PvXwiki talk:Real Vetting/Archive 8

"both Good and Great builds can obtain this tag"
I think the meta tag policy should be changed to read "only Good and Great builds can obtain this tag". The wording is currently a bit ambiguous. Obviously, this is what was originally intended to be in the policy and this would help clear things up. Karate  Jesus  23:08, 30 January 2010
 * I always thought it was common sense not to post a meta tag until it was vetted. In the majority of cases when people do this things aren't actually meta, but if they are it will take like 0.5 seconds to get vetted anyway. - Athrun Feya - 02:39, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently it's not common sense to everyone. And, as you said, most meta builds are vetted within only a few hours, so there's no real reason in adding the build prior to vetting. I'm going to go ahead and make the change, unless anyone opposes. It's pretty obvious that it's trying to say that anyway. Karate [[File:KJ for sig.png]] Jesus  14:38, 31 January 2010

votes with non-reasons
with our admin roles tweaked slightly, what are the new rules on removing votes with insufficient reasoning. should admins be able to remove votes at any time which do not have real reasoning? if so, should we emphasise this on the voting section of this page? e.g., "votes with insufficient reasoning may be deleted at any time by an admin" - Athrun Feya - 22:59, February 2, 2010 (UTC) and following. It's not written as bluntly as you suggest, but the policy obviously already covers this. Karate  Jesus  15:42, 3 February 2010
 * I've always thought we should remove such votes, but I always get "QQ everyone does it" in response whenever I remove such votes. That said, i've noticed said votes being removed (and people commenting on said votes), so i assume people are a bit more "you actually need a reason" now. If that's the case then i'm all for removing them and saying "you're vote /needs/ a reason if you don't want it removed".  ~ PheNaxKian talk  23:12, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think if we enforced the rule we couldn't really make it retroactive, so all votes as of whatever date need to have sufficient reasoning or they will be deleted as per PvX:VETTING, or something. - Athrun <font size="3" face="vivaldi" color="Steelblue">Feya - 23:15, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * We have the same role we always had. We're supposed to remove votes that have no reasoning. I agree with Phen that being retroactive with it would be a waste, but in the future, we should enforce it. It doesn't really matter who whines about it. It should have been done all along. <font color="Black" face="cambria">Karate [[File:KJ for sig.png]] <font color="Black" face="cambria">Jesus  <font face="Arial" color="gray" size="1">23:16, 2 February 2010
 * I'm pretty much going to do whatever the fuck I want. Incidentally, that won't be much. [[Image:Misery_Cow.png|19x19px]] <font color="#00dd00">Misery <font color="#00ee00">Says <font color="#00ff00">Moo   23:17, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Msg :> --Crow 23:21, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Should we send a kind reminder to all users somewhere to put sufficient comments in? and change the wording on the policy slightly to emphasis they can just be deleted, as i said above? - <font size="3" face="vivaldi" color="Steelblue">Athrun <font size="3" face="vivaldi" color="Steelblue">Feya - 23:25, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I can just do another Site Notice for it (did anyone remove the BM one? I forgot about it.), but it's already covered in the policy. I don't know what we'd need to re-write. <font color="Black" face="cambria">Karate [[File:KJ for sig.png]] <font color="Black" face="cambria">Jesus  <font face="Arial" color="gray" size="1">23:43, 2 February 2010
 * Basically want "votes with insufficient reasoning may be deleted at any time by an admin" pasted somewhere, just to make it extremely clear. - <font size="3" face="vivaldi" color="Steelblue">Athrun <font size="3" face="vivaldi" color="Steelblue">Feya - 23:48, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * We already have a whole section of "don'ts" for vetting and this one should already have it covered, "A vote must constitute an objective judgment of the build's qualities..."
 * i know we already have it (reading skills ftw) my actual point was make it very obvious, so people can see what's going on exactly before complaining (and replying that it's some little side note tucked away in a policy that realistically no new user is going to read really isn't acceptable - be realistic.) - <font size="3" face="vivaldi" color="Steelblue">Athrun <font size="3" face="vivaldi" color="Steelblue">Feya - 19:11, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Seeing as it's already in the policy, just go ahead and reword it however you like. Be powerful! [[Image:Misery_Cow.png|19x19px]] <font color="#00dd00">Misery <font color="#00ee00">Says <font color="#00ff00">Moo   19:13, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong lau! - <font size="3" face="vivaldi" color="Steelblue">Athrun <font size="3" face="vivaldi" color="Steelblue">Feya - 19:14, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I like voting occasionally. But seeing that I only vote to push a build through trash/testing, my votes are even sometimes lacking reason. I GUESS I CAN START FOLLOWING POLICY. However, would that not mean we'd have to go back through every build ever to fix this problem? -- <font color="#342EFF">Big <font color="#00008B">McStrongfist  19:48, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I said we should remind users that votes need to have reasoning but not really make it retroactive (as in only to apply from now onwards, so votes made before this date are exempt) - <font size="3" face="vivaldi" color="Steelblue">Athrun <font size="3" face="vivaldi" color="Steelblue">Feya - 19:52, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Tbh, in some cases, I really don't want to think of reasons. Like if I'm gonna 5-5-X Shock Axe, I'm not going to say it's incredibly effective because blablabla. Though it takes flavor out of voting, I do admit it improves this site by much. And ohell, just don't be all too zealous about it. -- Chaos  -- 20:30, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Vetting re: PvP builds
This has been alluded to in the past, but I have not seen anyone suggest it as an implementation.

Perhaps your opinions vary, but my belief is that for at least the 8v8 PvP formats, the only builds that deserve approval are those that are in the meta.

With that being said, the classification of approved builds between good and great are misleading. As it stands, the vetting process results in well-designed builds that are unsuitable in the current meta being deemed "great" erroneously. Additionally, the rating system does not offer the flexibility of adjusting a build's category according to metagame variations.

