Talk:Builds/Archive 2

Proposal: signed builds
I would like to propose a new kind of build article for GuildWiki: signed builds. These build articles will differ from usual build articles in the following ways: The reason I think we need such a category is that there is a feeling among many PvP players that GuildWiki is too fast and loose with builds and people who tend to have no idea what they are talking about often defile good builds until they are not nearly as good. See a relevant guru thread on this topic, which expresses a lot of my sentiments exactly.
 * The build will be clearly and prominently attributed.
 * The attributes, skills and strategies can not be edited by anyone except the author (except to correct grammar, spelling, syntax and diction).
 * Vetting is slightly different. The entire build is accepted as a vetted signed build, or outright deleted.

Signed builds will have a much stricter vetting process where all voters will have to provide proof that they have made a good faith attempt to play the build exactly as stated. Vetting will also be a meritocracy where the opinions of higher "ranked" players will count more (rank for HA builds, gladiator titles for arena builds, guild rank for GvG builds).

I think the time is ripe for to consider proposals such as this because the builds section of GuildWiki is starting to become more than a sideshow, and we desperately needs the input of seasoned players. Seasoned players must be given some assurance that their work won't simply be trashed by anyone.

As a safety valve, there can be a normal unsigned build based on signed builds without attribution, in the normal way. Signed builds can thus be seen as an intermediate stage intended to seed the pool of ideas for community created build articles.

I have more to say on this topic, but I'll give others a chance to opine first.

64.78.164.226 00:58, 7 August 2006 (CDT)
 * kinda against the whole "comunity editted content" ideal. we have something similar to this, specifically, the User: name space. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 01:06, 7 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Not necessarily. Note the specific detail that community created builds can be based on signed builds. This is an invitation and a fig leaf to a highly protective---not to mention secretive---PvP community to participate in GuildWiki. Of course you may disagree that we need to bring more seasoned PvP players here, by hook or crook, and that's a separate issue. The ideal of GuildWiki, I feel, should be to be the best reference for the game there is, not to uncompromisingly exalt the wiki aspect of it. 64.78.164.226 01:22, 7 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Vortexsam says:
 * "clearly and prominently attributed" - you mean state who made this build? I'm not quite sure I completely understand but...if so, what's to stop huge drama wars over who thought what first?
 * "cannot be edited by anyone except by author" - like Sarah said, that's for User space. Yes we shouldn't lose content over wikiness but...I feel this would only lead to a very very large number of builds that become too bulky to maintain
 * "vet or delete" - I personally have no stance towards this; we already had a proposed idea that if the build wasn't vetted, we would move the build to the author's namespace. I dislike your use of "outright". People get offended and leave the wiki and that's just =\.


 * In general - I get the basic gist of what you are saying and I think that the way builds are handled on GuildWiki needs to be changed/improved to be more effective. In terms of defiling good builds, from what I have read over various talk pages, I think that really crappy builds are submitted by users thinking in one dimension and then wikians rip it apart, look at the insides, and rebuild it to make it better. That's the whole idea.
 * I have no clue whatsoever as to how users are to "prove" that they made a good faith attempt in testing the build. You know, I've noticed most builds get better when someone says "I did what this build said but I swapped this for that and..." and others do the same and share experiences. Meritocracy? I don't know that it's necessarily fair to others. I mean, almost anyone can farm faction using FotM builds and why shouldn't PvErs have any input? PvPers are certainly invited to help on PvE articles. And consider the fact that someone might have a genuine novel idea that shifts the metagame direction but, oops they suck at RA, don't get to TA, can't find a group for HA, oh well too bad for them.
 * As for unsigned and signed builds, it makes more articles. I don't understand this part. Could you elaborate?
 * Yes, more experienced pvp players are needed around here. More users are needed to be around testing and vetting or unfavoring builds. But they don't want their work to be trashed? If they are "seasoned", they would submit good builds. They can argue their points in the talk page. At the very least, for their ego, they should read this: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Yes, the builds on Guildwiki are sometimes mediocre but look: the metagame is constantly shifting, the conditions of pvp are nearly limitless, and almost everything is conditional. Of course Guildwiki is way better at PvE; everything's solid as stone unless Anet tells us (most of the time). Go out and it's there; document, rinse and repeat. Good pvp builds do not happen overnight. We simply need more people willing to test builds and contribute. Right now, I mostly see Rapta, Honorable Sarah, Silk Weaker, and a few others. It's just limited resources and growing a good pvp build is no easy task.
 * --Vortexsam 03:16, 7 August 2006 (CDT)
 * people like vortex have been pulling in the effort of the PvP community. part of the reason we don't have a lot of PvPers is the fact that most of them would rather be using their build to win in the arenas then writing out articles. way of the world. your plan would swap the reward from winning in the arena for the reward of personal recognition for a build, except we don't do the whole personal recognition thing, community effort and all. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 07:51, 7 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Hey! What? I take offense to that! :P &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 12:58, 7 August 2006 (CDT)

Proposal: Easier acceptance with evidence
I propose that a system whereby a vote carries extra weight (say 3 votes, the amount needed to break a deadlock) if its author links to a video or screenie proving the build is effective. Something like a deaths count for each team or a video of a farm run or successful mission. This would make logical arguments backed up by evidence more important determiners than votes like "unfavoured. Frenzy is a bad skill". Labmonkey 10:08, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
 * This is completly contrary to the wiki concept. --Nemren 12:06, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
 * How so? Anyone can edit and comment on the build still. If the video was unconvincing, then it could be moved back to untested as "improperly moved". Currently there are about 5-6 users who have a tendency to vote unfavoured without testing a build properly. The point of a wiki is there should not be a clique of people controlling the content. As things stand too many builds are killed by drive-by voting. For example, see . All the favoured votes are by people who have played or observed the build. All the unfavored votes are by people who don't believe it will work, wothout having tested it.

Right now I look through Untested builds to find good ideas, since so many are stuck there due to careless votes.
 * If the author linked to a video of a successful mission (eg the record claimed for Zos Shivros Channel by someone voting favored), then that proves it works.


 * If you would like to suggest an alternative method, then I'd be interested to hear it. However, we need some way of making hard evidence carry more weight than simple "i don't like this idea before I've even tried it" comments. Perhaps having evidence should mean that unfavoured votes would have to provide their own video to count.Labmonkey 05:03, 14 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I can make a video of a build where i take no skill into the mission and i can still able to finish it, i guess a build of all optional slot its still a viable working build after all. -- [[Image:Ritualist-icon-small.png]] Cwingnam2000 05:08, 14 September 2006 (CDT)


 * No, it wouldn't, since it would not show the character providing an advantage to their teammates. You would need to have evidence proving effectiveness, not just proving you can survive. For example a fas farming run proves a farming build works well. A low-casualty mission as the primary healer proves a monk works well. I would like to see a system whereby votes backed up by proof count for more than votes that just say "Bad build. me not like"Labmonkey 05:15, 14 September 2006 (CDT)


 * A video can help, but it is no evidence for an optimized build. Your suggestion was to pass the voting process without any analysis. Theres a huge difference between working builds and optimized builds. --Nemren 05:18, 14 September 2006 (CDT)


 * My original thought, yes. But I'd welcome changes, since it was only a rather simplistic starting point to work from. I've changed it in response to your reply.Labmonkey 05:23, 14 September 2006 (CDT)

PvP team builds link
Someone needs to change the link to a lowercase T. The page is semiprotected. --68.142.14.65 15:16, 9 August 2006 (CDT)
 * done, yet another reason for you to get an account. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 15:20, 9 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I have minions such as you to carry out my dirty work. --68.142.14.65 15:23, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

