (no offense to the build authors, also consider I haven't tested any of them myself). Installing marshall law to remove builds without a single unfavored vote, however, is not the Wiki way. --Chris with Lime 23:14, 15 December 2006

I agree, it is awfully strange and disturbing to see this rush to unfavor vetted builds based on what Skuld and a couple other people are saying that OTHER people are saying. Do only the cool kids get to take part in deciding which builds are good, and everyone else doesn't count or isn't a "good enough" player? I'm new, and not good at PVP... my vote doesn't count then? Because it seems like it wouldn't count, with the edits I'm seeing being made to vetted builds. I agree totally that some builds need to go, and others need updating, and I'm no expert to tell which is which. But pointing to some forum that some folks consider to be better PVPers and saying over and over again, "they think we suck, we need to trash our old builds" doesn't seem to be a good approach. — HarshLanguage 00:35, 16 December 2006 (CST)

I kind of annoyed now, since i realized that if almost anyone else did this to the builds section it would have been considered vandalism and possibly resulted in a ban. (and don't tell me, "but Skuld's an admin!", go read GW:YOU) --Coloneh RIP 01:59, 16 December 2006 (CST)

You know what I'd say if anyone else did it? Good for you; you're one of the only people working in the interest of the build section as a whole. Also, because so much fallical bullshit has been spewed in only a few posts, I'm gonna have to debunk it little by little.

"It doesn't matter if some Guru users don't like the builds." Also known as; Ignore the pros, do it our way, even if we're screwing up! That's a sign of a psychopath (I'm not even kidding; go look it up).

"are opinions voiced on an "elite" fansite more valuable, more worthy than those voiced on a "non-elite" site?" That has nothing to do with it. We're using GWGuru as our example not because it's "elite" according to ANet, but because that's the single largest collective of "pro" PvPers on the net.

"Installing marshall law to remove builds without a single unfavored vote, however, is not the Wiki way." I agree wholeheartedly; the Wiki lacks a method of weeding out the useless crap; the only thing we have right now is Skuld. If you cared about the prestige of the Tested Build section, you'd want more Skulds; not less of them (Also, as many people have said, the Wiki is a poor format for a Builds section; and this is *exactly* why. Build Ownership is not the Wiki way; so before bashing the pruning of the Build section, try bashing the un-wiki policy we have in use already).

"it is awfully strange and disturbing to see this rush to unfavor vetted builds based on what Skuld and a couple other people are saying that OTHER people are saying." Not really. Is it such a strange reaction, after a huge list of shitty builds has been compiled in one place? I also took note that you completely ignore the fact that "Skuld and a couple other people" know what the hell they're talking about; if more people would listen up and stop being so ignorant, maybe they'd learn. Guess what someone who doesn't learn from more experienced players is called? A Noob. -Auron 02:49, 16 December 2006 (CST)

Edit conflict; my post was in response to the few posts above mine, so I threw my post above A Guy's, even though it came after. -Auron 02:49, 16 December 2006 (CST)

I guess I see the problem with skuld cleaning up the crap (I agree a lot of the stuff he fixed was pretty garbage). However there is the Guildwiki You are valuable policies etc. Solution? I think a way to keep the favored builds around while making sure it is not a Mending Warrior is to have a metagame pvp section that contains ONLY builds that work more efficently in the current metagame than other builds. As the metagame changes and some stuff becomes good, some stuff becomes crap, we can move it to the archived section or some stuff back to the tested section if it is something like a ferocious strike thumper that can still work decently. Pros: The people that hang around team-iq.net can use wiki as a reliable build section while others can see their decent build that was vetted favored. Cons: As with the current system people arguing over what is good and what is not mainly.--A Guy 02:42, 16 December 2006 (CST)

Add-on; I agree with you, Guy. My goal (dream, perhaps, as nobody else seems to like it) is to have a Favored section that's worthy of critical acclaim; a section that the real pros use and refer to. GWGuru is where bunches of pros hang out; but GWGuru has some of the crappiest navigation I've ever seen. If our (tested) Build section was polished, refined and monitored, it'd be a huge success. -Auron 02:49, 16 December 2006 (CST)

Add-on #2; Here's some food for thought. If we stick with "the wiki way," which everyone appears to take in high regard, everyone's voice is equal. So say ten people say a Mending/Healing Breeze whammo is the best build in the game, and only 5 people say it sucks. In "the wiki way," this would be a favored build; everyone's equal, so it's GG, right?