My proposal is that vetting for builds designed for 8v8 should be scrapped. The great categories for pvp game modes should be reserved for builds that are firmly established in the respective game type, while the good categories hold builds that are seen infrequently, either because they're inferior to what is currently being run (Rt/E Shackles flagger compared to Mo/E HB flagger) or because they're situational enough to be seen only rarely (WoH flagger versus HB flagger).

If implemented, this would make obsolete the meta tag, which is currently not very useful - the metagame consists of more than the bars in the handful of basic team builds; variants that are situational counters should be tagged with it too. Retooling the great and good categories to reflect the relative prevalence of meta builds would serve to make both categories more reflective of what is going on in PvP. --Lemming 12:58, May 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * We have the meta tag(s. We have one for PvP and one for PvE). This clearly shows what builds are (supposedly) in the current meta. From what i've read you have one of two issues with the tag:
 * The tag doesn't stand out enough so people don't always see it. If this is the case we can always change the tag slightly to make it stand out more (such as change colours or something)
 * Alternativly, you don't think the category(/ies) stand out much on the main page (at a quick glance i don't see any links actually, so I'll make a mock up on the edit copy). If this make a suggestion on the edit copy of the main page (i.e. edit it to how you think t should be) and we can disscuss what we think and implement a solution we're all happy with =p.


 * As for the the "great builds not being meta" part, some builds don't get their votes changed when the meta shifts. If that's the case just bring it up on the build talk and ask what people think should be done, it might be an archive, or a vote wipe (and then see if it needs archiving).


 * As for altering the system for PvP builds over all...I won't say i'm opposed to it, but I think some redundancy in the system is a good thing (in this case builds that aren't meta).


 * As for the "meta tag not being useful" thing, can I ask why you feel that way, i've not seen any point where you've really explained that point, and if we can change that we can avoid changing they system (which is preferable).


 * If I missed something I apologise =p <font color="#4169E1"> ~ PheNaxKian <font color="#8A2BE2">talk  13:56, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought PvX only vetted team builds that were on obs first, anyway? ···  Danny So Cute    19:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what I get for writing at 2 AM - coherence suffers.


 * There's no link to the meta category on the front page. All you can access from there are the good and great categories.


 * Going into the great category tells you nothing about what is being run at the moment. Meta builds are lumped in the same category as fringe meta builds and nonmeta builds, with no ability to distinguish between them without actually opening them.


 * Even when the tag is used, it's m there's nothing indicating that a shackles runner is seen about 10% as much as an hb runner, since the former has been relegated to a fringe meta build.


 * I've tried the build talk process for revetting some builds (see my contribs). It does not seem like there's much response.


 * @Danny: before I requested removal, there was a Shatterstorm ranger in GvG good. What does that tell you?


 * --Lemming 20:12, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

I'm with lemming on this one. As it is now, the wiki doesn't do a good job of reflecting which builds are currently in play. The vetting system for gvg needs to just be scrapped and the wiki needs to appoint 4-5 members of the gvg scene to maintain a list of build pages that document builds, how they're played, and their current prevalence in the meta. They should be responsible for maintaining the category so that it reflects current standards, and would be responsible for moving gvg builds into and out of the archives(which should happen much more frequently then it does now). Essentially we need build janitors for a gvg section, not a vetting system.--TahiriVeila 20:23, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

I also agree, better than current system. p.s LEMLEMLEM ^O^ --Crow 20:50, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Having a meta tag essentially serves the same purpose, and Phen linked them on the main page now, so it should be fine. Otherwise, there's really no point in meta tags. <font color="Black" face="cambria">Karate [[File:KJ for sig.png]] <font color="Black" face="cambria">Jesus  <font face="Arial" color="gray" size="1">21:05, 1 May 2010
 * just a quick note, I'm talking to Jake (Tahiri), and we're discussing some options, I'll make a sub page with the proposal when we settle on something a bit more solid, and link you all then =p. <font color="#4169E1"> ~ PheNaxKian <font color="#8A2BE2">talk  21:13, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

I think everyone knows that I support what Lemming is saying. I've been pushing to change effectiveness to metaness since, oh, forever. Also, part of the reason why old meta builds are in Great is because they were vetted in when they were meta, but now that they aren't no one goes back and bad votes them. <font color="#A55858">Misery  21:28, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

