Talk:Builds/Archive 6

A different proposal
I have created an alternative policy proposal at Build Split, essentially saying that the PvP stuff discussed here is good and should be used, but at the same time it shouldn't be applied to the PvE stuff. Please go take a look and discuss. --NieA7 07:16, 19 December 2006 (CST)

From Guildwiki talk:No Original Builds...
I said,
 * Moreover, what you're going to be putting back after you purge everything is really the same stuff. At least part of the problem with "builds" comes from the way we look at the concept of the build itself: eight skills, a few attributes, and some usage notes. Is that the best way to think about this stuff? I think the volumes of 55 builds, Sever-Gash-Final-Frenzy-Healsig warriors, AoD assassins, etc. speak to the fact that we're looking at the very concept of a build in an altogether too piecemeal kind of way. I think there's too much of a focus on components without much cohesive exploration of what a build does and how it does it rather than just what skills are on a bar. You don't really need 20 Dragon Slashers. But you do need a careful and well-thought-out analysis of how a Dragon Slasher works and what a Dragon Slasher is for. I don't want to go ahead with sweeping policy changes, particularly those that destroy data, before we look at that basic issue some, too. — 130.58 (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2006 (CST)

Thoughts? &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * Agreed. I've mentioned above (twice now) a merge process.  I think you're mentioning something of the sort.  Almost like grouping the entire SoA 55 concept together on one page, listing how it's used, where, how it's effective, and then give suggestions on secondary choices or favorable skill choices that synergy (wrong word, but I think you understand) well.Cyrogenic 01:01, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * A good idea but difficult to execute in practice. For example, a 55 build is (as I understand it) a core selection of 4 or 5 monk skills and another 3 or 4 skills from any profession (depending on the primary/secondary profession of the player) designed to deal damage. This could easily be merged into a single, simple build/guide as there's not much difference between the individual "builds" (just the damage skills). However, while the idea of a Minion Master is well known in PvE there is a fair variety of different, equally viable MM builds that could easily share only 2 or 3 skills between them. A guide swiftly becomes something like the General minion mastery guide - there's nothing wrong with that, however I think having much more concise examples in the builds section is a benefit rather than a duplication of effort. Similarly a Fast Casting Elementalist is a simple, single idea, but the skill bar and AP spread depends entirely on what Elementalist discipline you choose to follow ( [Build:Me/E Air Spiker], [Build:Me/E FC Water Ele] and [Build:Me/E Flashfire] don't have a single skill in common other than a Res Sig). [Build:R/any General Interrupter] is pretty much the ideal I'd like to see in the PvE builds section, but not at the expense of losing all the FC Ele builds because they can't be summed up on one page easily. --NieA7 04:42, 20 December 2006 (CST)

My thoughts are, is that there are too many people that shoot down creativity beacuse it "looks like" it won't work. Many of these builds do work, and I feel sad everytimer I look through the unfavored builds section. Half of the people who rate builds do so from the stale "flavor of the month slave" perspective. Top 100 guild members are not the only people who can make good builds.--TheDrifter 17:48, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * Here's the thing that a lot of people don't seem to get (I'm not calling you out):
 * Commerically-released games are designed to be won.
 * You can coast your way through most of Guild Wars with almost anything stapled to your skill bar. That's by design. This isn't Rogue or whatever, where even optimal play is likely to result in your untimely demise. A good build isn't just one that can get you up to Thunderhead Keep or whatever. It's one that can actually deal with the "challenging" aspects of play. In PvP, the challenge comes from the other players. In PvE, the challenge comes from the designers cranking up the difficulty (which is only the case in some areas) and from artificially creating a challenge for yourself by changing the parameters of the task (the easiest example being farming something with an undermanned group to get better rewards). This is where the truly worthwhile PvE builds come from. We need to, at the least, acknowledge this in the review process: "it works" just plain can't be enough to assure a build prominent placement on the wiki. Even in PvE, a build really has to have some specific thing it's good at. Not just mediocre of kinda good, but amazingly, ass-kickingly, holy-shit-why-didn't-I-think-of-this good. Otherwise, we're going to be making pages for almost any combination of skills you can think of. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2006 (CST)

And yet another suggestion
I tried to stay out of the build chaos, but I keep bumping to it all the time. Almost all of the user talk pages on my watchlist only get highlighted for trouble conserning builds. solving the great build problem I have a suggestion of my own.