Build ideas
I think about builds alot and have tried and tested RA builds and many ideas for single gvg builds and some team gvg and HA builds. But im not very adept to this and evn after reading all the help and what not i still dont know how to put builds on the wiki. help me please.
 * first, take a look at style and formatting/Builds, there is a template you can copy out and paste into your new article. then just create a link on some page (your user page is a good place for this) to your build, like Me/R Illusionary Barrager, and start editing. good luck ;) --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 10:24, 15 August 2006 (CDT)

Amount of votes needed for unfavored
Practise had been that builds need 3 votes to become unfavored. Lately, Rapta has moved quite a few builds into unfavored that had only 2 negative votes. I feel we should have a clearly defined policy on that (and an article on the whole build vetting process as well). Right now we are inconsisted in the way we move builds. --Xeeron 17:46, 26 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I thought it was 3 for favored or 2 for unfavored (see Talk:Mo/A_Strike_Assassin). Note that the third vote was made after the move. Of course, there's the issue of builds that are utterly crap, and the issue of not all builds being reviewed, letting some builds, although bad, be stuck in the "unfavored builds" category for months. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 18:02, 26 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Can BOLD or whatever we use come into that? If someone doesn't like it being unfavoured they can object (which they rarely do as 90% just submit any old trash and forget about it..) &mdash; Skuld 19:01, 26 August 2006 (CDT)
 * i've been using the rule of thumb of three independant votes for either favored of unfavored. no objections either way. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 19:43, 26 August 2006 (CDT)
 * There needs to be a waiting period before moving anything out of untested. Something like one day after the most recent vote.  --Fyren 22:15, 26 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Not sure why we need the waiting period (as Skuld said, 90% of people just write a useless/pre-existing build and leave it there), but a Tested build deserves more consencus on the vote than an Unfavored build does. Tested builds, when put into their category, are often looked at, and if a bad build was to be placed there, it would count as misleading people who are looking at them. Unfavored builds, on the other hand, receive much less attention. So if anyone isn't going to vote for them out, they're probably better off in there, anyways. Although, I would halfly agree with Fyren's idea of a waiting period, but only for votes being moved into "Tested". &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 13:33, 27 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Because when a build is removed from untested there's no reason to expect anyone to ever find the vote. --Fyren 02:13, 28 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Click the "Discussion" tab.. and whamo! You're there! How awesome is that!? :P &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 10:03, 28 August 2006 (CDT)
 * People might go through the untested builds to vote but people are not going to continually check every tested build category and see if something new appears there. --Fyren 10:25, 28 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Is anyone completely opposed to have a simple "3 votes to move" rule, requiring 3 votes for either favored or unfavored for a build to be moved? I would like to write that down as policy, but if you all want another rule written down, speak up now. --Xeeron 11:37, 28 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I am opposed to either a "first to three" or "best of three" (I'm not sure which you're suggesting). I have seen too many builds go 3-0 the wrong way.  --Fyren 12:15, 28 August 2006 (CDT)
 * You took the 3 examples where the first 3 votes went the wrong way. But a)You'll be hard pressed to find more than a handful of those examples, even if you search a long time b)I would have no trouble at all coming up with 30 examples where the first 3 votes went the right way and most important (And another 100 where the 4th vote has not arrived after months ...) c)As those builds show, even in the unlikely case of the first 3 voters being wrong, they still ended up in the right place in the end. --Xeeron 12:42, 28 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Which brings us back to my original suggestion, waiting a day after the most recent vote. I would be fine with simple majority of at least three votes + one day wait after final vote.  As for ending up in the right place, I had to take the Melandru's ranger out of unfavored myself (though that was related to Rapta being... apparently Rapta).  --Fyren 12:48, 28 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I liked the waiting period to begin with (it could even be a bit more than 1 day). The main question is how many votes to be moved to tested/unfavored? 3/3? 3/2? 5/3? I wont die if it is one and not the other, all I am saying is, we should decide which one. --Xeeron 17:04, 28 August 2006 (CDT)
 * That's my name, don't wear it out! But anyways, I stand by my point on Tested builds having a greater importance than Untested ones. We receive a lot of crap in our Untested category. Almost all recent builds are going to be sent to the Unfavored pile, and that's going to become more and more true until Nightfall is released. Of course, not many people look at the tested build category to see whether new builds have appeared there, but it is the writer's initial responsibility to keep a watch on their builds. If they don't bother with trying to restore their builds' status after going unfavored upon hitting 2 votes, it is clear that they do not care about that build. The same goes with onlookers who find a good build, but do not vote, and then whine about that build becoming unfavored. If you like a specific build, vote for it, and tell us (with a viable reason) why you think that build deserves to be in the "tested" category. That's why we have the Rate-a-build section in the first place. The tested builds are the best of the best, builds proven to be effective at what they do by a great majority of this community. If a build goes unfavored without opposition (why we should only need 2), it is clear that we have just sent a worthless, rotting pile to our Unfavored section. Like the build? Vote in favor of it and move it back! Of course, that should only be done when there are just 2 votes under "unfavored". And a message to all build-watchers, stop whining and take some action! Vote for our builds! &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 15:21, 28 August 2006 (CDT)
 * My opinion is: 5 votes to move (three is really easy to get and doesn't allow much diversity if the same few people vote and it seems like more people are on rating/testing builds) and one day wait as Fyren says. Although I really prefer that people make suggestions to change the build rather than voting. --Vortexsam 13:41, 28 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Although extending the number of votes is generally considered a good idea, in the current situation of our Untested section, it is not. It is simply being flooded by crappy builds. I don't think anyone else has gone through and reviewed and tested 230 builds in our section in two days, but until you do, it's hard to believe how much garbage we have, from unfinished, 3-month old builds, to builds with 4 optional slots, to builds which are not even really builds. The 5-vote thing would just leave us stuck with all that, waiting to be reviewed by someone else who wants to review all of that. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 15:27, 28 August 2006 (CDT)

How about having a time limit as well as 5 vote? --Cwingnam2000 15:31, 28 August 2006 (CDT)

Hard to enforce a time limit and adds even more work to the already full plate of our regular testers. I think the current policy seems fine. There will always be people like me who dig through unfavored for ideas and inspiration. If a decent build is hiding in there the wiki community has proven they'll find it in the end --Midnight08 15:48, 28 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree with Midnight. The current method (3 favored or 2 unfavored with no opposition) allows for quick weeding out of useless builds, as well as allowing for well-written, useful builds to shine. We have greater management over our categories, Tested, Untested and Unfavored, this way. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 18:23, 28 August 2006 (CDT)

What about people voting on their own builds? Wouldn't that destroy the purpose of having the "2 unfavored with no opposition"? I think it's ridiculous to have people voting on their own build.-Onlyashadow 08:12, 29 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Simple way to deal with that: Votes by the author never count. --Xeeron 08:24, 29 August 2006 (CDT)

Vote
Since proposals seem to repeat themself on the above discussion, let me call a quick vote. How many votes (always excluding the authors vote) should be needed for moving builds out of untested?


