PvXwiki talk:Real Vetting/Archive 5

Archived
So this is my list of what I feel needs to be still be discussed/resolved or merely implemented. Anything I've excluded is something that's insignificant or has been satisfactorily resolved but not preserved, because it's insignificant. Add anything you want. -Shen 19:48, 25 February 2008 (EST)
 * The creation of PvE Team builds should be restricted to certain areas (DoA, Slaver's). This ties into the practicality of assembling a team for certain areas of the game. It could generally be encompassed by a short clause, as it's somewhat conflicting with the idea that builds shouldn't be rated on availability. And that's true to a degree, but here, common sense says otherwise.
 * Discussion on "other" builds has not reached a consensus. Big issue here. We store builds that clearly perform worse in all aspects but are innovative, and "workable", at least. I've tried to reinforce this line between trashy innovative and workable innovative since my promotion, so now it just comes down to whether or not these builds have a place on PvXwiki. In reality, no one is going to use them, so do they serve some purpose on this site? Innovative builds, even in the Good category, rarely see use. What do we do with them? Do they even deserve discussion for a possible name change? Naming them isn't going to change the content.
 * A 5-day minimum trial period for builds in testing. I've been personally opposed to this, but I see now the merits are pretty obvious. It would introduce "some form of standardization to the way we are handling new builds", as Scottie puts it. Also, a featured Trial build section on the main page would greatly promote a more standard process for build vetting. A solid investment for discussion.
 * DE suggested a Checkbox for particularly innovative builds "shouldn't be too difficult to implement" according to Hhhippo. This would dissolve a lot of the controversy revolving around innovation.
 * DE also suggested we rename Universality to Flexibility. Consensus for this, or nearly so, has been achieved.
 * Zuranthium suggested we, rather than increase the scale from 5 to 10 for effectiveness, introduce half-point intervals so that we may more accurately judge a build. This would disallow opposition based on the impracticality of re-evaluating builds on a 10-point-scale, as user votes would still remain valid under a 5 point system, but one splintered to allow for finer distinction.
 * Having not discussed any of the archive, I'll give my opinion a go:
 * Restricting PvE Team builds to certain areas certainly makes sense, but not all builds would find uses for specific areas. Saying that, PvE Team builds should be assigned places where they work effectively, such as specific areas, Vanquishing, etc. This should probably done in the Trial phase, since rewrites would be annoying. If the build is inferior when compared to other builds, the ratings should be reflective of such. Team builds suffer from the factor of *usability* in PvE, and ratings should also be reflective of such, much to the chagrin of players, but it would sadly be necessary as it is a factor in the quality of a build.
 * Other builds act much like deleted builds from Guildwiki's time, which act as sources of inspiration. Which means, as Shen said, they won't receive much attention. Unless people preferred we keep those builds for inspiration, they should be deleted. Also to note, PvXWiki did not implement Guildwiki's policy of deleted builds, which the Other category acted as such a policy in the end. Therefore, PvXWiki chose not store Other builds, and, by which, they should be deleted.
 * The 5-day trial period allows fairness and as Shen quoted. A featured Trial build section is fully plausible, as it will give builds the attention they need for people to rate them fairly.
 * The Checkbox is a great idea, because Innovation has a very personal definition which voters go by. A Checkbox would neutralize this factor. It should be implemented as soon as possible.
 * I also agree about changing Universality to Flexibility. Universality is a poorly chosen word in place a Flexibility, which many people have misinterpreted.
 * Increasing the 5 point scale to a 10 point is a bad idea, it becomes too much of a stretch when rating builds. Half points are much more agreeable in this view, as they are easier for voters to decide on and voters are use to the 5 point system anyways, giving them more choice within this system is much more effective and as Shen put it "splintered to allow for finer distinction".--Relyk 23:05, 28 March 2008 (EDT)