Flat wrong. The build sucks. In a "Wiki," that's the major conflict; there's no way to tell a noob his build sucks, because, after all, you're only one person. Even if you have ten times as much experience as that person, you're just one person. So what do we do? Stick with the Wiki Way and let all of the three-vote builds be Vetted, and represent the Wiki's best builds? Or do we have some kind of filter; a way to weed out the crap? As is obvious, our current method fails miserably; those builds listed on the GWGuru thread shouldn't have been Favored in the first place. So... there's the rub. Do we take the Wiki way, and make it impossible to prune the crap out (because there are far fewer experienced players than "tinkerers" on the Wiki) or use a rigorous method of build pruning, to leave only the best in our featured section? -Auron 04:20, 16 December 2006 (CST)

If you guys are angry Skuld deleted one of your builds go post it somewhere else like GWGuru or TGH, we'll happily mock you mercilessly there. The simple truth is that Guild Wiki is currently considered the worst place to go for builds. In fact, when a player comes up with an atrociously bad build "Go back to Guild Wiki" is an insult some PvPers like to use. You guys are probably even lower than GWOnline. While the happy feel good "everyone is equal" thing may be nice for some things, it isn't right for builds. One experienced GvG player can go through your build section and at a glance tell which builds work and which builds are trash. This means if you favor bad builds, you will be mocked when people who have a clue look at them. Glancing over the favored build section, probably half these should be gone. People keep sticking utter crap like Build:R/A AoD Dagger Ranger in the GvG section. The builds section is a failure as it is and Skuld is trying to save you from yourselves. -Warskull 13:24, 16 December 2006 (CST)

Ok, so let me get this straight. Some cocky experianced people, from ANOTHER website say, something on this site sucks. And that gives a over zealous admin and others the right to delete/archive/reverse the vote? If the people on GWGuru do not like the builds here may I ask why they look here? Why dont they make their own section and only put the builds they want there? And then tell people to go to their site and not this ingame? Someone that may have a high hero rank or in a top guild does not make them a supeior person to the people who have worked hard deisgning builds posted here. And they should not have the final say considering its not even their website/discussion place. Now If they came here, made comments on why its no good, and then voted on it, there would be no problem. But, they talk over on there forums or whatever, never put input in the place where it is posted and skuld and others think that they give a good reason to rid of the build? If this is true, this site is failing, a admin can not do that and hope that the site will succeed. Even some peopel above seem to agree with it, but on some of thoose listed build none of you aded coments either, until it is done, you should have no say on the matter.--Sefre 14:20, 16 December 2006 (CST)

Someone that may have a high hero rank or in a top guild does not make them a supeior person to the people who have worked hard deisgning builds posted here <-- this is what doesn't work, and that time is spent on poor setups — Skuld 14:27, 16 December 2006 (CST)

If it is time spent on a bad build, why do you care if they wasted their time? If it was you could vote it down and then rid of it. But the builds in that list obvisouly wern't crap because they were tested favoured. You seem take the people over there to be more superior to peple here. What kind a admin are you? --Sefre 14:33, 16 December 2006 (CST)

Sefre, I am an admin but also a contributor and pvp player, and I would like to see the builds section become useful. I care because it is doing little good, and a lot of harm. — Skuld 14:35, 16 December 2006 (CST)

If you wish to do good, the do not dodge my question. Why do you hold opinions of people on anotehr site superior to those on this one? Just because some pepople who claim to be smarter about builds say its bad doesn't necessarily make them right. The peoples opinions on this site is what matters. Im sure you do want to improve the guildwiki but you have the wrong idea.--Sefre 14:38, 16 December 2006 (CST)

They are much more experienced than the majority of contributors. This doesn't fit with the wiki way at all however, as do the whole builds thing (heh, quoting auron) — Skuld 14:40, 16 December 2006 (CST)