 * 3 for moving into tested/2 for moving into unfavored:


 * 1) Makes it easier to get rid of really useless builds. &mdash; Luobailong  [[image:Luobailong_sig.gif|32px]] (talk|contribs) 08:35, 29 August 2006 (CDT)
 * 2) Keeps our categories under control, without being flooded by useless builds. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 11:33, 29 August 2006 (CDT)
 * 3) Change to 5/2 when there is a bigger testing community --[[Image:Kitty1.jpg|24px|]] (Talk) (Cont) (Cool) [[Image:Soft2.jpg|24px|]] 11:38, 29 August 2006 (CDT)
 * 4) Rapta's and KittySoft points, we need rubbish control --Nemren 12:09, 29 August 2006 (CDT)
 * 5) Too many new builds....Vazze 08:23, 1 September 2006 (CDT)


 * 3 for moving into tested/3 for moving into unfavored:


 * 1) -Onlyashadow 08:38, 29 August 2006 (CDT)
 * 2) Two people an unfavoured build does not make. --NieA7 08:42, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
 * 3) 3 or 3. Also, if someone posts an unfavored vote, there should be at least some sort of entry in the discussion as to why it is unfavored.  Simply posting that a build is unfavored without any reason or suggestion does nothing to improve on the build or the site.--Token Cleric 15:03, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
 * 4) Despite the growing untested category, the number of people needed for favored and unfavored should be equal. --Xeeron 16:37, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
 * 5) Why should it be easier to make a build unfavored than favoured. I think 3/3 is fair. --Betaman 04:52, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
 * 6) --&mdash; xis10al  [[Image:Xis10al_sig_icon.jpg]] 12:11, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
 * 7) Moved votes after considering the fact that we dont have enought active tester. -- [[Image:Ritualist-icon-small.png]] Cwingnam2000 19:18, 5 September 2006 (CDT)
 * 8) Makes no sense to have different weights on the scale. If three people make a build good, why should only 2 make it bad? --Karlos 07:32, 7 September 2006 (CDT)
 * 9) I agree with those above me. Also, since I care enough to vote on this issue I will be allocating time to testing builds.  Putting my money where my mouth is, so to speak. Kai 11:39, 7 September 2006 (CDT)
 * 10) its a nice round number and its only fair to have an equal number form tested to unfavoured Jesus307 08:04, 13 September 2006 (CDT)


 * 5 for moving into tested/3 for moving into unfavored:


 * 1) (your vote)


 * 5 for moving into tested/5 for moving into unfavored:


 * 1) (your vote)


 * Other (specify):


 * 1) I don't like votes in general and I'm utterly opposed to anything without a minimum time limit. --Fyren 04:48, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
 * 2) I'm not a big fan of votes either, but this is one of those cases where I believe they're absolutely necessary. I'm not going to get involved in a big discussion, but perhaps this edgy suggestion could be used in the discussion:
 * 3) * '''+3 votes for tested / -3 votes (or failing to reach +3 votes in, say, 1 month) for unfavored / -6 votes to destroy.
 * (Yes, I originated the unfavored category long ago because I was against deleting builds. I still am, but some kind of balance must be reached or all the categories will eventually overflow.) --Bishop 10:45, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Eventually? They're well into the second 200 :P &mdash; Skuld 11:56, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
 * The thing is, there's nothing wrong with builds being left in Unfavored and Tested categories. The goal for the Untested category should always be 0 instead of nearly expanding onto a second page, like Skuld said. =P &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 12:24, 2 September 2006 (CDT)


 * 1) I suggest continously voting builds on all three sections and to think about a minimum of votes and a percentage of difference of favorable versus unfavorable votes both for moving a build to favored, tested or to unfavored. --mariano 04:21, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
 * 2) I think a time limite is a good idea. With builds, if nobody want to try it, then the build dont have anything special and shouldn't stay here. I also think that most build just "work" and have nothing special but people flood the build category with those build. We should keep only build that are well known in GW and if people want feed back on build then they should post it on theire userpage.&mdash; ├ A ratak  ┤  11:07, 7 September 2006 (CDT)

'When votes are made in both directions, read the above as X more (then for the other category)''. Vote ends on september 7th. --Xeeron 08:24, 29 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Last call, vote ends tomorrow. --Xeeron 07:29, 7 September 2006 (CDT)

Hmm the vote is ended, i think its time for someone to maybe write a policy for this change? -- Cwingnam2000 16:08, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

Optional Slots...
Hey, I'm just wondering about all the builds that I'm seeing in the |Untested builds]] category that have slots in them. My question is...Are they really builds considering the fact that they don’t seem to be completely finished? I mean, I've tried out a few and feel that some are good ideas, but as it is they are just that, ideas, not technically completed builds. Would it be better to just move all builds with Optional slots in them to the Build stubs page?--Azroth 23:30, 29 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Considering that bringing a res sig is a common practice, and several build can be used in PvE as well as PvP. An optional slot can be use for res sig as well as variant skill. And some build dont really need all of the skill slot filled. Some of them can have variant skill that is not critical to the build but useful. --Cwingnam2000 23:34, 29 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Yeah I guess so. And on top of that after looking at all the builds in the Tested buils section I realised that several of them have Optional slots, so I guess you can ignore what I said earlier--Azroth 23:44, 29 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Generally it is good use of the optional slot if you say, "bring this, this or this spell in the optional slot, depending on that, that or that circumstances". Simply saying "any damage dealing skill may go here" is bad use, since the build is not complete. --Xeeron 04:17, 30 August 2006 (CDT)

Unfavored Votes Without Testing
As I noted and voted above, I don't think that an unfavoured vote should be entered without at least some explanation, either with the vote or in the discussion of the build.

There is one thing that bothers me more than that, though: unfavoured votes when it is clear that the person placing the vote did not even attempt to test the build. Periodically, I see an unfavoured vote with an explanation of "this could never work because...". They didn't say that it didn't work, but rather that it couldn't. This seems like a big indicator that they based their vote on a glance and not a playtest. It doesn't take more than 15-30 minutes to actually test a build; we should take the time and do it properly. We may find that the build that looked stupid actually has potential with a few tweaks. At the very least, a test would give the tester some recommendations to include with the vote.

On the other side of the same coin, I also think that people should not post a build if they haven't tested it themselves. If you have a build idea that hasn't been tested, take the time to work out the kinks before posting it, or post it as a stub. Unfortunately, there is no way to actually stop people from posting builds before they have tried them out themselves.

That said, two wrongs don't make a right. Even if it seems obvious that someone has only based the build on an idea, we shouldn't be posting unfavoured votes without giving some semblance of a test.--Token Cleric 13:02, 1 September 2006 (CDT)


 * In a perfect world, I would say yes we should. But there is a practical and theoretical argument against that: The practical argument is that we get about 4-5 new builds each day. 4 times 30 minutes is ALOT of time. Each day. That would drive the votes we get to 0, making the voting process even more slow. The theoretical argument is that not always, but most of the time, it IS possible to evaluate a build even without having played it. If you played that class for a long time, you know what skills you need in which situation, when you need heals, when you lack energy and so on. And of course there are cases when builds have skills that simply dont work as the build description wants them to work. --Xeeron 13:51, 1 September 2006 (CDT)


