PvXwiki talk:Theorycraft

SUP--Goldenstar 00:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Never understood why we vet builds anyways--Relyk 00:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I like it, but one question: Has PvX ever CREATED a meta?  Life [[Image:WikiLOD7.gif]] 00:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No build site "makes" a meta, PvX simply documents it. --☭Guild *talk* 00:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So we've never theorycrafted something that became meta?  Life [[Image:WikiLOD7.gif]] 01:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what "Good" and "Other" sections are for. --☭Guild *talk* 01:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why the Great section should be moved to Meta and the Good/Other builds be deleted--Relyk 01:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, Good/Other should stay. There should just be a lot less Great builds. Theorycrafting has a place and that place is the other section. [[Image:KJ needed a new sig....sig.png]] 01:56, 19 March 2009
 * I wouldn't say that it's the worst thing happening on the site, but we should definitely encourage people having a build sandbox, think about their builds thoroughly, and THEN submit them if it works okay. Right now, the new user simply has no guidance into what to do, so they fuck shit up. I dunno, but simply having a big notice about "theorycrafting" and keeping it to userspaces is probably a good idea.  A policy isn't needed, you can simply just WELL bad theorycrafted builds.  [[Image:Benjammn311Sig5.png]] 06:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't really tell people theorycraft since they will always play ra--Relyk 09:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, RUGS was flavor of the month in TA until monks bought balanced stance.  —ǥrɩɳsɧƴ ɖɩđđɭɘş  [[Image:Grinshpon blinky cake.gif|19px]] 14:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

TBH i'd be all for getting rid of the current category system for builds. If it were up to me i'd simply change categories to "Meta-Documented" and "Theorycraft". For theorycraft we'd still leave rating system in, but i'd get rid of the good/great/other system, just give them a hard number out of 5 for effectiveness and utility. If a build in theorycraft eventually sees meta use it can be moved over to the meta buildspace. You can leave ratings on meta section, idrc, but tbh there's not a point. If it's meta it usually is meta because it best deals with whatever the current meta is. My thoughts--Goldenstar 10:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Better idea; Scrap everything that's not meta. --> Archive only builds that fell out of the meta. --> Attract good players to actually keep up with the meta. --> Delete current vetting system. :> Brandnew.  12:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ^A fansite forum could do this. I know we're supposed to have standards, but only providing ONLY meta builds is fucking retarded.  It's like a Ford dealership that only sells Mustangs: people come to this sites for builds, not metatracking.  I like the "Meta"/"Theorycraft" section idea, as it allows for PvX to fully morph into a metatracking site WHILE ADDITIONALLY having the old way of PvX where people can craft builds and (potentially) make good ones.  [[Image:Benjammn311Sig5.png]] 18:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What about shit like the Distortion MB ele, that was not used at all when posted, but look now (wasn't used because it was here but something nH were going to run or something) Frosty  the Admin 18:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * tbh, there is a lot of meta shit that is just as terrible as theorycrafted stuff. also, not everyone is bad at theorycraft. 128.255.216.144 18:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do what we normally do: vote-wipe. Or resubmit.  Either way, the system we currently have in place for that is fine.  As it was said above, if a build that's in "TC" goes meta ingame, then it should obviously be moved to "Meta" with a vote-wipe.  [[Image:Benjammn311Sig5.png]] 18:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I propose
We change the "Welcome to PvXwiki, the largest database of Guild Wars character builds!" heading on the main page to "Welcome to PvXwiki, the largest database of Guild Wars meta builds!" per this policy--Relyk 00:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * no, the latter suggests we deal exclusively with meta builds, and as me and others have repeatedly said, the wiki was made for documenting builds, not just meta.  ~ PheNaxKian Sysop   00:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is precisely the fact that we allow every bad tom dick and harry to post bad builds and give bad reasoning to persuade other bad players to give bad sympathy votes to keep said bad builds in the mainspace that we have such a bad reputation. 220.255.7.142 00:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well people keep referring to this policy saying that pvxwiki should only document meta builds. I don't think the policy should be talking as much about theorycraft as much as failed concepts. Theorycraft is usually based on knowledge and experienced players are involved with such builds imo. And automatically deleting people's builds just because they are failed concepts (which would be given with a reason similar to WELL tag) isn't good for reputation either. I don't understand whether or not people want to only keep builds that should be used, because that leaves around 20 builds for PvP--Relyk 01:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We could have a new tag denoting the build as theorycraft. >.> [[Image:Zyke-Sig.png]] 01:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * no--Relyk 01:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * there's no need to distinguish builds as theorycraft. We don't need to know if they're theorycrafted or not, we just need to say "yes this build deserves this rating". For all we care they could have Obs'ed it, theorycrafted it, or blown it out their arse for all we care, in the end we just have to decide what rating it deserves, regardless of how it came into existence.  ~ PheNaxKian Sysop   17:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there are nearly no theorycrafted builds in great and hardly any theorycrafted builds are even played. What i'm trying to say is we have SOOO many builds that don't ever get played because they're not very good but could work in theory. We need to distinguish between what builds are actually played and which ones could work but don't really see play.--Goldenstar 20:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with theory-crafted builds being documented on the wiki. In any intellectual community, people need the freedom to express new ideas in order for progress and growth to continue. It's about creating a culture in which ideas can be freely discussed, whether they are immediately useful or not. You see this in the real world communities of Physics, mathematics, political science, etc. where not everything must be immediately valuable, but can be build up and extended over time until a useful result is obtained. Clamping down on new ideas because they aren't immediately great only serves to further starve the community of innovation. Captain Bulldozer Don't TELL me that you're right... prove it. ''' 20:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing you get rid of theorycrafting, I'm proposing that we make a much clearer and more official distinction between what builds are inventions of the community and what builds exist as part of the meta (the builds that see common play and are acknowledged as the standard of play by the community) because right now there's just not enough of a distinction.--Goldenstar 02:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