 * I'll try and reply to these.....
 * Perhaps creating a couple of more specific tags for PvE (e.g. vanquishing or elite area tags) this way it would be similar to the RA TA HB etc. tags for PvP.
 * Personally i look at other builds now and then, sometimes they o give inspiration to some good builds (not for me personaly but w/e.) they can make you think "huh i never would have though of those 2 skills together" or something like that. And if you look in he archive anyway GC is pretty adamant in keeping the other section.
 * The trial thing has been suggest many times, and i think it really should be implemented (featured trial this is) there is also talk on GC talk page i belive about changing the polivy to say that builds must be in each phase for x amount of days, and must be in testing for x day before you can vote on it. (i think that's what it said, too lay to check)
 * The checkbox is a genius idea (it came from DE so of course it is), this way we get rid of the weighting from innovation which everyone wants (see archive and disscussion below) and i belive hippo said it'd be easy enough to implement if needed.
 * Universilarity to flexibility is kind of iffy. I agree with changing the name but not to flexibility, it's still somewhat obscure (though it's better than universilarity admitidly).
 * Wethere you put the scale from 1-10 or from 1-5 with half increments it's all the same really, it's jsut as difficult for a user to deiced what to vote for, personaly i'd say 1-10 because then instead of everyone having to vote again, we can just double there old vote (and they can revote again if wanted)
 * I think that about sums it all up =D PheNaxKian  (T /c) [[Image:Phenaxkian_sig_phoenix.jpg|19px]] 19:26, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Innovation rating not needed
I beleive that the innovation rating is not needed on the build and that it should be taken out. Nobody really cares about how new and creative the build was, and alot of the time most of the people who vote dont even know what innovation means. when you se people rating 5-5-5 and just saying "leet build i love it" then it shows that they really dont get what innovation is. I see healer builds getting a 5-5-5. there is no such thing as innovation with Zealous Benediction or Word of Healing. It should be based purely on a 66% scale of effectiveness and 34% should be the universitality.Klomi 17:48, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
 * It's uhm... in progress. In fact, it's been in progress for nearly a year now. &mdash;  Skadiddly [슴Mc슴] Diddles  17:50, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Just check real vetting talk page (i'd link it but i'm too lazy...) PheNaxKian  (T /c) [[Image:Phenaxkian_sig_phoenix.jpg|19px]] 17:55, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
 * For now, just rate Innovation the same way you rate Effectiveness. --71.229.204.25 18:09, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
 * What about my builds, mine are pretty much the only ones in this entire site with innovation, so, as long as i'm around, innovstion stays. And to be truthful, i do khnow whta innovation and effectiveness are, but i have no idea what the second one means.-- Fire [[Image:Fire_Tock_SigPic_2.jpg|19px]] Tock 18:17, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Innovation doesn't kill monsters. Corpse 15:32, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
 * That wasn't what we were saying, but because the basic deffinition of innovation (currently at least) is related to the meta ("is/could it be the meta" iirc) innovation will have a direct correlation with effectiveness (meaning if it's highly effective it's highly innovative (unless we have about 3 version of the same think *cough* Ursanway *cough*) PheNaxKian  (T /c) [[Image:Phenaxkian_sig_phoenix.jpg|19px]] 15:40, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Good build, no 'original' skills vs FireTock-calibur build, 'original' (read: bad and underused) skills. What to choose what to choose. Corpse 18:07, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
 * No-ones saying the "original" innovative builds will be effective, but rather the unoriginal builds (e.g. Meta builds run by top guilds) will be effective. and as it says on the real vetting page for innovation:

'                     Innovation
 * This criterion describes how useful the idea behind this build is. Does it use an unexpected (and thus less likely to be countered) approach for dealing with a known task or even act as a precursor for dealing with a previously unconsidered task? To what extent is it expected to become a prototype for a new class of builds? In short, is the build a part of the current metagame? Should the build do any of these well, it should score high in innovation.'
 * this means that if it's in the meta it should be rated a high innovation. Besides all this belongs on the Real vetting talk page. I will move it there shortly. PheNaxKian  (<font color="Red">T /c) [[Image:Phenaxkian_sig_phoenix.jpg|19px]] 19:09, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

You took 2k from the main page, and added 4k here... (EDIT: NVM!!!!, SRY) 19:13, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Innovation: Can this beat the current meta? IMO  ɟoʇuɐʌ ʎʞɔıɹ  19:14, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Epic failing on my part (the move took a lot of fathing-was the first time i'd moved anything so a couple fo mistakes are allowed =D), also Lol at Frvw <font color="#4F94CD">PheNaxKian </B> (<font color="Red">T /c) 19:16, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Innovation description
I realise that we are talking about removing innovation completly (or jsut having a tick box or something) but i think in the mean time we should at least change the description. Too often do you see innovation ratings of 0 or 1 on current META builds. The current description enables this, but it also enables the voting 5's on innovation (which is generally what it should be on meta (best builds get best ratings is my thinking here if you're wondering)). Disscuss. <font color="#4F94CD">PheNaxKian </B> (<font color="Red">T /c) 14:53, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Just do innovation the average of the scores - to nudge it one way or the other.   14:57, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Works to-but the way i was thinking, an admin can do what I was suggesting (about just changing the description) at least I assume they could. But to change the actual system would require GC or hippo (possibly Wizardboy), again i would assume.... <font color="#4F94CD">PheNaxKian </B> (<font color="Red">T /c) [[Image:Phenaxkian_sig_phoenix.jpg|19px]] 15:02, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
 * To change the mouse-over descriptions on the ratings page requires physical server access and bcrat-ness.  &not; Wizårdbõÿ777  ( sysop ) 20:43, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
 * I think he meant on this page, but I was going to say something similar to what you did hehe.  20:56, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
 * I meant bboth here and the mouse over description actually =p (forgot to mention that XD). But i thought an admin could change that, didn't think a B-crat had to =s. <font color="#4F94CD">PheNaxKian </B> (<font color="Red">T /c) [[Image:Phenaxkian_sig_phoenix.jpg|19px]] 07:20, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Not even BCrat, coder... so GCard+Hhhippo...  16:50, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