 * 99% of the time I can see from a glance, or from past experience that it will not work, and why, . I am happy to give a reason or do a full test if requested, but most of the time the author doesn't even object (isn't there to and doesn't care) &mdash; Skuld  14:16, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Yes, and an example of what Skuld said, the most recent one: N/Me Hex Machine. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 14:22, 1 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I agree that experience plays a part. Every time we look at a new build, we are bringing baggage to the table that affects our opinion of the build.  You are correct that, if you have played for a long time, it is possible to evaluate a build without playing it based on you playing style and experience.  The problem is the scope of the game; even if I have extensive experience with a certain class, I may not have experience in all of the skills of that class or all of the playing styles that the class can have.  If I assume that I am qualified, based on previous knowledge, to dish out a quick review, I might lead to the demise of a sound idea that I don't understand.
 * Look at the Build:R/any Tank Master. If you have not played a minion master or a pet exclusive build before, there is no way to evaluate that build without playing it.  But consider a person who has extensive experience as a B/P Ranger, who has done 100+ Tomb runs.  This person might have trouble accepting the fact that a bow isn't necessary in that build (Note in the comments, too, that the first recommendation for change involved adding a bow skill and a bow to the character).  Even with the best intentions, he could have given an unfavored vote to an otherwise solid build, and justify it with an otherwise obvious response of "this build expects to do damage without even using a good weapon!"
 * That said, I do understand where you are coming from, and you have contributed much more to this community than I have or could. It is hard to sift through the rubbish, especially when it is obvious that no time was spent in the actual write-up.  A good benchmark of the quality of a build is the quality of the write-up, so consider the following ammendment to my statement above: "We should take at least as long to test a build as it appears as though the creator took to write it up."  Fair enough? --Token Cleric 14:59, 1 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Amusing. When you go and talk with many top ranked GvG players, they'll say "things don't work like they look on paper."  Yet here, that's a perfectly valid reasoning.  Fascinating.  Especially Skuld's remarks.  How about we review a few things:
 * Talk:R/A_Lunge_as_One especially this one, as it's one of the ones that got me into this whole ordeal. please keep in mind the build's description as to where it should function and some of the ever-so-amusing votes on it.
 * Talk:R/W_Blademaster this one's choked full of laughs.
 * Talk:A/any_Never-ending_Assault while the build may be weak... Horns of the Ox is a poor choice of a knockdown?
 * Talk:A/any_Cheap_Shot 2 votes = unfavored?
 * Talk:A/Mo_Regenerating_Assassin 2 vote = unfavored?
 * Talk:R/any_Quick_Needler make careful note.. he tested the *skills* not the *build*
 * [] this delete tag is laughable.
 * [] as is this one.
 * And this is just what I've chanced to see. If something is flawed, mention it.  If you don't see how a skill interaction works and it is pointed out, retract your vote.  Except.. you shouldn't have voted in the first place!  The whole point of the testing process is to test builds!  If you don't have the time to do so, why must you still comment and vote on it?  What driving force is there to do so?  Throwing something in Category:Unfavored builds is a quick way to get something out of view and never tested again... assuming it even was in the first place.  Does it really take a lot of effort to slap the skills down and run it?  PvE and RA builds are *very* easy to test, as you just grab the skills and go for it.  AB, TA, HA, and GvG can be a pain to test, but generally you can test them in RA anyway.  Fort Aspenwood is a good place to test AB builds (and even easier than it used to be, now).  Seriously, if you don't have time to test it, don't take the time to vote for it.  This whole issue is in my mind far more harmful than any sockpuppetry that was made such a massive deal of with Stabber, and I feel that as unjust as well.


 * I've never had a huge impact on policies, and desire to stick simply to facts, but builds are of a special interest to me. I've had an increasingly less desire to contribute to any policies after the whole sockpuppet debacle, but I must speak out about the current voting system and the manner in which builds are simply being dismissed.  - Greven 04:22, 2 September 2006 (CDT)
 * A quick note-- just because I said the skill sucks doesn't mean I haven't tested the build. As for the build itself, everyone seemed to have abandoned the argument and decided not to answer "why is quickshot used at all if needling shot does not need quickshot to function, and quickshot is useless without needling shot?" Inconclusive discussions should not leave their respective pages; I have no wish to talk about a stupid build on a serious page either. --Silk Weaker 12:04, 15 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I checked all your examples:
 * Talk:R/A_Lunge_as_One several people (me included) missunderstood the game mechanics and thought this is obviously flawed. It was pointed out and I went back and revisited my vote.
 * Talk:R/W_Blademaster What exactly made you laugh here.
 * Talk:A/any_Never-ending_Assault Nowhere on the talk page is Horn of the ox called a poor knockdown.
 * Talk:A/any_Cheap_Shot There was some confusion about the amount of votes needed for unfavored, but that is being clarified right now, if you would scroll up a page.
 * Talk:A/Mo_Regenerating_Assassin Dito.
 * Talk:R/any_Quick_Needler And as you see the voting process works, and the majority found the build to be working.
 * [] Delete tags can and are to be discussed on the talk page. If you disagree and your arguments are valid, the build will not be deleted.
 * [] Dito.


 * Considering that we have rated ~200 or more builds so far, your examples do not convince me that something is fundamentally flawed in the process. --Xeeron 05:07, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

Greven, Talk:R/Mo Beastmaster/Archive1. I've had comments over 5 months and just about nothing changed in that build. In addition it was outdated with all the BM buffs and new factions skills.

The mending assassins, surely you of anyone knows that if you want an A/Mo you should use live vic. or vigorous spirit? It isn't a runner, just a really bad build.

Blademaster: if all it does is stand there and tank I should take a wammo.. if you want a melee class it should fight, tank R/W is no good

Lunge as one, neverending, quick shot: I had no part in this &mdash; Skuld 05:45, 2 September 2006 (CDT)


 * One of your points about throwing stuff in unfavoured, stuff rarely goes in there if the original author stays around to answer critisism and consider changes, the only time they have gone in unfavoured with the author taking part is when they realise that we already have a similar page or realise their idea wouldn't work

If they don't care about their build, why should we? &mdash; Skuld 05:54, 2 September 2006 (CDT)


 * The problem is that some of us do care about our builds. On Rapta's discussion page, he makes an argument that a single "tested" vote gets the ball rolling in the right direction, because other people want to try out the build when they see that someone has tested it.  Well, the same thing happens in the other direction, too.  A single, off-the-cuff "unfavoured" vote will lead people to avoid testing it, and it is difficult to recover a build from that point.  One unfavoured vote starts the bandwagon rolling, and it doesn't take much for people to jump on.
 * I'm not against unfavoured votes. I'm certainly not against tested, or even extremely well argued, unfavoured votes.  What bothers me is when someone devotes a lot of time into a build, only to have it brushed aside with the stroke of a keyboard (and not the battletest of the game).    I'll admit, it is something of a personal issue with me; I have only submitted two builds into last 4 months.  I have other ideas, but I won't submit anything until I am certain that it will work.  Can my builds be made better?  Certainly, and I always spearhead the research myself.
 * (I hate to keep using my own builds as examples, but...) Take a look at the discussion archive for Build:Rt/any Spirit Nuker. Without a single comment in the discussion, Rapta slapped an unfavoured vote onto it.  What reason did he leave?  "Needs work."  Nothing more.  Fortunately, I had just finished further testing on the build, and the same day made a big change that made it much better.  After discussing it with Sarah in Category talk:Untested builds, I archived that discussion and proposed a new vote.  Now, I logged in this morning, and saw that the "Cleanup" tag had been added to the build (once again, by Rapta), without a single comment or recommendation.  Note that I used the same format for this build that I used for Build:R/any Tank Master, and that build never received the cleanup tag.  What needs to be fixed?  No idea.
 * You talk about answering criticism and considering changes, but what is there to answer when no criticism is given (other than "needs work")? What changes can you consider when none have even been suggested?  How do you explain to a tester what he is doing wrong when he didn't do anything in the first place?  How do you defend the trick that you discovered that can make your R/W tank work (and that you have spent hours successfully vetting) to someone that says "Tank R/W is no good" and votes it down?  How would YOU defend your build in those circumstances?--Token Cleric 11:49, 2 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Uh, explain why R/W is better than W/X in the situation the build is designed for?


