PvXwiki talk:PvP Build Renewal

This is basically a stub, build upon the failures of previous attempts. In addition to random thoughts, there are also a few points of discussion, including how long the waiting period will be until a build is moved to outdated, as well as whether or not they should remain in their original category, how many votes it will need to be removed from outdated, and whether or not this should apply to only builds in the great category, since anything else seems like a massive workload.Bob fregman 05:22, 4 November 2007 (CET)


 * I presume that we (by which I mean Hhhippo/Gcardinal) would create a Special Page, and we would simply adapt the vetting templates to include a time of vetting such that the page could document a dynamic list of outdated builds? [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  05:25, 4 November 2007 (CET)


 * (Edit Conflict) This would apply fully with GvG, somewhat with HA and HB, and almost not at all with RA/TA, and not at all with CM/AB. At which point having this policy becomes almost pointless to implement... And I don't see the GvG meta changing so much now. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 05:25, 4 November 2007 (CET)


 * (edit conflict) Thief! User:Teh Uber Pwnzer/PvXwiki:Build Renewal! But really, the only suggestion I could make to improve it would be to change the 10 vote thing to a certain amount of time required to stay in the outdated category. This way, builds that aren't popular wont stay there for super-long periods of time and popular builds will be there longer than 10 minutes. --Teh Uber Pwnzer  05:29, 4 November 2007 (CET)
 * (edit conflict) Also, Rapta, how often do people change their votes after very slight nerfs? After a few nerfs, the build's effectiveness will be lower but the ratings would the same if RA/TA/CM/AB were all exempt. --Teh Uber Pwnzer  05:32, 4 November 2007 (CET)


 * (Conflict) Defiant, that's the idea, if it is possible. Since i know nothing really of wiki coding, I'm not sure as to the feasibility of this plan.  &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bob fregman (contribs).


 * In addition, rapta, a policy like this that defines re-voting is needed to maintain a degree of accuracy in voting. Things change, and current policies basically rely on the users to change their votes when approporiate, and frankly it just doesnt work out that way.Bob fregman 05:35, 4 November 2007 (CET)


 * (edit conflict) RA/TA/CM/AB are not affected by nerfs for the most part (read: at all). Additionally, as far as I see, this is mainly regarding meta shifts. Areas without a meta aren't governed by this policy (so this is only applicable, as I stated above, to GvG, and to HA and HB only slightly). Furthermore, we already have common sense that guides us when there is a major nerf on a build (contributor mentions it on admin noticeboard). A policy that can only govern a third (maybe less) of half (maybe less) of the wiki is rather pointless. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 05:37, 4 November 2007 (CET)


 * Well... it's an interesting question, because, from what I've seen, we are not nearly diligent enough about changing votes and archiving builds after major skill re-balances, but Rapta does have a point that assuming that all builds become invalid after 2 months makes more work than is actually necessary to maintaining accurate votes (assuming we could, in a practical manner, ensure that in the cases where changes do need to be made, they are). [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  05:40, 4 November 2007 (CET)


 * (edit conflict) For the most part, the most effective way to deal with "nerfs" and "metagame shifts" is to find a PvP build that was affected by the nerf, start a discussion on a talk page, and use common sense to deal with the build. Having to enforce this means tedious re-voting on many, many builds many, many times. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 05:43, 4 November 2007 (CET)


 * But again, that requires people to take the incentive on their own. Many builds currently sit with ratings that are a bit too high, or low, then what they currently deserve.  People are rarely bothered to change their votes after nerfs, so unless the nerf forces the build into an archive, or is an obvious nerf on the build in particular, most people aren't bothered to change their votes.Bob fregman 16:54, 4 November 2007 (CET)


 * But who, really, is the judge of that? &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 22:37, 4 November 2007 (CET)

How about renewing after all skill balances/ arena changes as well? Lord Belar 22:46, 4 November 2007 (CET)

I support this policy. The meta does change pretty often, and we don't really outdated builds on the site, so this could be really helpful with build cleanups.--Victory is yours 21:20, 6 November 2007 (CET)


 * But, yes the policy is still very stubby and needs work.--[[image:Victoryisyours_Sig_Image.jpg‎|19px]]Victory is yours 21:21, 6 November 2007 (CET)


 * What happened to simply tagging a build that may have been affected by a nerf? &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 03:06, 21 November 2007 (CET)