lol, because what we need is more templates :)  Star of Exile    talk   02:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Templates suck, I want actual categories--Goldenstar 02:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * if you want actual categories just add to a page, and it's listed in that category. Can i point out we actually do have a a tag for meta builds now (for a while actually), which i think achieves the same thing you're wanting to do.  ~ PheNaxKian  Sysop   12:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

i like mine better. though tbh some builds that are now very meta started off as a theorycraft on the discussion page, like Archive:A/W Knocklock Palm Spiker--that got into the meta REALLY fast.--Reason.decrystallized 12:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it was a build that worked decently well prior buff. after the buff it kicked serious ass. now it has been watered down.-- Ikimono Needs more Paragon [[Image:Monk-Paragon-icon.png|24px]] 05:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's dumb nobody ran pre-buff PS :/ [[Image:Frostysig9000.jpg|19px]]Frosty <font color="Blue"> the <font color="Blue">Admin 18:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

mmk, i dont think theorycrafted should be put in userspace though, that's going to far imo. I would say <5% of great builds, 40%-50% of good, and 90% of other builds are theorycrafted. They aren't used since there are better builds out there, i think there's just some bad voting and not enough wells to filter out theorycraft. If the policy wants bms and admins to sift out theorycrafted builds from builds that are viable. The wording on the policy is bad imo if this is what the policy means--Relyk 00:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not just make compromise and think of all "Trial" builds as theory craft? If they prove to work well, when they are shifted to testing/tested their efficiency can be measured through the ratings process. Sometimes theory craft does produce good results, and sometimes not. Isn't that what the ratings are intended to establish anyway? [[Image:Bulldozer1.jpg|24px]] <font color="Blue">Captain Bulldozer <font color = "Black" font size = 1>Don't TELL me that you're right... prove it. ''' 18:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the Trial tag is to change the build into what it should be before testing, not for theorycrafting. Even our meta builds go through trial, so that we can make improvements to the write-up, attributes, usage, etc. So....that doesn't make sense. [[Image:KJ needed a new sig....sig.png]] <font face="Arial" color="gray">18:35, 25 March 2009
 * Trial indicates nothing more than that "you're done with the article and would like others to review and comment on it". Not quite what you claim KJ. Trial can be anything from just an idea to something which can be developed more, to a well established idea that simply hasn't been documented. Perhaps theory-crafted builds can be contained in trial or even in testing until the jackass community can tender their ignorant and mentally evasive comments. I don't personally see any need for a "theory-crafted" tag, at least until we have a better definition of what theory-crafting is. [[Image:Bulldozer1.jpg|24px]] <font color="Blue">Captain Bulldozer <font color = "Black" font size = 1>Don't TELL me that you're right... prove it. ''' 19:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I honestly think the rating system is working. Most people don't run the theorycrafted builds in the other/good sections anyway, so why is this even an issue? Also, Captain, if you don't like PvX I would love to recommend other sites you could use. [[Image:KJ needed a new sig....sig.png]] <font face="Arial" color="gray">19:28, 25 March 2009