 * On Build:Rt/any Spirit Nuker, I'm guessing because it doesn't follow the style and formatting guidelines and because of the first line about doom and boom, which is irrelevant &mdash; Skuld 11:59, 2 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Yep, exactly. Plus, Token, you did leave the message on my talk page that you agreed with it. I hardly see how that's worth bringing up now. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 12:20, 2 September 2006 (CDT)


 * It's worth bringing up now because it still applies. The fact that I am an obsessive-compulsive freak who is never completely satisfied with the quality of his own work is irrelevant here.  You had no way of knowing that I had been researching further improvements in the weeks prior; I posted a batch of changes on the same day (shortly after) you posted your vote.
 * Assume, for a moment, that I was satisfied and willing to defend the build, as it was written, and answer any questions about how it should be played.  What could I have done when that "needs work" vote arrived?  How can I propose a rebuttal when you have given nothing to rebut?  If you look at the discussion pages for my two builds, you'll see that I gladly discussed the changes that people suggested, and I made changes based on the criticism that people left.  What criticism did you leave?  Even a "This build sucks because..." is better than a voiceless thumbs down.
 * Side note, but still related to the discussion: Did you actually try that build, as it was written, before posting that vote?  Though not as good as it is now, it was still a decent damage dealer.  If you did try it, what problems did you see?  If not...well, that proves the point that I was trying to make: we shouldn't vote a build down solely based on an assumption, especially if we aren't even going to leave an explanation to back up that assumption.--Token Cleric 13:50, 2 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Ask him what needs work? :) If he doesn't respond and goes ahead and puts it in unfavoured you should move it back and direct some others to it and make a noise. I think the unclearness is borne from not being able to spend enough time writing a long summary on every page, there are a lot coming in every day. Don't think that Rapta has more say than you, he just wants to get through all the builds and get to grips with everything I think :D &mdash; Skuld 15:20, 2 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I can appreciate that. I know that there is a lot of rough to sort through to get to the diamonds.  I also understand that, if most people put the amount of work into their builds that I put into mine, we wouldn't be having this problem.  Still, if a doctor who dealt with hypochondriacs all day started treated everyone like a hypochondriac, there would be trouble.  LIkewise, we can't take the worst among us and use them as a benchmark for how we should treat everyone.
 * Do you guys think that it would be reasonable to require people to put something into the discussion prior to bringing an unfavored vote? It doesn't have to be long; a lot can be said in two lines.  This way the people who make the builds will have something to chew on.  I agree with you that most people do drive-by build write-ups and never return to defend their build, but for the rest of us that do care it would alleviate serious frustration.--Token Cleric 16:21, 2 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Regarding Talk:R/A_Lunge_as_One, I sincerely doubt most poeple tested the build in its intended environment, looking at the comments; one tested it in PvE, and another complained about a lack of rez sig & self healing... when it's clearly intended for Alliance Battles and neither healing or a rez sig are needed. In addition, as I recall, 130.88's vote was not based on a test, but on simply viewing the build without actually testing the damage output it achieves.
 * Many things about the Talk:R/W_Blademaster votes and comments were laughable: the fact that 9 tactics = full use of shield seemed to fly completely over the heads of several people, PvP tests of a PvE build, Skuld's mocking attitude when he wasn't paying attention to the mechanics involved, and lastly multiple votes without any reasonable comments.
 * With Talk:A/any_Never-ending_Assault, one vote commented on *only* one knockdown, as if this is a bad thing, and you should review the Unfavored tag that was placed on the build's page.
 * My point with Talk:R/any_Quick_Needler about testing skills and not the build was the interaction, and lack of testing as is spoken of with this topic "Unfavored Votes Without Testing."
 * As to the two delete tags, did you *see* the delete tags? There wasn't even any valid reasoning given in the first place for putting them there, and as such the tags were just complete wastes of time for all parties.  - Greven 17:24, 2 September 2006 (CDT)


 * To start this debate off, there will be no personal attacks on this Wiki, Greven. Regarding specifically to the build, there is really no reason to even be R/W here, with only one Energy attack. The three stances are a waste; no PvE build, especially a Ranger, should require 40+ seconds of stance time. There is a simple lacking of synergy between the skills, as well as a considerably low DPS. Look at it this way: you're using three stances to do the same thing repeatedly in a PvE build. Broken down, that is not such a great build.
 * And regarding, there really should be no dispute. There were 5 straight, flat-out votes against it. The community has spoken. Looking over it, it really is a bad build. Although there are many worse builds than this, it does not meet many standards that all prominent builds can make. And in R/any Quick Needler, everyone has their own testing method. That is the wonders of this category, we have so many conflicting opinions. This pushes our standard with builds to make sure that only the best builds are vetted. Silk Weaker is an excellent build tester in this Wiki, and we have many, many others. Everyone will always have their biases towards certain things. Me? I hate 55's and Discords, so I tend to stay away from those builds. The point is, you can't always take every single vote in "Unfavored" personally against a build which you have an opposite opinion on. Everyone has their own ideas. It's the process that gathers up all of those opinions, and puts them all under the "tested" section of our rate-a-build, that allows our most maginificent builds to shine. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 23:45, 2 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I couldn't agree with you more, Rapta, especially on that part about "everyone has their own ideas." It is good when we gather all of those opinions.  My initial beef had to do with people not expressing their opinion, but I'm sure that I've kicked that dead horse enough.
 * The issue at hand is testing, though, and not just opinions. If the vote was for "your opinion", then I would understand.  But it asks that we tested the builds, not glazed over.  It asks that they be vetted, not opined upon.
 * You're arguing that its acceptable to give an unfavoured vote based on how the build looks on paper. Do you think the reverse is acceptable, too?  That is, should people vote that a build is tested, even if they have not personally played it?  If so, I worry about the quality of the builds that will find their way into the tested section.  If not, then why the double standard?--Token Cleric 07:14, 3 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Rapta, sorry, but the simply stating the truth isn't engaging in a personal attack. I very rarely engage in such things, and saying this does nothing for your point since you completely ignored my entire point.  Look at the title of this section.  My objection is not about how viable a build is, but that they are not being tested or when they are, they're being tested in the wrong environment. - Greven 13:32, 3 September 2006 (CDT)
 * That's 130.58, thank you. I do not, in fact, live in Amsterdam. ;)
 * At any rate, I stand by my vote on completely: neither pet nor master have any protections whatsoever, just like for any other "giant chain of attack skills" build. Horns of the Ox and Death Blossom synergize poorly, and the build does in fact assume that you are using that entire chain. Enraged Lunge / Bestial Fury is a great combo, but the build lacks enough points to truly max out the damage output. Given the insane spammability of Enraged Lunge, an extra bit of damage every 5 seconds is a lot better than piling more skills into the assassin spike.
 * True, I do lack the R/A to fully test it, but I have enough experience with assassins and rangers to see that it is, in fact, one-dimensional and rather gimped just by looking at it. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2006 (CDT)
 * You didn't test it. Period. Thus, you should not have voted.  Period.  As far as votes are concerned, all five unfavored votes in  should be considered invalid.  Yours, since you didn't test.  Kessel's, as he tested it in the wrong format.  Xeeron's for no comment at all (oh wait, he indicates that the build is flawed because "Enraged Lunge is a wasted elite."  Yet he didn't understand the interaction of the skills).  Again, a flawed understanding of Enraged Lunge's mechanics with Nhaska's vote.  And finally, Draygo's comment assumes no healing from a party member, in addition to suggesting a rez sig is needed in... where does this build take place again?  Oh yes.  Alliance battles. -Greven 02:33, 9 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Builds has all of this to say on the matter: Testers who are not 100% sure of their vote should take the build to Guild Wars and run it before casting the vote. *shrug* That's all I have to go on. Even if I had gone to play Lunge as One for two hours, I'm dead sure I would've put my vote in the same column.
 * Anyway, as you said, above, your objection "is not about how viable a build is, but that they are not being tested or when they are, they're being tested in the wrong environment." Seems like a problem with the policy rather than with people following the policy, then. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2006 (CDT)
 * 130.58 is right, its the policy atm, not the voters who are responsible. I'm afraid your build is screwed atm unless drastically changed in stubs and resubmitted.  However, we are working on a new policy, and we have two ideas so far: Compromise and nomination Feel free to comment on them or make your own idea :S(Not a fifty five 15:04, 12 September 2006 (CDT))

Lol I'd put in the ::::::: but we'd have a word a line soon. I agree with Greven This is starting to get silly when Builds are being tossed into unfavored or even favored after an hour's testing. As said in Talk:Raging Blade I will henceforth rally one member every time I dont like a build that just pops up and unfavor it immediately before any other people can react. Cruel? not rly. The community seems to support it.

