PvXwiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 13

Hard Mode effectivity granted without successful tests?
I am not much of a PvXwiki-er enough to know who is who in this community yet, except for those I have already met at GWW. I was just looking at Archive:Team - DoA Axeway and read all it's talk page, plus checked the author's page and talkpage (this last in a fast glance). In the team build discussion a user (Fianchetto) points that describing a team build effective for HM (but without indications) without successfull runs is nonsense. I do realise this team build as well as the discussions took place 3 months ago and after that it all ended...but it is displayed in the main page under Featured builds.

I just happen to share Fianchetto's opinion, but since Im not a regular PvXwiki-er...I wandered if is it really so that the Community truly evaluate builds for HM without any effectivity checks. Yoshida Keiji talk 15:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Resurrecting a debate is always a bad idea but... here is the basic argument for the build. Voters evaluated the build based on NM. That is normally not acceptable; however, the "accepted" policy is that team builds are crafted for Hard Mode - with the exception of elite areas like UW,FoW, DoA, etc. It is unreasonable to assume that every team build on PvX can take on DoA in hard mode or normal mode. So, the "great" votes on the build make sense regardless of whether or not the test was in HM or NM. The next part of the argument is that DoA Glaiveway and DoA Frostway are two separate builds. One built for hard mode the other for normal mode - but both have nearly the exact same mechanics. Both are in the great and meta categories (or were at a time). They can be vetted on testing in normal mode, and the axeway was. Finally, in the build description, it says that by changing around the optionals each character uses, it can be applied to HM. That statement was based on the fact that everyone voting has played for forever and they know the area. They may not have tested it successfully for Hm, but they know if they cared enough to test it and if there were people still playing the game, it would work.-- Ultimak719 LIKE A BOSS!  17:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rask, Toraen, Minion, Jai, and I already tested it in HM, after doing 2-3 NM runs. The featured builds section doesn't necessarily imply the best builds on the wiki, since all those builds have long since been on the front page. If you want to be cynical about it, no one will probably run the setup ever again and of the people who do, none of them will bother rating it on the wiki. fianchetto is just trying to stir up shit and troll, you will notice going through his contributions he has long since worn his welcome for most users.-- Relyk 03:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What worried me about the Featured builds is that it is listed in the Main Page. So you guys are telling me that during all these years (2005-2012), nobody ever thought that casual readers could get confused by finding a Team Build rated as Great with Hard Mode effectivity granted as a Solid page...but realising is not true in real practice? And that such interaction could actually hurt the PvX image as an UNTRUSTABLE source? Not to mention that a vast number of people could have actually posted it wrong from the beginning and nobody else bothered to double-check stuff? Trademark status of GWW... [[Image:User_Yoshida_Keiji_Signature.jpg|19px]]Yoshida Keiji talk 09:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reminding me to rotate out featured builds (it should be done a lot more frequently, but few care anymore). What I've always seen that section as though is to increase attention to some builds that otherwise would just sit in their categories, perhaps even undeservedly so. All builds there did manage to pass vetting, which is our quality control, but may have squeaked by or been fanboyed into a viable category. Increasing attention on them hopefully fixes any issues like that, or lack of/incorrect information. Lately I've been selecting the builds randomly when I do change it, but you can always request to feature a build that you think needs it or suggest a featured build be removed (or do it yourself since the page isn't locked). -- Toraen   confer  17:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

September 13, 2012 Game update
The GWW Community updated all skill descriptions but PvXwiki didn't? Yoshida Keiji talk 11:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We have to wait for Curse to sync the updates to the extension. It's not something the community has much control over once it's been sent. I'll bug them again though because it should have been done by now unless some problem came up. See the Curse noticeboard for stuff they have to handle. -- Toraen   confer  16:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It requires me to set things up on the repo, but I currently only have internet while I'm in lectures, so it's not been something I've been able to do.  ~ PheNaxKian talk  12:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually sent the files to Eyes to take care of, and received a response saying that it would be done soon. This was a couple weeks ago though... -- Toraen   confer  12:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Tomb of the Primeval Kings - Heroway
I found no Team Build stored in the data bank. Suggestions welcomed. Yoshida Keiji talk 11:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Any vetted 7h build should work fine to faceroll an area made >7 years ago. 7HPS, Dual ele, Ineptway, melee support, RoJway, Energy surgeway, FoCway, Markway & Physway. Cɥıǝɟʇɐıu Alǝx  19:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Abuse Filter
I was writting a comment here:Build_talk:Team_-_UW_Terraway. But the Abuse filter blocked me to link properly. Why did you guys made that set-up? Yoshida Keiji talk 16:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any attempted edits from you in the abuse log on that build. Are you sure this was an Abuse Filter that stopped you? -- Toraen   confer  19:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)