These aren't opinions from "another site", they are opinions from just about anyone that knows what they're doing in pvp to be honest --FireFox 14:40, 16 December 2006 (CST)

excellent point, I don't like the "other site" thing >.< — Skuld 14:41, 16 December 2006 (CST)

To firefox-Yes it is, its another site that should have no bearing on this one, they are to different fansites with different methods. TO Skuld- Its not the wiki way to have a build section, but this is GW:NOT wikipedia, but we do use the same contribution system. To both- They may have more experiance but they are not smarter then most. They may think that cause they are experianced that they can talk Sh*t about the ideas of others but thats bullying, plain and simple.--Sefre 14:46, 16 December 2006 (CST)

Do you want it plain and clear that certain things just suck, or sugar-coated? bullying, wth? That site is this site, its our forum (see below) — Skuld 14:48, 16 December 2006 (CST)

Alright, if they are posters of the wiki, they should know that in order to voice their opinions on the builds they shuold vote on the build page, why the wiki has a forum is beyond me but msot people dotn even read it.--Sefre 14:53, 16 December 2006 (CST)

To clarify your mis-statements ...

A) The post was actually on the GuildWiki Guild Wars forums, which happen to be hosted by GWGuru (a link to the forums is in the "support" navigation box on the left of each page here).

B) GWGuru DOES have their own builds forum.

C) GuildWiki DOES have a LOT of crappy builds, so many that the wiki's build section is laughed at by most competitive players.

Also, you state that "Someone that may have a high hero rank or in a top guild does not make them a supeior person". True, they aren't superior people ... but having a high rank and being in a top guild does suggest that they are superior players in many respects. It's just one more reason why build on in wiki environment are a bad concept. Wikis are much better for objective, quatifiable content - for subjective content, the players who have the most knowledge get trampled by those who don't realise how much their builds actually suck. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:43, 16 December 2006 (CST)

The build on a wiki question doesnt have bearing on this discussion. The situation at hand is wether or not the admins have a right to delete favoured builds casue somebody else said it sucks without voteing. As for experiance, its a excuse people use to say their better then others, now, if theese peopel come to the wiki, and give there reason and vote the builds down there will be no harm done. But they dont, and a admin does it for them....--Sefre 14:51, 16 December 2006 (CST)

Perhaps a poll is in order, keep the builds section or not? --FireFox 14:53, 16 December 2006 (CST)

No need - I don't see value in a vote without an alternate partner to use for hosting builds (I think it's too late to purge without a viable alternative - but that's just me). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:05, 16 December 2006 (CST)

I will make my final Statement: If theese people on the forums think the builds suck they need to vote it unfavoured, I point to this for expample,Build_talk:D/E_Icy_Fighter, No one said it sucked, and it was archived cause people on forums put it in a list that says its bad, thats just plain stupid. Until they have made their opinions heard on the place where the build is posted(not on a rarely read forum) A admin has no right to archive(in this case) or delete.--Sefre 14:59, 16 December 2006 (CST)

Well, technically, per GW:ADMIN#Administrative_Policy and GuildWiki:Build_vetting_procedure#Deletion_of_builds, an admin DOES have the right to delete it - although there is a preference to use a review process. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:05, 16 December 2006 (CST)

I think this whole "GWGuru people are laughing at us" thing is utterly hilarious. Some spotty kid who's sunk loads of hours into a game is getting a kick from seeing a spotty kid who's spent slightly less hours playing the game trying to have a say about something? This is pretty much why I don't like PVP - the idea is great, on the whole the people who do it are elitist arse holes. As far as I'm concerned if "Go to the wiki" becomes a PvP insult I couldn't give a flying ****. PvP "Pros" don't need a build section anyway - they're actually out there doing it. Having half a dozen "approved" PvP builds would be depressing as everybody in the world would end up with exactly the same thing. I also like having PvE builds here and deeply dislike the "You don't need builds for PvE" snobbery. I'm not saying all approved builds are good as I've not played most of them, what I am saying is just because some random fool spouts some nonsense on a forum is no reason for one admin here to start turning things on their head without any warning - three fools are no more foolish than one. --NieA7 15:18, 16 December 2006 (CST)