If you disagree with me and intend to do something about it I say it should take FIVE votes to deny a build or accept it. Put simply, in 3 days' time over 10 people will have looked at a build and commented on it. A lot of people dont vote because mainly because it takes a mere two votes to condemn something and dont bother. I'd like to hear your thoughts, but I also dont care as well, I will condemn or promote as many builds as possibly can in the next few days. (Not a fifty five 03:22, 4 September 2006 (CDT))


 * Update, I've just promoted/demoted about 5 builds out there where my vote was the deciding vote. I may or may not have simply put gibberish in my vote, but that is only your opinion not fact as everyone esxcept a few peopel believe here.  I'm energetic, I think I'll do 20 tomorrow, sounds nice dont it? (Not a fifty five 20:18, 4 September 2006 (CDT))


 * I think its enough. We dont want to start a revert war on GuildWiki. Your action does nothing other than destroying the spirit of Wiki and you are being childish. -- [[Image:Ritualist-icon-small.png]] Cwingnam2000 20:33, 4 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Hardly cwingnam. I am in fact following the examples of rapta and skuld who neither look at discussion nor even half the build itself.  Surely rapta and skuld, who have been voting so many times, are doing the right thing? (Not a fifty five 20:41, 4 September 2006 (CDT))


 * Thats why it is childish, you don't murder someone to show that murdering is not a good action. Not saying they are doing the right things, they are human and human makes mistakes. You can either take the case to administrator and make a policy change. But doing it the wrong way only disrupt the Wiki and lead to a down fall eventually. -- [[Image:Ritualist-icon-small.png]] Cwingnam2000 20:46, 4 September 2006 (CDT)


 * If you would like to make a reply please think about it first. Murder is against the law "rules" and common sense.  While butchering skills like these people do is against common sense, it is not agains the rules or law.  What I am doing is like murdering leaders of a country that allow anyone to kill each other, and frequently, and do it themselves. (Not a fifty five 20:57, 4 September 2006 (CDT))


 * Maybe you should THINK what i am implying there. Just consider 'murder' as an action that is morally wrong but legal. What im saying is, 2 wrongs don't makes a right. What you should not do is do the same thing to show that it is wrong, what you suppose to do is to vote on a change on policy. -- [[Image:Ritualist-icon-small.png]] Cwingnam2000 21:00, 4 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Right. "Hey saddam Hussein? We'd like to take a vote on your wrongful actions (Saddam wields a bazooka) We rly think" *BOOM* (Not a fifty five 21:04, 4 September 2006 (CDT))

Skuld and Rapta are not Saddam Hussein, they are just moderator. They are the police, and you can bring the case to a higher admin in the wiki, if you really want to. -- Cwingnam2000 21:07, 4 September 2006 (CDT)


 * No they arent Saddam Hussein you're right. However, if you replace "murder" with "voting without testing", I believe you will find the examples the same.  You're prolly right about the admin thing tho, thats better than what I'm doing (did). (Not a fifty five 21:09, 4 September 2006 (CDT))


 * What can you do when someone who agrees with you point of view is expressing it in an unproductive, if not destructive, way?
 * Not a Fifty Five, please don't go around giving drive-by votes to people's builds. I understand the point that you are trying to make, but you aren't harming the people that you are trying to make it to by voting builds up or down irrationally. You are only harming the authors of the builds and the wiki as a whole.  I disagree with the way that some of the people have been voting, but I don't think that imitating them is the solution, especially when the imitation is clearly malicious.--Token Cleric 21:59, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Yeah I was actually bluffing at first lol, I'll return the status of the pages. But I warn you all, this rly is not so terrible a thing I did: Chances are when I take it up with an admin as I just did nothing will happen, we'll have the same crap going on as has been for what, months if I have it right?  People have been complaining for a while it seems and nothing has happened.  I apologizing for acting rashly, I prolly shouldn't have done that, but perhaps we're getting somewhere now at least.  (Not a fifty five 00:27, 5 September 2006 (CDT))
 * Anyways, the admin in particular which I have contacted is tanaric, so if you support the views of this topic or have examples to give, you might want to try in User Talk:Tanaric. Hopefully if enough place their thoughts theres something will be done.  (Not a fifty five 00:55, 5 September 2006 (CDT))

running up proposal for untested build
so we have here an entry 'Featured untested Build' and... how does that change? as soon as its tested? or... if it stays untested, after a week? or what exactly? I think if a build hasnt been vetted after a week, it should make room for another build. the build will be either choosed randomly, or we make here a list where ppl can propose a build. HJT (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2006 (CDT)
 * There is currently no policy regarding that feature. Since having a vote on it seems overblown in my opinion, I would suggest a "X days rule, e.g. If the current featured untested build has been up for more than 3 days, anyone can change it to another, untested, build. --Xeeron 06:44, 2 September 2006 (CDT)
 * How do we tell if it's been up for 3 days tho? :( I'm switching critical blade to a build I jus created because I'm pretty sure its been up there for 4 or 5 days, but I dont know. Maybe I'm just ignorant to wiki (logged on like a month or less ago), but the only way I can date things is by people's signatures atm. (Not a fifty five 03:34, 4 September 2006 (CDT))
 * I think if you can check the date and time when you click the History tab -- [[Image:Ritualist-icon-small.png]] Cwingnam2000 05:36, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
 * That was the featured tested build. The Untested Build feature I put in is designed for evaluating builds that have been stuck in "the pile" for the longer periods of time. First come, first serve, after all. :) &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 22:49, 16 October 2006 (CDT)

Continuous testing and voting
There are two opposed problems mentioned in the discussion above, first one, the problem of voting a build to be unfavored without having tested it, or without a proper reason, thus allowing a player to unfavor a build just because she does not understand how to use it or how it works, or, also, a player who might know how even to help to work out the build better goes and votes it negatively thus disallowing other players to consider it a viable build... second one, the problem of the number of votes needed to consider a build either tested or unfavored to change it to the section of tested or the unfavores. In my view, the problem is only one, it is that it is too rigid to think that a build has been properly understood in a short term, and whilst puting them in different sections helps to organize their study, being unable to move a build from a section to another is a grave mistake. This is why it may be suggested the following: to keep testing and voting on all builds without regard to which section they are in, and set a percentage of difference in votes for a build to be in a section or another. For example, more than 66% of favorable votes = tested, less than 66% but more than 33% of favorable votes = untested, and less than 33% of favorable votes = unfavored. A minimum of votes can be set, say a minimum of 5 votes over all (possitive and negative) as well as a maximum of votes, say if, for example, 50 people have voted the build, then, the votation is closed. --mariano 04:49, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Amen (Not a fifty five 05:15, 4 September 2006 (CDT))
 * True, but almost all you say in part of the proposal and votes above. Whether you say "X more votes" or 66% is a mere technicality. Since votes on builds are never closed, they can (and sometimes do) change categories. --Xeeron 05:48, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
 * A vote that never ends is just as bad as a vote that ends immediately, for the same reason: people won't know what's going on with the vote. --Fyren 09:07, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
 * But the vote is not to decide an immediate issue, but to decide the category of the build. If all people hating the build vote first, but many others who favor it later, why should it not be moved from unfavored to tested? And the process is quite clear, not much chance of misunderstanding. --Xeeron 14:16, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
 * It is an immediate issue as action is taken based on the vote. What makes it worse is the action makes it less likely any further votes will come in.  --Fyren 14:44, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
 * That would be unlucky, but I dont see how it could be changed. What I meant is: It is not an issue that needs to be resolved fast, nor one which can not be reverted. --Xeeron 17:53, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Fyren you dont seem to be making any sense. A vote that never ends is as bad as a vote that ends immediately? We already said the build's temporary fate is decided upon at the "minimum" of 5 votes: it will enter a category then.  However, if someone sees the build in unfavored/tested and gets people to vote favored through swaying the discussion it would be allowed to enter tested/unfavored instead is all thats being said. This shouldn't be like the freaking supreme court with precedents when Leroy jenkins and his pals condemn or support a build and its gone forever or gets promoted and shames the wiki from good people to look at the builds, which I'm starting to realise really is happening. (Not a fifty five 19:00, 4 September 2006 (CDT))
 * Xeeron I know that at present practice is for some people to keep voting on unfavored builds, nevertheless, some other people disagree and wish that only new builds were voted. Still more, it remains obscure what action to undertake if votes turn favorable (or turn unfavorable) for a build. This is why I suggest to explicitly rule that all builds, regardeless of which section they are, may be voted and if a build come to be favored or to be unfavored by new votes then to change the build's section.--mariano 05:43, 5 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Check Builds, especially the note at the end of the first sections. --Xeeron 06:12, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