proposal here. The changes are summarised on the talk page <font color="#4169E1"> ~ PheNaxKian <font color="#8A2BE2">talk  22:07, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Pay Attention
Some team builds are being plagued by "teams" of trolls giving rogue votings, incorrectly skewing the natural method of decent builds coming out top. In particular I am refering to Archive:Team - The Deep Spiteful Spike & User:Excluded/ Deep Physway. If one looks at the vote pages you can clearly see evidence of blatant copy paste reasoning. To stop this ridiculous trolling should there not be some administrators who could remove a) the offending votes. b) all of the votes - to go back to square one and start anew. (Small note: some of the offending votes ARE admins and I don't know if their votes can be removed.. ). Someone fix the trolls. --Chieftain Alex 17:56, July 25, 2010 (UTC) "For the second build i've left them, I explain my reason on the AN on said builds issue, I see no discrepancy between the votes and their reasoning." . Life   Guardian  19:56, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * we allow C+P votes, so none will be removed just for that reason. I removed the 3 on the first link, because "not pug-able and needs VoIP" aren't reasons to vote it down, it's a fair assumption that you can make a competent team and that because it's an online game, everyone will have VoIP. For the second build i've left them, I explain my reason on the AN on said builds issue, I see no discrepancy between the votes and their reasoning. If people think the reasoning is wrong, they should do what everyone else does, talk to the voters and convince them that they're misinformed.
 * Let me explain why admins don't look into vote reasoning to much, we had a system in place which did exactly that (the build master system), but it became apparent that allowing a select few to have that kind of control over a build, lead to more drama then any benefit it created (i.e. weeding out bad builds, pushing good out of trash builds etc.)
 * Also, yes, admin votes can be removed, they don't get any special "god powers" when it comes to their votes, they're treated as regular users. Any admin can have their vote removed by themselves or another admin if needed, but as i've said, I don't see the need here.
 * Those votes on Physway, are in no way troll votes, the users feel that way, they explained their reasoning, and their reasoning explains why they voted what they did quite well. They gave it a 3 out of 5, just think about that, that's basically a "this build is 'ok' but 'there's room for improvement'/'better choices' ", not "this build sucks balls and should be deleted ASAP".
 * We're fairly lax, if people want to come here just to have a place to store builds, that's fine, they have their userspace, for all we care, you can have whatever build you like there and it won't be judged. However once a build is submitted into the build namespace, it will looked at, and scrutinised by people, per this policy. If you feel this is somehow wrong, then make a new section on this page and say what you thinks wrong, and how you think it should be solved. People will discuss it, and things will move from there (that's not to say you're suggestions will be implemented, but we will discuss it and say why if that happens to be the case). <font color="#4169E1"> ~ PheNaxKian <font color="#8A2BE2">talk  18:29, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * k you've fixed half the problem. if you did look at the second one you perhaps would have noticed the 6 identical copy pastes of Andy's vote. don't tell me people can't make their own reason up. would probably make more sense for a votewipe.. --Chieftain Alex 19:52, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * "we allow C+P votes, so none will be removed just for that reason."
 * Frankly I would think this should inspire the addition of no C+P for votes.--Chieftain Alex 20:06, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Another butthurt Physway crew member. Yay. There are only so many reasons why a build is good or bad. If someone rates a build, and then you want to give it the same rating for the same reasons, you have to type it out in your own words? Stop being retarded. <font color="Red">A <font color="Black">ndy 20:20, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * In all seriousness have I asked for anything unjust? I do not wield offense against other users that I don't know unlike you. It seems to me, if someone wishes to vote for something in a particular way then they probably have reasoning for it, if you can't raise the effort to hammer your keys in rage to type out a few words of reasoning - why are you voting?--Chieftain Alex 21:05, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * k we know you have mods in your pocket. NPA also.
 * We allow C+P votes, we've discussed not allowing them before, but general consensus was it's ok, because there's no point in typing out "it's good/bad for XYZ reasons" however many times, just with different wording. As a rule of thumb though, we generally say that if you C+P the reasoning, you should have the same rating as well.
 * Also, Andy wasn't NPA'ing, I think he merely misunderstood your issue (he though you were specifically complaining about the Physway build because you're on of the users that's defending it like it's the best thing since sliced bread) <font color="#4169E1"> ~ PheNaxKian <font color="#8A2BE2">talk  21:50, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * No offense phenaxkain; he called me butthurt. I am 100% sure thats a personal attack lol.--Chieftain Alex 21:55, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * like i said, probably a misunderstanding, and if you consider "butthurt" as a personal attack you're in for a shock... <font color="#4169E1"> ~ PheNaxKian <font color="#8A2BE2">talk  22:04, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * unless things have seriously changed around here, i believe (removed) is still considered a casual greeting. Daññy 07:07, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * That actually hasn't been said in a while. We need to fix that. Life   Guardian  07:14, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * on a completely unrelated note, i accidentally learned how to cross-site script today. i've never really looked into it before, but NoScript threw up a billion warnings when I clicked a link on my own site. apparently all you have to do is make a javascript call inside any sort of link call. Daññy 08:10, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

meta proposal
has been implemented. feel free to start some kind of RfMCs or what ever. Remember the changes only apply to HA and GvG. <font color="#4169E1"> ~ PheNaxKian <font color="#8A2BE2">talk  22:01, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Good catagory
Many builds seem to be coming close to being vetted that really shouldnt be on the wiki. Most people agree that a build with an overall rating of say, 3.9 is pretty shit. It seems like the argument for slipping something into the good category is just if it works or not. I suggest we raise the minimum rating for good builds to 4 or even 4.25 to stop builds that 'work' but are still extremely ineffective from being placed on the wiki. Builds that are geared towards new players but are only slightly easier while being hugely slower seem to be on the verge of acceptance on the wiki, which differs from the point of the wiki being to store the meta and the most effective builds, rather than builds geared towards new players.--Oskar 22:03, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Speed clears and non-speed clears
Recently we've been having some issues with a few builds (specifically the Physway ones). Currently we allow both speed clear builds and none speed clear builds to be submitted, but what do we do when say a none speed clear build is submitted for an area that a speed clear exists for? Obviously you can't trash vote the none speed clear because "it's slower than a speed clear", jsut like you can't trash a speed clear because "It's not PuG friendly" (these are just a few examples, but you get the idea).

