User talk:Teh Uber Pwnzer/PvXwiki:Build Renewal

Interesting idea, it'd need a lot of polishing but it's a start. - Auron 08:29, 28 October 2007 (CET)
 * Yeah. Needs lots of polishing. This is just the general concept. -- Teh Uber Pwnzer  09:33, 28 October 2007 (CET)
 * I like it :D &mdash;[[Image:Cheese Slaya's Sig.jpg|50x19px]] Cheese Slaya  ( Talk ) 18:22, 28 October 2007 (CET)

Interesting idea. Isn't the Reaper's nec still not archived? :/ --Edru viransu //QQ about me /sysop 20:22, 28 October 2007 (CET)

+1 --InternetLOL 20:47, 28 October 2007 (CET)

I like this alot. It'll really clean up "Other" too. Let's get this into action! — Skakid9090 20:50, 28 October 2007 (CET)


 * Love it, but if a build is still getting used alot after months, would wiki still make it an outdated build? But for the rest, +1 InfestedHydralisk  [[image:Shadow_Prison.jpg|19px]] 22:23, 28 October 2007 (CET)
 * Yes. Builds, metagame, everything constantly changes. Small changes accumulate but the votes almost always stay the same. This is needed, at least, imo. --Teh Uber Pwnzer  22:33, 28 October 2007 (CET)

This policy is probably more applicable to PvP builds than to PvE builds. Just thought I'd point that out. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  23:23, 28 October 2007 (CET)
 * Yeah, it is more directed at pvp builds, but slight changes over long periods of time affect pve as well. Perhaps x months for pvp builds y months for pve? x < y. --Teh Uber Pwnzer  23:31, 28 October 2007 (CET)
 * You can't actually set how many months imo, you will see it how much it is getting used. If it's hardly used anymore then before, then it;s outdated. InfestedHydralisk  [[image:Shadow_Prison.jpg|19px]] 00:35, 29 October 2007 (CET)
 * Outdatedness =/= how often its used. Its how effective it is. Its like going to a doctor to get a check up, but with builds. --Teh Uber Pwnzer  01:15, 29 October 2007 (CET)
 * I think I explained that pretty badly. Its the votes that get outdated, not the build itself. --Teh Uber Pwnzer  01:20, 29 October 2007 (CET)

I really like the idea. Would help with archiving, too. cedave (contributions_buildpage)  08:52, 29 October 2007 (CET)

This isn't needed at all for PvE. Unless a PvE build is altered significantly by nerfs/buffs, it should never be outdated; the "metagame" of skills used on you by PvE mobs will never change. - Auron 09:00, 29 October 2007 (CET)


 * Well, sometimes ideas can become outdated as newer, improved ideas are developed. But yeah, in general, PvE should be mostly ignored by this. [[Image:Cedave_bad.png|19px]] cedave (contributions_buildpage)  09:30, 29 October 2007 (CET)

The current Touch Ranger debate is a perfect reason why this should be policy. It already looks like it has quite a deal of support (although barring major nerfs/buff and/or new campaigns, what's good in PvE tends to stay good), so get this cleaned up and make propose it officially imo. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  00:31, 30 October 2007 (CET)
 * Yeah, your right. The PvE part should probably be scratched. The touch ranger discussion is where I actually got this idea, too. I am really bad at explaining things clearly, though, so somebody else would have to do the polishing. --Teh Uber Pwnzer  03:59, 30 October 2007 (CET)

PvP Months
Let's settle it then. How long before renewal? I'd say 2-3 months, personally. cedave (contributions_buildpage)  00:41, 30 October 2007 (CET)
 * Three months, with an exception for big rebalances/nerf sets. --71.229.204.25 00:42, 30 October 2007 (CET)


 * Support [[Image:Cedave_bad.png|15px]] cedave (contributions_buildpage)  00:44, 30 October 2007 (CET)
 * Support. I was thinking 3 months as well. --Teh Uber Pwnzer  03:59, 30 October 2007 (CET)


 * no2 months. izzy balances at the end of every 2 months or maybe every month i forget, but 3 months is too long imo — Skakid9090 22:27, 30 October 2007 (CET)
 * no im wif skadid ye? - Rawrawr  22:40, 30 October 2007 (CET)
 * no 3 moths is too long, skill rebalances come freqeuntly. --- [[Image:Monk-icon-Ressmonkey.JPG|15px]] Ressmonkey   (talk)  23:27, 1 November 2007 (CET)
 * no actually, 3 months is too long indeed InfestedHydralisk  [[image:Shadow_Prison.jpg|19px]] 21:43, 2 November 2007 (CET)