Just to note that the ppl in question are in top guilds, and post on forums. They're at the top and know what they're doing — Skuld 15:28, 16 December 2006 (CST)

Top guilds as in PvP - pretty sure several of the builds you've been purging are at PvE as well. And again, to reiterate, I don't really care if they are or not - Guild Wars is a game and is meant to be fun, anybody who gets snobbish over it is kinda missing the point. --NieA7 19:25, 16 December 2006 (CST)

I don't think you guys get it, it isn't just one forum seeing you as a joke. It is basically the entirety of the PvP community seeing GuildWiki as a joke when it comes to builds. The goal of the wiki is to accurately document information. When you claim builds that no one runs in GvG are favored and good, it is just flat out wrong information. If someone got a group together of clueless PvErs and started posting incorrect boss locations because they "felt" it was right they would be run straight off the wiki. Experience players don't bother with guild wiki for the most part because your system is a complete and total failure when it comes to builds. We could try and fix builds and get shouted down by all the clueless players who vastly outnumber us, or we could just dismiss guildwiki as a bad build site and keep others informed that guildwiki is a bad build site. The only way to fix the GuildWiki build section is a drastic change of policy. Skuld is most certainly moving in the right direction and I am more than certain Vindexus would have also agreed with his moves. When it comes to builds I think players from say ICE are much more informed than your average GuildWiki player. -Warskull 16:14, 16 December 2006 (CST)

Fair enough it's not one forum, but again I'm really not bothered if there's a cadre of players talking to one another and sniggering behind upraised hands. If they're interested they can contribute. I actually think the idea of a wiki as superior to something one expert writes is fundamentally misguided, but the builds section would work if these pros came in and voted on the builds they think are dumb. Voting only takes a second (and is almost certainly faster than writing a scathing post on a forum), it's really simple to quickly add a comment to a builds talk page. If they'd rather stand back and smirk then fair enough, nobody's going to force them - but if that's what they choose to do I don't see why everybody else should bend over backwards to accommodate them. Come play if you want to. --NieA7 19:25, 16 December 2006 (CST)

I'm sure they do know what they're doing, Skuld, but I have to say that I agree with the sentiment that if they disagree then they should come here and contribute. But I do think that the problem is compounded by the idea of build "authors" and the voting system that we have. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 16:11, 16 December 2006 (CST)

Builds shouldn't have authors per se. Just like with any other page, if you post something bad, someone should be able to come in and rework it. We've done this with failed attempts to remake several standard builds already (e.g. all the crappy Shadow Prison and "You're All Alone!" builds that pop up getting remade into better ones). — 130.58 (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2006 (CST)

Doesn't work like that, what happens when a build beyond salvage gets favored? Bad original builds don't really have anywhere to go. -Warskull 16:43, 16 December 2006 (CST)

What do you think of separating "original builds" from "documented builds," as per my comment on Guildwiki talk:No Original Builds? — 130.58 (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2006 (CST)

I think it's a great idea. Creates a nice padded room for these PvP types to go play in. --NieA7 19:25, 16 December 2006 (CST)

I think fixing the builds section is a fine idea and skuld's latest creation (Guildwiki:No Original Builds) is great. but my point way up there was that that skuld's purge of the build section was WRONG, if he wanted the power to do that he should have tried to change GW:YOU to say that it excludes asmin's and they can do whatever the hell they want.--Coloneh RIP 17:36, 16 December 2006 (CST)

FYI: see GW:ADMIN#Administrative_Policy. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:57, 16 December 2006 (CST)

I agree that build authorship is anti-Wiki. I don't know where people get this idea that GuildWiki supports it, I haven't found anything in Wiki policy supporting build ownership. The only reason I don't support Skuld's actions with the Tested Builds section is that it's not supported by policy. I suppose it technically falls under the blanket of Admin powers, but admins are still encouraged to use community-sanctioned channels. I don't support the policy of giving unexperienced and experienced users equal say on builds (very subjective compared to the rest of the Wiki) because I personally think it's best, but because GuildWiki polcy says it is. If we enact a change to that policy where only experienced players have a say whether a build is good or not, or whatever, then I'll support that. --Chris with Lime 17:17, 16 December 2006