So my question is how does the community want to handle this issue? <font color="#4169E1"> ~ PheNaxKian <font color="#8A2BE2">talk  18:40, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Imo, non SC builds are all good for areas which people are often trying to pug (UW, FoW etc) however, areas which dont see pugging (the deep) have no need of non SC builds as theyre almost always organised groups that are perfectly capable of SCing.--Oskar 18:43, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I vote for WELLing non-speed clears for an area where an SC exists. There's no point in running a slower build simply b/c you don't want to grind the necessary characters/titles/equipment to run the speedclear or b/c a few players aren't good enough to run the SC builds. If people want to run less efficient builds (or even keep them in their userspace) that's fine, but PvX is all about storing the best builds available. Storing non-SC builds (like physways for any area other than UW) goes against that philosophy of only storing the best builds.--TahiriVeila 18:45, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * ^ Keeping non-SCs where SCs are viable would be like keeping various shitway builds for HA (like all the retarded farmways that my leet botting skills took to halls). Daññy 19:13, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Hey guiz, it mightn't be fast, but it's clearly stated that this is not a SC, 5-5-x plz. --Brandnew 19:19, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of players that don't SC. In fact probably more so than ones that do. There are many instances where guilds that do not SC may want to attempt the areas being mentioned, that would fail miserably using the SC builds. This means there are groups that are not PUGs that don't SC for these areas. Having other options on PvX would be a benefit for those. If PvX only maintained the "best SC builds" only the SC with the current record for a specific area should be allowed.....i.e. no variants....b/c by SC definition...it is the best. See how that doesn't work? As for voting/vetting?....I think I recall "Effectiveness" being the criteria not "Efficiency". Remember that there are players that simply don't like SCs, that actually like fighting through things.--NonRegistered
 * That's fine for them. Let them make their own builds, b/c we're not going to host them here b/c they're not effcieint. And when it comes to PvE, being effective means being efficient since the only thing required to clear an area is SY!--TahiriVeila 19:27, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for clarification..These are the 2 policies that account to 100% of vetting, 80% for "Effectiveness" and 20% for "Universality". .."Effectiveness...This criterion describes how effectively the build does what it was designed for. That is, how much damage does a spiker build deal, a healer build heal or a protector build prevent? How good is the chance to get through the specified area with a running build or to reach and defeat the specified foes with a farming build? Note that this criterion is not efficiency. It describes only the performance of the build, and does not compare this to the player's effort required to use it or to acquire the needed skills and items.<B>Universality</b>...This criterion describes how flexible the build is when used in a situation slightly different from what the build was designed for. This includes the ability to change strategy in case a foe shows unexpected actions, in case an ally does not perform as expected, or when used in a different location than originally intended." Having a non specific definition for "Effectiveness" allows for different views. Are SC's "Efficient" at getting end chests?...Yes..Do SCs have "Universality"?...No...--NonRegistered
 * Well then the description needs to be changed since the bench-mark for effectiveness in PvE has always been efficiency and P vX has been operating on the understanding that effectiveness=efficiency in elite areas for months if not years.--TahiriVeila 20:34, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Now let me ask a few questions...What is/is not considered "Efficient? Is speed the only critia for "Efficiency"? Do other criteria (profit/titles) play a role too? If the main goal of a SC is profit, then they are not very "Efficient".--NonRegistered
 * Efficiency means using skills and builds that synergize in order to finish an area in the most expedient manner. It means using bars that complement one another to complete an area in the fastest way possible. Profit does factor into efficiency as well, because speed means more profit. SC will always be the most efficient in terms of profit, even if they require the sue of pcons. Take UW terraway vs UW physway. While Tway requires the use of pcons, a group can finish UW in 3x during the time it take sphysway to finish once. So while Tway is more expensive on a per-run basis, it generates more overall profit b/c it opens the chest more times than physway. Therefore Tway must be considered more efficient b/c it finishes the area faster and generates a greater net profit--TahiriVeila 20:55, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * If the build is commonly enough run, like a pug physway or glaiveway, it's pretty much the metagame even if it's not a speedclear. I don't see any reason not to have such "pug-friendly" groups on the wiki since people come here to look at the builds first and foremost. The policy can be flexible up to that point. It's not like we're the ones that decide what build people should or are suppose to run. -- Relyk  talk  21:02, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * No but we're the people who record the best and most commonly used build. There's no point in hosting a pug-friendly build for an area that doesn't get pugged (like the deep)--TahiriVeila 21:03, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * You're forgetting a couple things. Not all of GW PvE is made up of SCers and PUGs. There are guild groups and "friend list" groups that don't SC........Profit is not simply, [(%chance of rare drop X time X price of rare drop)-price of cons] there are many more factors involved. When calculating profit one needs to examine all variables, not just a few.--NonRegistered
 * PvX isn't about making shitters feel good about themselves. We're about recording the best builds for completing any given area. You're perfectly within your rights as a gamer to use bad builds to play guild wars. That doesn't mean we have to record them.--TahiriVeila 22:06, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

PvX isn't strictly about SCs either and as such should not be limited to. Having multiple catagories is a reflection of this. PvE as it stands has 6 catagories, SC only being one of them. Forcing all builds into the SC catagory effects the overall helpfulness of PvX. Since GW is not limited to SCs neither should PvX.--NonRegistered

Apart from the OP i've not read any of this section so i might be repeating someone but here goes: pvx should provide for both the pugging market and more skilled guild-teams. This answer seems, at least to me, extremely obvious when you take into account commonly run non-SC builds like glaiveway doa and physway uw. PvX is here to document the game and while we're here to inform skilled guilds on 'optimum' set ups, we're also here to inform pugs of the builds they should load to get accepted into a team and just finish the damn area. As long as builds are used by more then a niche group of the community, they should be documented on pvx (subject to vetting). It's not that simple though. I think problems are occurring because for a long time we have not simply "documented the game". Instead of pvx users looking at what is currently ran at documenting the optimum, theorycraft has become known because it somehow landed in the Great category (e.g., fow cryway, uw physway, etc). It is necessary to think about this more carefully, then. I think it's reasonably safe to assume the only areas that are pugged now in game are FoW, UW and DoA (and a few dungeons, but there SC teams make a lot of sense because runs are short and the end chest is the most important part) so i'm tempted to say puggy builds should only exist for these places. It's hard to call really because then you're blocking out builds for terrible guilds like KISS who may occasionally want to do Urgoz, or something. This also reminds me that someone needs to make some hero builds for elite areas... Athrun Feya 23:21, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

How about this then, we allow (at least) 1 none SC for each area, regardless of what that area is? That way there's always an alternative to the SC should a user need one. <font color="#4169E1"> ~ PheNaxKian <font color="#8A2BE2">talk  13:02, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * We should only store non-SC (IT'S FUCKING NON-SPEED CLEAR NOT NONE SPEED CLEAR PHENAXKIAN) builds if there is some advantage to them over the speed clears other than "fun". If you can run it with heroes instead of 8 players or you don't need consumables it is worth storing it. There is a conceivable situation where you might want to use the build instead of a speed clear. If the only advantages are ease of use, level of fun or the range of primary classes used, GTFO. An exception to this is if the build is clearly meta, i.e. people are in outposts forming groups of this by name. <font color="#A55858">Misery  14:04, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just briefly, what is the point in running a non-speed clear build if a speed clear exists and there is no advantage to the non-speed clear build? I am confused. People have blatantly been using "It's not a speed clear!" as an excuse for bad run times. <font color="#A55858">Misery  14:05, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * ups, sorry. I'm lead to believe that the reason we should store NON-SPEED CLEAR builds is because they're more reliable (i.e. they have successful run 9/10 times where as a SC is 4/10 or something like that (though i can't say one way or the other)) That to me sounds like a fairly solid reason for having them to me. Personally I'm happy taking an extra 20 mins to do UW/FoW or whatever if it results in a better chance of doing it (of course you could argue that quicker runs mean you can try more often etc.) <font color="#4169E1"> ~ PheNaxKian  <font color="#8A2BE2">talk  14:19, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, speed clears are only 4/10 if you are absolutely fucking terrible. Do you have a specific example? <font color="#A55858">Misery  14:41, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * that was just a random example, i don't know the actual numbers, but it's something people have been saying. (I don't really play to any great extent so i can't say if they're right or not). <font color="#4169E1"> ~ PheNaxKian <font color="#8A2BE2">talk  16:16, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