Guildwiki builds policy article
I put up a draft for a new guildwiki builds policy article for discussion here. --Xeeron 07:53, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

Challenges?
I think an interesting idea to determine the real fate of a build if one finds its in the "wrong" category would be to issue a challenge. Say you think Iway is a terrible build, even though its a proven good build. You could issue a challenge and use a randomly selected unfavored build to try and defeat the favored build. Obviously one has to use an unfavored build for the challenge because a favored build should have a decent chance of defeating IWAY. Or perhaps you think a GvG team build that is unfavored belongs in the tested section? You could then challenge a random favored build and try to defeat it. Anyways, assuming for the moment that both groups people on the challenge sides are equally skilled and that they are avaliable (I can figure out how to do this later, and if I cannot then oh well to the idea), what do you people think about this? (Not a fifty five 19:36, 4 September 2006 (CDT))
 * I am not too sure I like it. In fact, I think it would be a bad idea. I'll take IWAY as an example, as you did. IWAY is a build proven to be working, but like all builds, it has weaknesses. As such, an unfavored build could probably win over IWAY even if it isn't a decent over-all build. In fact it might be good for nothing but beating IWAY. I do think we have to re-define our policy though. As it is now builds get unfavored within 5 minutes after posting for the oddest of reasons. &mdash; Galil  19:43, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Lol yeah one of my condemned builds needed it, but this last one that got condemned is silly, I get Gladiator points any time I try out it. It uses strange ways of winning, but anyone who's tested it has found out it simply does win.  But thats more on the topic above anyways.  As far as weaknesses perhaps the challengees get to decide the build they defend with or the build the challngors would have to offend with.  Or have the offense/defense (depending on challenging a favored or unfavored) be randomly seleted for 3 battles, best 2 of 3 decides the fate. (Not a fifty five 19:48, 4 September 2006 (CDT))

Current build for immediate testing
I changed it to a random one. I just clicked it and I chose it. I don't know how you choose which to do. Can you post the method of choosing here please?
 * To be honest, closing your eyes and clicking on one seems like a reasonable procedure to me. --Xeeron 16:56, 5 September 2006 (CDT)
 * so who is going to write GuildWiki:blindfolded dart toss selection policy? --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 17:00, 5 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I wrote a rough draft. Probably needs to be further developed to conform to quality standards.  Check your link.--Token Cleric 19:46, 6 September 2006 (CDT)

lol Frvwfr2 17:10, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

Builds taking over GuildWiki
The builds section of GuildWiki has been growing very strong recently. The number of edits in that section has been gradually increasing, while the number of edits in the games "documentation" section has been decreasing since the release of Factions. Recently builds edits account for roughly 50% of all edits and even more of the new articles. This is merely an observation. The question is: Do we want to go further down that road? Without any doubt the demand is high, as shown by user activity. But is GuildWiki a good place to cater that demand? In the past we concentrated on documentation of the game content. Documentation of the FACTS. Votes were used only as the last resort in cases of severe disputes. We tried to avoid any content that is highly subjective. For that reason we declined for example Phoenix's request to start a "suggestions" section on GuildWiki, and said that such subjective stuff belongs in the user namespace. But for builds we make an exception.

Anyway ... I just wanted to point out the potential conflict with our overall policy, and ask everybody to make a concious decision about it. Quite frankly I haven't finally decided what my own stance on the matter is. -- 09:07, 7 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Personally I find the nature of a wiki very good for finding builds. Builds on forums tend to be written by someone trying to sell you the build, whereas builds here are tested, tweaked, and contributed to by more than one person, with a NPOV. There have been some very good builds I have found thanks to GuildWiki. Perhaps the decline in documenting the PvE side is because Factions has been out for a while now, and (in my opinion) the PvE in Factions is awful. Carth 09:24, 7 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm glad you brought that up, I've been thinking that we're becoming more BuildWiki than GuildWiki :( Prehaps someone would like to start a seperate spinoff site devoted purely to builds? &mdash; Skuld 09:32, 7 September 2006 (CDT)


 * If that is done - and in the long run I can just about see why it's a good plan, even though my gut reaction is to dislike the idea - then it needs to be done very carefully. At the moment some builds and their categories are quite intricately tied in with various other parts of the GW site (skill articles, guides, profession combinations etc etc), just ripping all the builds out wholesale would be very damaging. What I'm getting at is that I think in the short run at least removing builds would probably be even more work than trying to sort through them and tidy them up - removing them is not a panacea. --NieA7 09:54, 7 September 2006 (CDT)
 * the issue is that the game expands at a constant rate (set by Anet), where as user content expands at an exponential rate proportional to the user base. i think a pruning is in order, but not a spin-off. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 10:08, 7 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I had this idea yesterday, why don't we have a page where you add a section and describe the basic concept, where it is for and list the bar, and state whether you will be doing it yourself or would like someone to work with you on it, ppl can pick stuff they're interested in and improve them. It would save a lot of work going in the bin and unless i've had an oversight, reduce the number of abandonned/generally bad build builds coming in. Or is this worse than our current? &mdash; Skuld 10:34, 7 September 2006 (CDT)

My honest recommendation would be to split off the builds into a separate sister project called "BuildWiki". There is a community interested in builds, but GuildWiki should return to documenting the game, not documenting how players play the game. But this is just one opinion. zaishen 10:38, 7 September 2006 (CDT)
 * splitting a wiki is a major deal, not to be done lightly. look at Oblivionwiki. 90% of the stuf we take for granted here (templates, processes, etc) is not there at all. a new wiki would need to either copy huge portions of our content (esp skill pages) or design all that from scratch. i think the current incarnation is fine, but we need more people testing and less people submitting blindly. if you must have a seperation, consider a seperate namespace. Builds:W/E Wrathful Hammer, Builds:Criteria for approval, Builds:effective use of "Move Zig!" in a PvP bar? --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 10:53, 7 September 2006 (CDT)
 * That's a good point, but I seriously think that the way this wiki is treating builds is not optimal. The reason I advocate for a split is that we need clearly articulated policies about builds and a fresh start is the best way to do it. This point has been raised by many different people on many different talk pages and I won't repeat it here. I have made a suggestion of a better way to do things, but am not too optimistic that the processes here can be changed this late in the game. zaishen 11:06, 7 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I agree! For the above, it wouldn't be that hard to remove builds altogether, there are just a couple of boss pages linking to far builds, it isn't as intwined as you may think &mdash; Skuld 10:56, 7 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Not so sure about that, but I guess the turth will lie somewhere between us. As for having trouble setting up a new builds wiki, can't it just point to GW pages as external links for skill descriptions and suchlike? It'd be silly to try to pretend that the two aren't related in any way, and lots of other sites point at GW content. --NieA7 11:09, 7 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Use soft redirects (pages with just a notice pointing at the new location) like WP does. Yes, it could link to the wiki. I don't know &mdash; Skuld 11:14, 7 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Hey everyone back again. Please read my user talk if you plan to punch the punching bag some more.  Anyways the ban has given me time to think and I think I've found a solution that satisfies both my side, the ones who want real testing, and everyone else's, the ones who want the untested pile not to reach the atmosphere.  It requires much less work than making a new site.  I'll discuss under a new subject below. And as to pvp taking over GW, its just not true.  Hit random page about 50 times.  Only 10 at most will be about pvp.  Even disregarding factual pages, there's about 10 or more pve guides too.  besides Guild Wars is mainly about pvp.  You dont see anet holding a sanctioned farming contest in Germany do you? (Not a fifty five 11:45, 8 September 2006 (CDT))