I think im done with the build section, its just to annoying. im keeping all of my builds and the build from anyone else who want to contribute in my own builds section. I will miss the community input, but i think it will help my builds to stay true to the original build. so if anyone else wants to add builds there feel free.--Coloneh RIP 23:10, 16 December 2006 (CST)

[edit] New direction/policy

I started something at GuildWiki:No Original Builds, if anyone wants to add anything or expand, feel free — Skuld 15:07, 16 December 2006 (CST)

It is already obvious that some builds suck such as life steath whammo but I also have used it to get the exact atributes and skill set for thumpers. I think skuld deleting crap builds and making the build section good is better than some person that just started playing having his build that uses crap like frenzied defense favored(lets hope not). Maybe having the build section have a modded policy from the regular wiki policies because it obviously is not working right now. A wiki wants its articles to be as good as possilbe.

Skuld, didn't you say that you were going to leave the builds section alone? <LordBiro>/<Talk> 15:32, 16 December 2006 (CST)

Changed my mind. — Skuld 15:50, 16 December 2006 (CST)

Wicked awesome. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 16:11, 16 December 2006 (CST)

[edit] Request for Purge of 55-related builds

Getting out of hand. About 1/3 of the builds we have are 55-related. Everyone knows the basic outline for a 55 build, and really, adding anything that does damage without removing your own enchantments can and will work. Since we already have the general idea in the Invincimonk guide, there's definately no reason to have so many 55-related builds. Did I mention we're getting 105HP and 33HP spinoffs now? — Rapta (talk|contribs) 16:24, 18 December 2006 (CST)

I think all we need is the invincimonk guide, the 55(regen) Mo/Any build, and the 55(SoA) Mo/Any build. but all of these need to be much longer and filled with build suggestions form other classes such as tainted flesh, sliver armor, ect.--Coloneh RIP 19:48, 18 December 2006 (CST)

Put del tags on 'em. Link to a better build; I'm sure, with the great numbers of them we have, that at least a few have been vetted... so link the crappy ones to the good ones, flat-out slap delete tags on the totally unimaginative ones (yes, prot spirit/healing breeze with 55 HP has been done already; find something new). Frankly, they aren't much use anymore; 55 monks have a hard time killing minotaur, trolls, and any number of things... 55 necros have the same problem now, with the SS AoE update. So what's the point in having them? -Auron 21:11, 18 December 2006 (CST)

At the very least, roll them up into a single page. Certain specific aspects of some of the newer builds are useful to have documented somewhere. I agree we don't need multitudes of separate pages, but the information should go somewhere rather than just be deleted. Jrista

A bunch of them are different enough to warrent their own pages, in my opinion. --Armond Warblade (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2006 (CST)

The Problem with deleteing is that many farming builds are mostly guides, and a guide is needed for many if it will work right(55ing isnt as simple as it apears in some cases) for certain areas/mobs. And if theese were all compiled on one page it would be extremly long.--Sefre 12:09, 22 December 2006 (CST)

[edit] Request to Keep (and move?) 55 Builds

I disagree with the idea of purging all 55 related builds, even if the invincimonk build alone IS kept. With respect, Rapta's comment that "Everyone knows the basic outline for a 55 build" has elitist overtones. I can assure you that everyone does not, in fact, know the basics, nor the advanced elements, of 55ing. I fail to understand why anyone would actively discourage the development of new builds through new ideas like 105 and 33 HP characters. Shouldn't this be a place for ideas to be embraced and modified, rather than a place for us all to use the same cookie-cutter template? I think so. The Wiki is just as much a guide for beginners as it is a vetting and purging ground for "regulars." Rather than purge all builds of a certain type, why not instead designate a specific category for these builds? They could all fall under something like "Health Reduction Builds." That way, people intersted in altering and expanding on the 55/health reduction builds can have a place to do so - and those like Rapta can avoid them.--Ninjatek 08:45, 5 January 2007 (CST)