@Misles, the primary reason people have been touting non-SC builds with bad run times is that they're supposedly more "fun" (b/c mashing 1-2-3 on a sin/derv/war is way more fun than playing a terra, c?) and that they use a wider range of primary classes. From what I've seen these non-SC builds are another example of people being too lazy to grind proper classes/titles and being all pissed off b/c their build is shit compared to the meta.--TahiriVeila 18:19, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * my opinion is along the same lines as misery, non-sc builds should only be stored if they are meta. we've otherwise told users to put them on their userpages if they want their guild/alli reference to it. you would have to ask life or someone about fail rate, although i don't think anyone on the site does uwsc now-- Relyk  talk  21:51, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay we get it ya'll are all in SC guilds and/or just don't play anymore. That does not justify making PvX SC or GTFO. People enjoy playing other characters besides those used in SCs or have not developed such characters. I refuse to believe that some seriously think PvX PvE should be limited...yes limited...to SCs. It would be like having a dictionary with only one definition per word b/c the editor didn't like the other definitions. If a build works well it should be included in PvX. Saying that a build does not work well based solely on time is blatently biased. If a team build of 8 paras (just an example)comes out and it can clear DOA with relative ease, then it should be on PvX. Not because of the time it takes, or the cons it uses, but b/c it is unique and it works. Based on the same reasoning of only retaining SC builds (b/c they are faster), then only the fastest ones should be kept. So all the SC variants that do not hold the current SC record would have to be trashed b/c they are slower after a 2 week "grace period". That insular policy would hinder PvX beyond thought. I am simply trying to provide ample reasons why PvX should retain builds other than SC ones. I am not trying to promote one type of gameplay or another, just giving PvX users options. Tbh I SC a lot. I just simply don't think that I should have to tell my guildies that they have to run a certain build on a specific character if they want to come with me to an elite area. Providing them a link to PvX where they might be able use a build and tactics on the spot makes PvX the great tool that it is (as well as saving me the headache of having to hold their hand through every aspect of the build and the area). Restricting PvX PvE to only SCs would limit it's usefulness as a resource. Using the SC only philosophy once one has learned the latest SC there would be no need to revisit PvX, except to troll, and that is not the intended purpose of this site. In closing this "rant" I will say that I am considerate to rational debate. If any reasons besides "speed" can be given for only retaining SC builds, by all means enlighten me. I will be open minded to logical reasons, theoretical or not.72.218.73.208 05:07, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * We have a general section for playing general pve. There's no point in listing specific non-SC builds for elite areas because they don't perform as well as SC builds. If you want to run shitty builds and elite areas, that's fine. That doesn't mean we should store your builds just b/c you don't want to grind the chars/titles--TahiriVeila 05:11, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Plz at least debate the topic instead of repeating the same thing over again. I actually have one of all 10 characters, ranging R2 Kobd-R6 Kobd, that have finished all campaigns and all WiK content. So not grinding the chars or titles does not come into the equation for me. But, that is besides the point....I have listed several reasons why other builds should be stored...ranging from the vetting policy to keeping PvX as a more valuble tool. Your definition of "perfom" is solely based on speed, which is very limited to say the least. I am not trying to attack you or SCs, just the notion that SCs are the only way PvX will support builds for forementioned areas. Metas would have a problematic time emerging if such intolerance took place. I repeat...plz if going to respond...actually respond to the debatable points and not simply repeat comments. TY72.218.73.208 05:34, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * So why do we have to justify "speed" if you don't have to justify "fun" as a reasonable criterion for retaining builds? Speed is a more reasonable method to sort the wheat from the chaff because it is objective rather than subjective. We can say x is faster than y, but everyone will disagree on whether x or y is more fun. The point you seem to be missing is that the mainspace of PvX is not a tool you can use to link your friends to or a place where meta is discovered and developed. If you want somewhere to link your friends, make it in your user space. We won't delete it, I promise. We don't give a shit about uniqueness, we store the best builds, and in addition the metagame. PvE is easy to beat, so the only thing that defines excellency is how quickly you can do it. <font color="#A55858">Misery  07:52, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, this reminds me. One thing about non-SC builds is that a lot of them can be composed by simply lifting builds from the general pve category and dropping them in a team.. this is the case for both physway and glaiveway. While speed clear builds serve an obvious purpose (i.e. to be fast for 'skilled' players), storing reams of team builds which can already be made up by someone with half a brain by looking at the general pve category don't (by the way, as i said before, we should indeed store meta non-sc builds). Athrun Feya 10:51, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * This is like arguing to a deaf crowd. Let me try changing gears a bit. Okay so let's say we incorporate this "SC only policy". Now we have to trash any variant that does not hold the current record. Why? Because it is not as fast as another. So trash every SC build that doesn't obtain the record in 2 weeks. In addition we will have to change the policy on vetting. Remove "Universality" from the policy, because SCs simply aren't, and under the current policy should only be able to recieve a maximum rating of 4/5. Now, we have to change and set the definition of "Effectiveness" to "the ability to clear an area the fastest". Also, we have to require any possible glitch exploits along with the build. So explain how to glitch the doors in Frostmaws, Ravens, + Doa because it is the fastest way. (ignore that it's against the EULA)Now that's cleared up, we have to stop skill updates b/c the metas cannot change. Well admittedly, we don't have to, but once a meta is nerfed or a new skill set is buffed causing metas to change, don't come to PvX looking for any meta that didn't catch on within 2 weeks of posting. To rebute the question about fun...how does fun even apply? Fun is clearly autonomous and as such, is not relevant. While the things I have mentioned above may not effect PvX in the short term, in the long term they would prove to be detrimental. 72.218.73.208 13:29, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Or we could not do those things because they are retarded and we are not? At the moment we do not store a build that is slow just because "it's not speed clear!". That is the status quo. If you want the status quo to be changed the burden of proof is on you to provide a reason for change. Not me. <font color="#A55858">Misery  14:04, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