 * Just want to say I disagree with your comment, "Guild Wars is mainly about pvp". Try to have some consideration for other players please. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carth (talk &bull; contribs) 18:12, 8 September 2006 (CDT).


 * Fair enough. However, the remark of 10 builds at most per 50 is true. (Not a fifty five 13:14, 8 September 2006 (CDT))

How about keeping the builds section in GuildWiki, but in a separate namespace?! That way the builds section is still linked with the rest of the wiki, but we can at least apply a filter by name space in Recent Changes and in searches! -- 03:04, 18 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Hmmm, seems to be a lot of work converting it for the sake of recent changes filters, but if someone cares enough to do it, I would not disagree. --Xeeron 04:41, 18 September 2006 (CDT)


 * A lot of work? Nah, compared to Aberrant80's epic NPC category crusade it's peanuts. ;) --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 10:01, 19 September 2006 (CDT)

Move all ideas for future build system to one place?
Ideas for future build systems are all over the place: User talk:Tanaric Talk:Builds builds, and a few other places. Can we agree to one of these pages or a new pages to move all these ideas to? (Not a fifty five 16:40, 10 September 2006 (CDT))
 * I created a new unified discussion at Guildwiki talk:Builds. --Xeeron 06:49, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

Crusade for skill update yes or no?
Simple question: Should be go through all builds, slap on a update notice (there is a template around somewhere that could be used) on all that use on of the changed skill (maybe only nerfed skills) and reexamine them? Or is that to much effort and since most builds will not really be affected by a change in one or two skills and those few that will, will be changed even without the notice anyway? --Xeeron 09:21, 14 September 2006 (CDT) From what I see, 80%ish of the update was buffing and the nerfs that applied aren't that bad. Except boon and evis, they got sacked.-Onlyashadow 09:27, 14 September 2006 (CDT)

Go To Guildwiki talk:builds
Major discussion going on there, and if you dont participate soon, we may end up adopting a new build policy without your vote/advice! (Not a fifty five 12:48, 14 September 2006 (CDT))

Wrong people are voting
The problem is not with the policy, but who is voting. If more users were voting, the current policy would be fine. Since there are less than 20 consistent voters, there is a certain bias for conventionalism, and it can hardly be said that builds are evaluated by the community as a whole. This is a userbase issue, and not a policy issue. As such, it may never be "resolved" unless more users, myself included, start testing and voting. Primitiveworker 17:51, 17 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I am clearly aware that players such as myself spread our own ideas while voting; such is the way of "democracy", as you've said. More people joining disccussion would help, providing people who join aren't ignoring people. The kind who vote presidents and senators depending on whether the guy's good looking or not instead of thinking about it, researching their history, or even just reading newspaper.


 * This is no place to discuss about how there are more wrong/ignorant people than right in the world, however, so I'll move on to the next point... Should unregistered people be allowed to vote? Registered sockpuppets are easier to identify or at least control. --Silk Weaker 11:39, 19 September 2006 (CDT)

Featured Builds
What is the process for choosing the featured builds? &mdash; Shining 19:56, 18 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Random -- [[Image:Ritualist-icon-small.png]] Cwingnam2000 20:01, 18 September 2006 (CDT)

They'd be used to draw attention to controvertial builds, like unfavored builds that someone thinks shouldn't belong there, or stubs that are rdy to enter untested. (Not a fifty five 21:48, 18 September 2006 (CDT))

If I post a build that I want to be reviewed (and I have done all the formatting etc. so it looks nice and whatever) and the untested featured build has been up there for a few days, can I make mine the featured build? Or is only truly random accepted? &mdash; Shining 22:49, 18 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Well I dont think people rly care actually lol, I put my new builds in featured every time I think they're igrored >.<. Basically its a way for showing what you think has potential I guess. (Not a fifty five 23:41, 18 September 2006 (CDT))

Usefulness of builds
My interpretation/wishes:
 * GuildWiki is to document the game and provide a guide to players, the builds section should therefore be used to house popular builds, such as IWAY and touch rangers, and useful things such as a PvE barrage build, a basic healing build, and a startup GvG formation.
 * What GuildWiki is not/shouldn't be:
 * A forum
 * A testbed for ideas
 * GwShack
 * A place to house your build - it should be useful to at least some people

&mdash; Skuld 03:21, 19 September 2006 (CDT)


 * /resign --Karlos 10:21, 19 September 2006 (CDT)
 * This means only FOTM and "classic" builds will land here. Which, is sensible since this is a wiki, and by nature 'definitive'.  There are other places to publish experimental builds for evaluation.  Ideally, we shouldn't be in the business of evaluating builds on any criteria other than "in wide use".  -Primitiveworker 11:14, 19 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Well I'm not rly sure what you mean by classic. There's touch rangers and Iway in the builds section.. but even in  tested  builds, builds pop up that few people at all use e.g. I've never seen a flourish assasin, axe assasin, or Holy Hammer in the arenas. They just aren't used.  They're  good  but they shouldn't be expected. You're saying these don't belong? (Not a fifty five 11:31, 19 September 2006 (CDT))
 * And as far as a testbed for ideas thats kinda contradictory to the whole vetting process... why do we even have it if so? Thinks like Iway don't need to be vetted lol.(Not a fifty five 11:34, 19 September 2006 (CDT))
 * Only evaluating on "in wide use" would be the idealized extreme of wiki-ness as definitive-ness. There are other places to find "cool" and "unique" builds.  I'm not saying that the good builds that we already have don't belong, but in the future, as builds are coming into the untested pile, they should already have been tested and tweaked via a community site or guild site or something.  This will make testing and vetting far less arduous.  I made the mistake of posting a novel build that I can run effectively, but it's a suboptimal variant, and difficult to run.  Ultimately it doesn't belong here, just as loads of suboptimal-and-yet-functional builds in the untested pile. -Primitiveworker 11:53, 19 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Well I think its more people should use common sense to post only builds they think will get vetted. E.g. There's my build  Which a lot of people are saying is great, yet a little buggy.  I haven't even tested the whole version cause I'm currently out of a guild.  I do, however, know that in theory it should work, I've tested the individual characters and know they work, and that they worked together well and should handle an enemy.  But I need actual testers to find out if the thing is practical. I personally think its fine for questionable builds to come in so long as they start in stubs, and get deleted if the author and others grimace at it's final form. (Not a fifty five 12:06, 19 September 2006 (CDT))

Ooh! That place where builds can be kept could be on a user page!-Onlyashadow 12:00, 19 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I see. Well, what about simply taking currently untested builds out of wikispace and put them into userspace, rename the categories and have a nomination process for meta-game approved builds for category:favored builds. ~ Nilles (chat) 09:13, 6 October 2006 (CDT)