[edit] Another Direction in the Builds Section Debate

Before we start purging all the original builds, or the build section entirely (both of which I think are really bad ideas), I have a suggestion to help cut out some of the crap in the tested section. What about adding a slot similiar to the Featured Untested builds to the Tested section? This slot could be "Builds Up for Re-Evaluation" or something along those lines; we could say that the build is 'being re-evaluated to determine its effectiveness in the current metagame' or something like that. Basically this would give the community a chance to re-examine the builds, and let some of the more experienced players get their opinions in on a bad build, especially if they couldn't cast their votes before the author and 3 of his buds quickly cast their favorable votes on an undeserving build. In other words, our legitimate and communal justification for getting rid of tested builds, which should satisfy most parties. Don't misunderstand me, I do think that the build section needs some repair. I believe that if we implement this review policy, we can eliminate some of the sub-par builds from our tested section, and once we get the whole mess under a little better control, we can start seriously examining how to reform the builds section. Many people are unhappy with the way the build section is being handled, and I really oppose giving a few people a free hand to delete what they deem unworthy. That's un-Wiki-like, which is one reason why people are so incensed. Furthermore, when comparing us to GWGuru, the only solution I can propose is to try to bring some of them over here; they do have some good PvPers, and that's exactly what the Wiki needs. What do you think? - Krowman 20:04, 18 December 2006 (CST)

Nope. Like Warskull said, the number of (to put it simply) noobs on the Wiki vastly outnumber the handful of experienced players - so vastly, indeed, that even if another handful of GWGuru people came over and tried to work with the build section, they'd still be outnumbered. They know this; that's precisely why they haven't tried. If they were told that the build section had a revamp... if they were told that Admins were keeping the so-shitty-they-shouldn't-even-exist builds deleted, they'd be more interested, because any work they put forth wouldn't be wasted and swallowed up by the rush of noobs that don't know what the hell they're talking about.
I agree with Barek in that we've gone too far to simply wipe the slate clean; if we were going to remove the build section, we'd need a partner site. That's a huge project in and of itself; if we could fix the Wiki Build Section and clear out the crap, we'd eliminate the need for a partner site, and it would save some people a whole lot of time. And always remember... if you think a build is leetsauce, post it on your namespace; not every build must be submitted (especially if it's a PvE build). -Auron 21:08, 18 December 2006 (CST)

What do you think of have an "Up for Review" Feature for tested builds, though? We'd be able to get rid of the not-so-great tested builds, and do it in a manner that would uphold the colaborative effort idea behind the wiki. - Krowman 21:23, 18 December 2006 (CST)

Eh... it really depends who does the "reviewing." Look at our current system; all vetted builds were reviewed legitimately (at least, most were) and voted for by at least three users - if we try to implement the same voting system with the same people, only this time we call it "up for review," the result will be the same. -Auron 21:27, 18 December 2006 (CST)

Then make it require more votes, make it run for a certain period of time giveing more people the chance to look over, If you think the problem is t he voteing system then fix it. But im pretty sure that in 90% of the builds being favoured the build itself was tested and proven effective, Im sure their were a couple of instances where someones freinds may have just came and voted on them but most people will actualy test a build throughly before voteing favoured, unlike when voteing unfavoured(which is a problem with the voteing system). Some people may have a lack of experiance when it comes to PVP but the majority of people who vote on builds do understand what is viable and what is not in most arenas, and wouldn't favour in crap like they claim except in a few rare cases. The mention of the builds being considered unfavorued is pure oppinion, and others had oppisate oppinions when they voted for it, the people only voiceing thier oppinions now should not over ride thoose who have already. Re votes should be done rather then a purge, deleteing possible info because some oppionions were agiasnt it isn't the way any website(wikis especialy) should be ran.--Sefre 21:40, 18 December 2006 (CST)

...So basically, you want to solve the problem we have (shitty builds being vetted by people that don't know enough about the game mechanics and general skill-synergy to cast a proper vote) by voting? Sadly, that wouldn't solve anything. Also, you mention that it's merely a difference of opinion in builds? I can understand a difference of opinion regarding one or two skillslots on a generally-accepted build, but, say, a W/Mo using Life Sheath? I don't care how many people think that build it good, it isn't.
You're missing the point that I (and Warskull) made; there are too many people that don't know what's going on to rely on the voting system to be the catch-all filter for crap in the build section. In response to...
"But im pretty sure that in 90% of the builds being favoured the build itself was tested and proven effective," would be a lie in most cases, because "effective" isn't a requirement for a build being vetted. Anyway. Re-votes would solve nothing; this isn't Florida, now... and let me stress this point enough; opinions alone aren't enough to make a build good. I don't care how many people think a Prot Whammo wins PvE; it doesn't change the truth. -Auron 22:00, 18 December 2006 (CST)