I have provided ample reasoning on the fundamentals of PvX. I am confident that a unbiased person can see that.72.218.73.208 14:09, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, no you haven't. You have basically said we should do it because we should do it. Apparently it is wrong of us to not. This is bad. "Ample reasoning on the fundamentals of PvX" doesn't even make sense. Maybe you thought you said something coherent, but I can assure you, you did not. <font color="#A55858">Misery  14:13, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually they made plenty of sense it was just a tl;dr and picking at semantics is more fun than actually acknowledging valid points. PvX is obsessed with speed=efficiency as a primary criteria whether you are willing to admit it or not.  That being the case you don't need more than 1 build for any given area.  There is always going to be only one fastest option which, surprise, is also going to be the "best".  If you can't see how that actually harms the site I'm not sure what to tell you.  76.17.97.158 14:33, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I read it all. I even double checked to see if I missed something. You are mostly just wrong. Speed is one of the primary considerations when vetting a PvE team build for one area, but it isn't the only criterion. We've outlined the other reasons a build would be worthy of storing, no need for cons, ability to be run with fewer people, meta, etc. If there is a reason for a build to be stored, it will be. Being unique is not a valid reason, it adds no value. Working is not a valid reason, almost anything can "work". Having 3463572 builds for each area harms the site too, how do you differentiate between all those builds and find what you are actually looking for? We have chosen a happy medium. If you make a valid point I'll be happy to acknowledge it. <font color="#A55858">Misery  14:38, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Let me recap them for you then.... There is no point in having a build resource site that only caters to exp. players. Since they are exp. they are not the ones who need the help. It's a catch-22.72.218.73.208 14:43, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * PvX current vetting policy
 * PvX current definition of "Effectiveness"
 * Future ramifications of inacting such a SC only policy
 * Player demographics
 * How such a policy would be masochistic
 * Policy is actually weaker than community consensus, the real driving force behind a wiki. Policy is only supposed to be a reflection of community consensus. If it is incorrect, it needs to be updated, the behaviour doesn't have to change. I'm not convinced we are out of line with policy at all, the policy is more geared towards PvP builds.
 * See above.
 * There are no ramifications of enacting such a policy because this has been our policy for quite some time. As such, not changing anything will result in the site not changing, which is fine by me. It's a fairly reasonable builds database. It's also not an SC only policy as has been explained several times.
 * Why do we care about player demographics? We aren't actually here to cater to anybody.
 * We don't have to do any of that silly bullshit you suggested. All we have to do is say "No, let's not do that." Then we don't. Simple no?
 * We store builds. We store builds that are good and builds that are used. We assume people are UAX. We show people what builds good players use. We aren't here to teach, although we sometimes do. We aren't here to create the metagame, although we sometimes (very, very occasionally and much less often than people blame us for) do. Do you feel addressed yet? Your points are still lacking. It is pretty tiring when you demand that I read your arguments more closely when you evidently aren't reading anyone else's. <font color="#A55858">Misery  14:54, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Who is "we" Misery? As if you are speaking for some great collective?  The admin who started this section obviously sees the same thing myself and the other IP does.  You have a few posters towards the top who typify the exact type of attitude we are talking about around here, SC or get the fuck out.  How much clearer can it possibly be made to you?  There is no burden of proof there is just your personal unwillingness to put two and two together here.  Replace "work/working" with "non-SC" in your post and bingo, you got it.  76.17.97.158 14:51, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am speaking for some great collective. Community and consensus. It is how we operate. Phenaxkian has a very bad feel for it. Working builds are shit and that is a shitty criterion to store builds based upon, that has been covered time and time again. <font color="#A55858">Misery  14:54, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * just a note, i don't care one way or the other. I brought this up because the policy isn't clear enough. <font color="#4169E1"> ~ PheNaxKian <font color="#8A2BE2">talk  15:04, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)So you are saying you don't own the site then? I'm just really confused where you get off demanding an unreasonable burden of proof (when you have an admin and a few posters proving it) and then speak as though you speak for the entire community at large.  Phenaxkian was voted into their position by users here was s/he not?  That's a pretty poor reflection of the "community" you claim to represent if you feel this person is so out of touch and in a position of authority.  76.17.97.158 15:08, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * PvX:ADMIN. I'm an admin, guess that means I'm a representative too champ. Phenaxkian hasn't proven anything. He hasn't attempted to. No other poster has proven that storing slower builds with no other advantage is beneficial. The burden of proof is always placed upon people who want change. That's not unreasonable at all, otherwise we would implement any change anyone ever suggested. <font color="#A55858">Misery  15:12, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how Phenax's point of view (if he had one at all on this matter) is any reflection on the community at all. Phenax is perfectly capable of upholding the policies in a trustworthy way and he does. I think that's a pretty good reflection of the community's judgement. In addition, the ratio of people agreeing with you to those who disagree is less than 1. I think Misery's assertion that your point of view is not held by the consensus is pretty well grounded at the moment. Panic 15:18, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe policy should be replaced with the community consensus, that was achieved during the great vote of....wait, that didn't happen. You say that "THIS" policy has been enacted for a while, yet Good/Working builds are still here.(remember to stick to the point, as the general pve catagory is n/a to this discussion)From what I have been able to ascertain, there is some sort of war here on PvX between 2 groups of about 6 or so people per side, over "SC and Physway". This debate has nothing to do with that, so plz don't carry over any spite from that to this. This is about the basic principles of what PvX is. "We (debatable)don't like it. No!" is not a valid point. Player demographics allows you to see who your "consumer" base is, not just who you want it to be. Just because some ppl choose not to particpate in a lot of the "flame wars" on this site, doesn't mean we are not part of it's collective. 72.218.73.208 15:41, August 5, 2010 (UTC) you get paid by our undying love--<font color="#0000ff"> X <font color="#696969"> TREME 16:04, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * It was achieved during the day the wiki was grounded. That is how a wiki works, I'm sorry if you don't understand that, but you don't have to, I just have to enforce it. Seeing as your argument is "I would like it and I reckon other people would to!", you may want to find a better argument to try and debunk my point of view. Also, if you don't contribute to the site, you are not part of the community. You are contributing to a debate right now, so you just became part of the community and your opinion is valid, it counts! Hooray! Unfortunately your points are poor and few people agree with you so you still lose. For now at least. Also, why am I supposed to care about our "consumer base"? I'm not getting paid for this, nobody is. <font color="#A55858">Misery  15:45, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not just amend PvX policy to SC only. You will save yourself a lot of grief and you can keep out those pesky shitters who dare to post non-SC builds to the site.  Seems to be what the consensus is in this section anyways...win-win?  76.17.97.158 15:51, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow I'm debating with a Nazi...so apparently rational deliberation won't work...If this is the additude of the admins on this site, then I want NO part of it. Have fun with your regime.72.218.73.208 15:55, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not the consensus people have arrived at. That's just the stupid slippery slope argument people keep attempting to use to try and make my position look ridiculous. Luckily, it isn't my position. <font color="#A55858">Misery  15:57, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, don't let the door hit ya! Nice Godwin's Law there by the way. <font color="#A55858">Misery  15:57, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * So were you posting your position all this time or just what you think the community wants, because the latter is pretty clear in this sub-section. SC builds with maybe 1-2 non-SC options for elite PvE areas and you need some heroway stuff too.  Seems pretty cut and dry, did I miss anything?  76.17.97.158 16:02, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * "I'm not getting paid for this, nobody is"
 * See, I am basing my interpretation of consensus on the activity and discussions across the entire site and past discussions on this topic, not just in this subsection where a handful of new and anonymous contributors are bitching about our current practices. My position and consensus appear to be very closely aligned at this point and something along the lines of keep the best builds. These builds may be the best because they are the fastest, or if not the fastest have some other advantage that makes them worthwhile. You know, what the hell does a speed clear even mean? That you do it quickly? Why would you ever want to do it slowly? It seems like people mostly use the fact that it is not a speed clear as an excuse for their build being bad. <font color="#A55858">Misery  16:09, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