Vote Reasoning
I noticed that often enough, when people are voting, they give a poor description of why they made a particular vote. I'm primarily basing this on poorly voted builds. I have looking through numerous builds voted poorly (including my own but not the main idea) and noticed that alot of the reasonings behind the poor votes were highly unexplained. Examples of this: There should be some adjusting to the policy about giving poor votes with explainations that are either undescriptive about their reasoning or ones that give no reasoning at all. Swordofcerberus 02:16, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
 * "STOP THIS SUCKS!!! no more of these they dont work. Leave fire to the eles" Crossfirexiv
 * "I count four good skills, including the attunement and the res." Armond
 * "just ... no." Reason.decrystallized
 * We tend to leave those on builds that will be trashed anyways. And Armond's vote is fine. He's saying half the bar sucks.  08:22, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
 * If there's any chance that a build's going to be vetted favorably, we want to remove those kinds of votes. That said, just as we turn something of a blind eye towards non-descriptive 5-5-5 votes on meta builds, we also turn something of a blind eye towards non-descriptive 0-0-0 (or equivalent) votes on builds and build concepts that have already been trashed before or which are simply not good.  Adding on to Fvr's comment, in the case of Reason.decrystallized, he left a rather detailed response on the appropriate talk page, and Crossfirexiv makes a legitimate point about the build's efficacy as compared to an Elementalist primary.  [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  13:37, 4 May 2008 (EDT)


 * I primarily used those ones that were being Trashed as an example. That is the best place to find those often few worded responses about it. A build could have only a few votes and often those reasoning would be there. Turning a blind eye onto things like that, with all due respect, shows that there are more things that you admin could do when it comes to managing things regarding the voting process. This is something that shouldn't have people just letting things pass. Its kinda like the politics in the government. Letting blind eye for those that have big things, and letting smaller things go unnoticed and letting them fail.Swordofcerberus 14:36, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Why bother when it will die anyways?  14:41, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Also the reasons for the bad votes are often on the talk pages. God  box   14:46, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Author Votes
So how exactly do they work? Are they restricted?--Relyk 21:54, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
 * No. Perhaps we hold them to a higher level of scrutiny, but so long as they are logically sound, authors may vote. -<font color="Black">Shen 21:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
 * They are allowed to, but an honest author wouldn't.[[Image:User Ereanor sig.jpg]]<strong style="color: black;">reanor 13:37, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
 * All authors vote on their own builds, but like Shen said, we often watch authors more closely because they're likely to be more bias. <font color="#4F94CD">~PheNaxKian </B> (<font color="Red">T /c) [[Image:Phenaxkian_sig_phoenix.jpg|19px]] 15:10, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Most of the authors I see give themselves >4.5 because they are biased, I've seen one time where this isn't true, which was a good author.--Relyk 02:40, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
 * It depends on their comments mainly imo. If they were to vote saying "5-5-5 Ultimate build totally kills everything and it's mine so that makes me great." there isn't a real reason, but if they put something like "5-5-5 Very common build capable of bypassing most defence and dealing a lot of damage.", and it's true, i would say it's ok. &not; Klump  eet  02:50, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Yeah, but when you see everyone else giving the same reasoning but voting 4 Effectiv. it makes you think.[[Image:User Ereanor sig.jpg]]<strong style="color: black;">reanor 14:22, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Hence why we look more closely at their votes..... <font color="#4F94CD">~PheNaxKian </B> (<font color="Red">T /c) [[Image:Phenaxkian_sig_phoenix.jpg|19px]] 14:55, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
 * As long as the votes a regulated correctly, it's fine with me then.--Relyk 11:00, 16 May 2008 (EDT)