 * I think in general the rating system's guidelines are good, although perhaps not specific enough in some cases. What is more of a problem is that the guidelines are not followed by many users, and enforcement of the guidelines is often lacking. For similar reasons, while I like the site, there is a part of the community that gives this place a bad name amongst GW players by not following the guidelines and over/under rating builds to places they don't deserve. Honestly though, if you don't theory craft every build you make, then aren't you just randomly choosing 8 skills which may or may not work well together (if at all)? So it seems like theory-crafting is always present at the build's conception. [[Image:Bulldozer1.jpg|24px]] <font color="Blue">Captain Bulldozer <font color = "Black" font size = 1>Don't TELL me that you're right... prove it. ''' 19:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What? No, in most cases theorycrafting is not "present at the build's conception" because many of the builds we post on this site are already being used. Most of the "Great" builds are builds that were already being used in the game before they were ever stored by us. If you don't believe me, wait until after the mATs are over this month. We will have at least 1 more GvG team build and possibly a few HvH builds vetted because good players used them in the game. [[Image:KJ needed a new sig....sig.png]] <font face="Arial" color="gray">19:46, 25 March 2009
 * I believe you interpret "at the build's conception" to mean its authoring on PvX. I, on the other hand, meant when the idea for the build was conceived, whether it be in PvX, or in game, or even as the designer was lying in bed trying to sleep and unable to because a build idea was occupying the mind. Some people may choose to design a build using PvX only while others may not. Until its tested in game, all it can be really is theory-crafted (although some theories are more sound than others obviously). [[Image:Bulldozer1.jpg|24px]] <font color="Blue">Captain Bulldozer <font color = "Black" font size = 1>Don't TELL me that you're right... prove it. ''' 20:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "or even as the designer was lying in bed trying to sleep and unable to because a build idea was occupying the mind." Best quote I've seen on PvX so far. [[Image:KJ needed a new sig....sig.png]] <font face="Arial" color="gray">20:11, 25 March 2009
 * lol Don't tell me its never happened to anyone but me >< [[Image:Bulldozer1.jpg|24px]] <font color="Blue">Captain Bulldozer <font color = "Black" font size = 1>Don't TELL me that you're right... prove it. ''' 20:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't take GW or PvX that seriously, tbh. It's just something to occupy myself when work is slow lol. [[Image:KJ needed a new sig....sig.png]] <font face="Arial" color="gray">20:16, 25 March 2009
 * Maybe it has something to do with being a mathematician... we tend to dig deeply into the details, and its hard to shut that kind of thinking off. Still I haven't been kept up designing GW builds THAT much (and not recently as I have been kept up with math publication details instead). Don't worry though, nothing said on PvX occupies much grey matter anyway. [[Image:Bulldozer1.jpg|24px]] <font color="Blue">Captain Bulldozer <font color = "Black" font size = 1>Don't TELL me that you're right... prove it. ''' 20:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that PvXwiki is not a documentation of meta builds. For whats observer then? For whats the meta tag of this wiki then? Whats this wiki then for? Im here to ask people if my build is good, and thats pretty much the original idea of PvX. And see GW: Abandoning original idea(l)s ruins it. But then elitism took over, the same thing that made "... of Fortitude +30" hundred times more expensive than "... of Fortitude +29" and that made Shadow Form be the most used elite skill in the game. (I dont SF farm. Its boring) 95.119.21.88 19:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)