I like turtles. --Lemming 19:48, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

My OP (being a non-admin) is the same as Athrun Feya aka Lau. If it is tl;dr then just skip to her post.--<font color="#0000ff"> X <font color="#696969"> TREME 21:33, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I like turtles too. <font color="#A55858">Misery  07:17, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Meta Categories Revisited
I really think we should apply the new meta categorization to all play types in both PvP and PvE. It condenses the small meta tags on the various builds into the vetting tag, which is a plus, and it's fairly easy to see that some builds are indeed meta even in low-end play (like the RA WoH monk). This would also improve the functionality of the build pack script without adding much code (6 more characters and it can handle the new meta categories perfectly). I can't think of a good reason for having two separate meta tagging systems, but if I've missed something please remind me. <font face="Courier New" color="Black">Toraen <font face="Courier New" color="DarkGoldenrod">TheJanitor 22:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, I've made the changes with the editcopy that improve the visibility of meta builds (which I've always felt was lacking with the current setup) should we go this route. <font face="Courier New" color="Black">Toraen <font face="Courier New" color="DarkGoldenrod">TheJanitor 22:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * works for me--TahiriVeila 22:52, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * More concise tagging is always good. But you missed one thing on the tag though, it should say This build is meta in the following environment: not This build has been designed for the following use: And the here button takes me nowhere but I suspect that it's b/c he page doesn't exist yet. [[Image:Zyke-Sig.png]] 23:22, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * If something is meta tagged I really don't want to have both a Meta and a Great tag on it. The commonality section (which has yet to be written for any meta build :/) can describe which areas the build is actually meta in. Example: Shock Axe would have a Meta tag which would have the GvG, HA, AB, and RA categories, and the commonality section would say that it is meta to the greatest extent in GvG, and mentions its frequency of use among the other formats. We've always tagged and vetted based on the best area for each build. <font face="Courier New" color="Black">Toraen <font face="Courier New" color="DarkGoldenrod">TheJanitor [[image:ToraenSig2.png]] 23:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't notice the GvG tags where moved up. Oh, is there anyway to shrink down the tags so they fit horizontally into the page? It takes a crapton of space atm. [[Image:Zyke-Sig.png]] 23:37, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * The only problem is there are multiple meta builds for one area with good or great ratings, for example uw. So it would work to have a meta tag that assigned whether its pve/pvp and a good/great rating: . As this only seems applicable to pve since all pvp meta builds are "great", the rating part will probably only be needed there. Then all the meta tags could be replaced-- Relyk   talk  00:25, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Given how the vetting tags work, we'd probably take the lazy route on that and make a MetaGreat-Build and a MetaGood-Build tag, using them according to the rating on the build. There isn't really any need to create even further separate tags between PvP and PvE, since that's covered by the gameplay-type parameters. Even the Great/Good split for Meta builds doesn't really seem necessary to me tbh. <font face="Courier New" color="Black">Toraen <font face="Courier New" color="DarkGoldenrod">TheJanitor [[image:ToraenSig2.png]] 00:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In regards to the meta tag being allowed on all forms of game play, we discussed this and we decided that it was a terrible idea, because for the most part, there isn't a clear cut meta in most areas (RA/Running/Farming etc. how do you class certain builds meta over another in those areas?) see here (for the majority of) said discussion.
 * The main page looks fine, but the problem i have with it is that it's going to look very cramped on lower resolutions. <font color="#4169E1"> ~ PheNaxKian  <font color="#8A2BE2">talk  10:13, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, why do we have the old PvE-meta and PvP-meta tags? I'm thinking that unless a PvE build is specifically being requested in outposts or clearly very, very common, we don't Meta tag it. In low-end PvP, there are builds like RA WoH and JQ RoJ that are definitely part of the metagame as well. If we're going to be meta tagging these low-end format builds anyway, it doesn't make sense to use two separate tags that basically say the same thing. <font face="Courier New" color="Black">Toraen <font face="Courier New" color="DarkGoldenrod">TheJanitor [[image:ToraenSig2.png]] 17:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * mostly because the new meta template means anything tagged with it doesn't need vetting and outside of HA/GvG there isn't necessarily a clearly defined meta. Like i said, it's not that those areas don't have metas, it's just that much harder to say "yes it is because XYZ". <font color="#4169E1"> ~ PheNaxKian <font color="#8A2BE2">talk  17:58, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * With that meta tag people tend to powervote the build to great anyway. I'm fine with the new meta tag only being applied to non HA/GvG builds after vetting into Good/Great, if that's ok with you. I just don't like having both meta tags around (especially since the old ones don't even sort the builds into play-type categories). The build pack issues I mentioned earlier are probably the biggest reason I'm suggesting this change. <font face="Courier New" color="Black">Toraen <font face="Courier New" color="DarkGoldenrod">TheJanitor [[image:ToraenSig2.png]] 19:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, sorry I missed that part of your initial post. In that case I do see the benefit of doing so...given that the current meta-build template is geared towards the HA/GvG (and "team" to the overlapping nature of things), it's rather specific to those areas (see: Commonality). Asu such there are 2 posiable things we can do (that spring to mind anyway, there may be others):