All of the examples you pointed out I would put in hte 10% that fell through, And maybe my precentage was off but I can still say that most people are smart enough to vote most of the builds properly. And I was trying to explain why you were wrong about many problems in the voteing system... Either way, your lack of esperiance excuse is getting old, and its not very viable as you or wasskull have no way of knowing that the voters are unexperianced. Either way, even if a prot whammo did not suck its still completly your oppinion that it does suck, and your oppinion is not always right, niether is mine but I'm not going to keep pushing the policy because its based on a few peoples oppinions that refuse to be wrong. Now if you can find a better way to filter the build section short of deleteing all the stuff that Mr. admin Skuld and his friends think sucks then go ahead.--Sefre 22:08, 18 December 2006 (CST)

I disagree, to an extent to something raised in Auron's second post. This is in reply to that and an effort to sum up that we're seeing FOUR problems, and all argueing about different things. The vast majority of these "what the..." builds were vetted by exactly that, three users. They haven't even been looked at by a fraction of the wiki community. At least putting them here would cause a few more experienced players the chance to say WHY it stunk. After all, give the beginners the CHANCE to learn.
But really I think we're seeing 4 problems. A) among pve, I've never heard a bad word about the site, only "it rocks" or "it's the best". Which means that most builds you're getting are yeah, builds that the pve community is trying to make for pvp. Whiiiich hasn't worked so well, right? There's nothing you can do about this overtly. You can only try to channel it. B) There is no distinction on this site between distinguished, highly used builds, and scantily "yeah, they work" builds, regardless of section. We can fix this. I also agree that a section for distinguished builds, or a home for the top 100 builds should be present. And another section for the "rubble and rabble" to work out ideas through stubs, etc. C) We've recognized that we're seeing 30234 different 55 builds, or 12 avatar of balthazar builds. Just because they use one skill different doesn't mean they're different builds at all. I think we need to launch a community wide merge effort, to merge similar builds together. Specifically builds that are only one or two skills different, and still are used the same. List it in the variants, sure. But merge. This is a wiki, and anything here is public domain to use and change, and thus, well... even if you did make it, the community has the right to merge your build with another. This doesn't mean that every set of skills suggested should be put in the variants of a unification build, but noteworthy ones, sure. D) There's a lot of great ideas hidden under the mush. For instance, when I was putting together an SF build, I came here, gleaned some ideas but made something different. I DID get the idea for Mark of Rodgort + fire staff here, so that SF would always trigger damage. Did I use the exact build, no. A greater effort needs to be made than simply voting three times on a build AND I think that those who DO know what they are doing should take an active hand in improving builds that are survivable (and original, obviously). Because voting unfavored because "x is a bad skill", well, start a discussion, change it, try to improve it. Because if it DOES get vetted via the "swarming newbies" then it has been cleaned up some and is a stand alone product. I think it comes down to separating builds from their authors a bit. Take an active part in cleaning them up and then justify it on the talk page. Apologies on the wordiness, I'm trying to succinctly sum up the four arguments I'm reading above.Cyrogenic 22:10, 18 December 2006 (CST) (Putting up Now, here, without modifications, because I've collided with three other conflicts)

Sefre: go back to PvE. Save us all the headache (or at least run your posts through some kind of spellchecker). You missed my point two or three times, and it's the same one Warskull made; it's not a matter of opinion. I don't care how much you *want* a Prot Whammo (or any of the other crap builds) to work, it won't. Your opinion can't change the fact that it sucks, and is a joke. I tried to ignore your posts for a long time on other pages, but you've failed to grasp the points that several people have made; it's not opinion anymore. The builds just fucking suck. I'm sorry if it's a hard concept, but if you don't want to (or can't) think of it past the petty user-vs-user opinion wars, then stop throwing yours around. -Auron 22:22, 18 December 2006 (CST)

