PvXwiki talk:Project Standardized Testing/Party Size 8

Test Route Discussion
What do you think of the currently suggested test route? I have the impression, that the testing can be melt down to two areas and cover most relevant foes it takes to settle on a great rating by doing a DoA normal mode fullrun and Vloxen excavations hard mode. (If winds of change quests were repeatable, I'd love to use these for testing.) For teams which struggle there the first set of test areas (such as wind riders etc.) can be picked in addition to determine whether the team deserves at least a good rating. The "endgame" route would then not or barely affect the rating, but only serve for comparison of the very best setups. Will the current suggestion be functional as a pars pro toto or what should we change? --Krschkr (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, a “great” general tag should be dependent on completing a test run of relevant content, and doa+vloxen alone is a good candidate. Considering the entirety of the non-doa/vloxen route (except the factions mission) takes roughly 10 minutes total, I think it’s a small price to pay for a more comprehensive view of a build’s performance (and it serves as a sort of warm-up for me). They may also help build editors fine tune the main bar or consider useful variants. So, I agree, encourage voters to complete doa-nm and vloxen-hm as a benchmark in order to rate “great”. I will probably continue to include the rest of the route in my tests. Juniper real (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The wording has been adjusted slightly. Do you agree with the change? Also, feel free to suggest other areas for a more meaningful test or tell if you think one of them could well be dropped. --Krschkr (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The wording looks fine, and same with the test spots. There are some other routes I'm mulling over (e.g. Borrguus Blisterbark, Joffs the Mitigator etc), but they might all about be equivalent to the ones you published and/or less convenient. Juniper real (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like we'll stick to this version. I'll make screenshots (like for the other party sizes) within a few days and then do some test runs myself. --Krschkr (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * sounds good. Too bad no one felt like weighing in on this, but I still think it’s in generally good shape. I’m inspired to re-vet old votes, maybe even make a case to clean up all the rubbage clogging the “good/great” hero teams (or find a new favorite comp! >:) Juniper real (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I think the criteria for a good rating currently are quite easy to meet. Maybe we should make things a bit harder to guarantee a certain build quality? --Krschkr (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * any examples of trash level builds doing just fine on the current route? Juniper real (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Test Logging
For running these tests, the page mentions logging the results on this page. Should we also add them to the discussions page of the build being tested? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grokwell (talk &bull; contribs) 14:21, 19 June 2019‎ (UTC).
 * Could be done, especially if the test indicated that build changes are desired. Else it'd be easiest to simply parse it into the rating box when submitting the build rating. --Krschkr (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)