 * A second template that works in exactly the same way and looks pretty much identical except in what the wording and such is (it could be Template:Meta or something, I'm not fussed about where it's kept).
 * The alternative is to change how the current meta template for HA/GvG works, to make it usable to all areas, however, if HA or GvG happen to be one of the play types, they'd have to be the first game type listed.
 * I'm happy with either, they're not overly difficult to implement either way. I'd say the second would be easier on the community (considering you don't tag an area for that many areas anyway certainly not if they're HA/GvG, and if they are HA/GvG they're normally first). <font color="#4169E1"> ~ PheNaxKian <font color="#8A2BE2">talk  19:58, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the second option sounds good. The tag can still be used to bypass vetting for HA/GvG teams (as originally) but any other build has to be at least vetted Good before it can become meta. Do you want to make Meta-Great-Build and Meta-Good-Build for that? I'm not too keen on the idea, but Relyk suggested it and it has some merit (the tag would add the build to both the Meta and Good/Great categories for the areas tagged). <font face="Courier New" color="Black">Toraen <font face="Courier New" color="DarkGoldenrod">TheJanitor [[image:ToraenSig2.png]] 22:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * right, i've made a mock up here. It accepts any playtype (it did anyway but thought i'd make that clear), and you can give it a "rating" (one of the arguments you supply the template has to be "rating=good" (rating has to be lowercase, but you can have good/great rating). If you do as such it will add any playtypes you've added to that rating as well as the meta categories. If you give it a rating it will also show the "this build has a rating of..." bit.
 * I actually decided to leave the commonality link common to all playtypes, mostly because I do think you could find use for most playtypes (so farming would be where it's commonly used for instance). I'll move it over shortly if people want. <font color="#4169E1"> ~ PheNaxKian <font color="#8A2BE2">talk  10:20, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really care about this whole rewriting thing, but what about trash meta? Do we want to keep it? I mean things like ride the lightning HA, MATHway or eleball. They are fucking terrible, but were meta at various points. I don't know if we have equivalents now. <font color="#A55858">Misery  10:33, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * if they get trashed then Archive them (if they were Meta) <font color="#4169E1"> ~ PheNaxKian <font color="#8A2BE2">talk  11:03, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * But that would suggest that they are no longer meta, which is false. <font color="#A55858">Misery  07:17, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Well, here's a slight rewrite of the meta policy. <font face="Courier New" color="Black">Toraen <font face="Courier New" color="DarkGoldenrod">TheJanitor 02:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to bring up. Found it while trying to search for this page. 05:14, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * what about it? I can change it, but is it worth it? do people actually use that page? <font color="#4169E1"> ~ PheNaxKian <font color="#8A2BE2">talk  10:16, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I mean. IMO delete it because the categories already cover it easily. [[Image:Zyke-Sig.png]] 07:10, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Raise the bars
Excellent 4.75/4.8 (so not much different) and good to 4.0.

Also, comprimise the builds to what can get really comprimised. Like the WC shock ganker. Backbreaker etc all have some way of the same builds. They have a knock-down chain. Or the Jagged-Fox-Death chain. Monks too, it is prot or heal. Smite are always RoJ (PvP always, PvE mostly). <font color="Blue">Shadow Form Slayer  19:16, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Cookie cutter builds is a bad idea, in PvP at least you want full out bars not bars with 3/4 optionals (the only time I think it is necessary is with HA builds that can take snares/shouts/rit support eg taint). 4.75 is fine tbh, it leaves a slight bit of leeway, good to 4.0 is debatable though. The only problem is how refined the voting system is, it is quite hard to get votes to what people want out of 5 (basically you can only vote 5, 4.8, 4.6, 4.4, 4.2 etc. So unless there was a change in the voting setup I would say the boundaries should stay to account for that. Imo it would be better out of 10 for a better voting system. But... w/e! <font color="#A55858">Frosty 22:00, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the builds really don't need to be condensed further. Elites alone often make or break a build, and it's a good idea (in my opinion) to vet various elites separately to indicate which ones are actually effective choices. <font face="Courier New" color="Black">Toraen <font face="Courier New" color="DarkGoldenrod">TheJanitor [[image:ToraenSig2.png]] 00:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)