What kind of vote ratio or consensus are we looking for, just to be clear? And Skakid, can you cite your information on that? If that is true, I'll change my vote. It just seems like nothing is really changed except for once every few months. cedave (contributions_buildpage)  22:32, 30 October 2007 (CET)
 * every 2 months, not 2 weeks, my bad — Skakid9090 22:35, 30 October 2007 (CET)


 * Mmmm... It's tempting, but I think that with skill balancing only occurring once every two months, and often times only for minor changes, 3 months would be short enough, especially considering how slow meta-shifts occur, even post-nerf. [[Image:Cedave_bad.png|16px]] cedave (contributions_buildpage)  22:39, 30 October 2007 (CET)

PvE Conditional Statement?
"PvE builds will not be subject to this policy unless a nerf or modification modifies the builds effectiveness, in which case it moves to "outdated" category and all votes are removed. Build is then re-voted on. If a general consensus is reached concluding that a build shall be deemed for its purpose due to a nerf or modification, said build will be tagged for deletion regardless of rating following re-vote." is the whole of what I was originally going to post, but I surprisingly had a forethought and decided it would be best to run this past everyone on here. The ineffective label would provide that builds that no longer serve their purpose, or cannot serve their original purpose, will be removed regardless of other possible capabilities. (An example being a Paragon with Aggressive Refrain whose purpose was to play a Protector role while maintaining a high armor.) cedave  (contributions_buildpage)  22:30, 30 October 2007 (CET)
 * Sounds good to me. &mdash; Azaya 19:49, 31 October 2007 (CET)
 * Support In that case. [[Image:Cedave_bad.png|16px]] <font color="#AA226D" face="times new roman" size="2">cedave <small color="#AA226D">(contributions_buildpage)  00:58, 1 November 2007 (CET)

Ideas
Here's an idea. When the build gets moved to outdated, it has to stay there for X days no matter how many votes it gets. This way, the build will have a chance to be seen in the category by more people and will give them a chance to re-vote. Another idea I have is to completely delete all the votes instead of putting them in the removed votes category. This way, people cant just re-enter the vote without thinking. Do these ideas sound good or do they sound like they would fail? --Teh Uber Pwnzer  02:05, 31 October 2007 (CET)
 * They sound fine, but don't make the X days too long, a week seems like a pretty good time to me.&mdash;[[Image:Cheese Slaya's Sig.jpg|50x19px]] Cheese Slaya  ( Talk ) 02:18, 31 October 2007 (CET)


 * I'll second that thought. Makes good sense. [[Image:Cedave_bad.png|16px]] <font color="#AA226D" face="times new roman" size="2">cedave <small color="#AA226D">(contributions_buildpage)  02:35, 31 October 2007 (CET)

Admins arent gonna like doing this, lol, cuz they gotta do everything since normal people cant remove votes or things like that. ---  Ressmonkey   (talk)  23:30, 1 November 2007 (CET)


 * Meh... Their problem, not the rest of the wiki's. Heheh. [[Image:Cedave_bad.png|16px]] <font color="#AA226D" face="times new roman" size="2">cedave <small color="#AA226D">(contributions_buildpage)  23:52, 1 November 2007 (CET)


 * If this becomes an official policy, Gcardinal would probably write a special page similar to Special:Graceexpired. Or he'd just have the system do it automatically. We'd get something set up that would make it easier. --[[Image:Wizardboy777_Sig.jpg|19px]]Wizardboy777 (T/C/Sysop) 00:39, 2 November 2007 (CET)

Re-thought
On second thought I disagree with this policy. t is really a waste of time to most builds. If a build is majorly affected by a skill balance, a re-vote template can be put on it and it will be re-voted on (you can only do this once per skill balance to prevent spamming =P). That's just easier altogether and saves a lot of time and effort. — Skakid9090 21:46, 2 November 2007 (CET)


 * I'd agree with that, but how do we cover meta-shifts? I mean.. how do we decide when the meta has changed enough to archive a build? [[Image:Cedave_bad.png|16px]] <font color="#AA226D" face="times new roman" size="2">cedave <small color="#AA226D">(contributions_buildpage)  22:11, 2 November 2007 (CET)


 * Common sense — Skakid9090 22:27, 2 November 2007 (CET)


 * I think most admins and a few regular contributors would have an idea of what to change when there is a shift in the metagame anyways. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 22:29, 2 November 2007 (CET)
 * /agree, we know when stuff has stopped meta-ing rly. - Rawrawr  22:32, 2 November 2007 (CET)
 * Yeah true InfestedHydralisk  [[image:Shadow_Prison.jpg|19px]] 22:33, 2 November 2007 (CET)
 * It would reduce the QQing, at least. I had to go away last time, at least after someone put an end to my puppet show. --71.229.204.25 22:56, 2 November 2007 (CET) <font color="gray" size ="1">RIP Grammarine and Drama Llama. ):