Can we please leave the "go back to PvE" elitism out of this? We have a resource that is for both game types. The build subsection is certainly less useful for PvP than PvE, but it is very useful. I'm sure we can come up with a reasonable policy without the rampant elitism. (The "guru experts" crap reminds me of the worst parts of high school). -- Oblio (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2006 (CST)

Umm maybe actualy read my posts? I agreed with you on the same thing you are trying to bash me on....--Sefre 22:23, 18 December 2006 (CST)

"Either way, your lack of esperiance excuse is getting old, and its not very viable as you or wasskull have no way of knowing that the voters are unexperianced." <--- complete BS. You know how we know the voters are unexperienced? This list of builds that made it to favored. -Auron 22:28, 18 December 2006 (CST)

Please, 2 of the builds were nerfed and the rest were outdated by new better skills, it says so in the post itself... That does nothing to prove your point--Sefre 22:31, 18 December 2006 (CST)

Easy, easy. I'm new to the wiki, but I know that calling people out won't solve a problem, regardless of whether it is Skuld, Auron, or Sefre (especially on the main pages). You're arguing about two different things and we're trying to find the solution, not place blame.Cyrogenic 22:32, 18 December 2006 (CST)

A major problem is not only the abundancy of bad builds, but also lack of good builds. Instead of complaining, you could be better off voting, or writing some builds that are good. Take some action, stop whining, people. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 16:05, 19 December 2006 (CST)

And where's GuildWiki:We are not Guru? — Rapta (talk|contribs) 16:38, 19 December 2006 (CST)

I think all the people laughing at us there took it away to make us cry more... --NieA7 18:27, 19 December 2006 (CST)

They're contributors too, and I agree for the most part. No outside forces are changing stuff, dw its your fav rouge admin ;p — Skuld 18:33, 19 December 2006 (CST)

Maybe they are, but the problem is that the laughing and pointing of fingers started there, not here. --NieA7 18:46, 19 December 2006 (CST)

So start improving the builds and get them reviewed. It's the builds they're laughing at, not the policy. Even if a new policy is implemented, either we're going to end up having to sort out new builds anyways, or have no builds section at all. Best solution: get the untested count down. The more unfavored we have, the larger our database of crappy builds will be, and bad builds with variants in Unfavored can be deleted immediately. No need to hop on policies if you're not going to review the builds. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 21:49, 19 December 2006 (CST)

"Even if a new policy is implemented, ... we're going to end up having to sort out new builds anyways" - Not true at all. Look at the No Original Builds pre-policy page. If we make that the policy, we will not have to deal with people's (mostly crappy) ideas for builds. Trying to work through the pile of crap using a crappy vetting method is nowhere near the best way to deal with the build problem. -Auron 23:56, 19 December 2006 (CST)

And in the second part I clearly stated "or have no builds section at all", which is very much the point of that policy, to remove any influence on user build preferences. This is a Wiki. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 22:38, 20 December 2006 (CST)

(restarting comment stack, this is still in reply) Well, there's a way to avoid that. Instead of voting unfavored on every 1 skill difference in every build ever made, suggest a merge. Is the merge process automated? You could throw a "suggested merge" tag up, and maybe add a section for comments of such on the discussion page (no need to post anything beyond "This merge is suggested based on similar skill layout. Recommended merge and possible updates to variant listing"). Would take maybe a minute and a half. And a lot better than voting unfavored over and over and over again on the same build. If a build truly is original, and is still junky, well that's another matter, but if it's the same...Cyrogenic 00:57, 20 December 2006 (CST)

Ok, why dont we just make under the "farming builds" page, a link that has all the 55 builds under it. To add to the page, people can label 55 builds that they make and it will be inserted there, not in the Untested builds page. Then, we make sure to set safe parameters of build making. If its related to using Illusionary Weaponry and Shield of Absorption, its deleted. If it has a new concept then, its tested. I agree that 55 builds are getting to common but, farming builds that are as good as spirit bonder builds havent been made yet. Spcypnts