I think that the builds section of the wiki should not be like the build forums of gwguru for example, a place to post ideas and improve them. I think the build section should only document popular stuff from the game, which a wide variety of people use.


 * For PvP builds, only keep builds which are or have been flavor of the month builds or otherwise really really popular in any PvP type. This includes things such as IWAY. Those which are currently used should be in a category similiar to 'favored', while builds which do not work any more or have been abandoned by the community should be in a category smiliar to 'archived'.
 * For PvE builds, only keep succesfull and well known team and solo builds for high level areas, such as UW, FoW and the Elite missions. Also popular farming builds shoul be documented. The categorisation should be similiar to the PvP categorisation.

The important points are: 1) Only stuff which is widely used and accepted in the Guild Wars player base. No own builds or ideas of the users, although that would be fun. It's just not possible to handle them. 2) Also keep old, forgotten, nerfed builds in an 'archive' category. The old popular builds ARE interesting for newer players as well as the older ones.

I'm not sure if one of the many suggestions posted by other users is similiar to this one. I seriouslt do believe that the only way we can handle the builds section and keep it organised is to prevent 'own builds' and remove the whole voting system at the same time. This would mean a huge purge, but in the end we would have a clear builds section which keeps with the wiki idea of documenting the game and not working as a place for forming new ideas and builds. -- (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2006 (CST)


 * Yeh, that would be what I would like. &mdash; Skuld 18:11, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * I do not see whats worng with the testing grounds,The wiki is oficialy a comunity fansite and not a wiki, it should have some comunity creativity and the builds section is just that. Now Im all for creating a second area for your ideas but a purge of the whole build section because its cluttered and has SOME not so great ideas in it? Deleteing that much info because its big is both un wiki like and un fansite like. The creation of a established builds section that could be used to add the top pvp builds out there is a good idea, but it should not replace the comunity builds section.-- Sefre [[image:Prepared_Shot.jpg|24px|]] 18:18, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * The wiki is officially not a wiki? Lol, do go on ;p &mdash; Skuld 18:21, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * Well, if it was official it would be run by the same admins or whatever as wikipedia. but it is a "speciality guild wars fansite" officaly as far as I can tell. Either way, GW:NOT shows that this isnt a atual true wiki.-- Sefre [[image:Prepared_Shot.jpg|24px|]] 18:24, 20 December 2006 (CST)


 * The wiki was not originally ment for builds, it was ment for documenting the game as it is. Therefor you cannot say it is 'unwiki like'. The whole builds section is 'unwiki like'. However, I think that documenting the game as it is (which is the wikis idea) also includes documenting the popular builds. That's why I suggest only keeping old and new popular builds. I did not suggest this only because the build section is such a mess, but also because this change would make the whole build section hold true to the wiki idea. Suggesting, testing and improving builds is better suited for forums, not a wiki. If the builds are really that great, they will become popular and be documented in the wiki sooner or later. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2006 (CST)


 * And lol. A wiki is a wiki. Wiki means the software and hardware system which we are using at the momenet. Wikipedia is just another wiki. Other well known wikis, which are not Wikipedia, are the Unencyclopedia and the Wookieeepedia. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2006 (CST)


 * wi·ki (wĭk'ē)
 * n., pl. -kis.
 * A collaborative website whose content can be edited by anyone who has access to it.
 * &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Llednar (talk &bull; contribs) 18:35, December 22, 2006 (CST).
 * "Either way, GW:NOT shows that this isnt a atual true wiki." No, the GW:NOT page was pointing out we aren't specifically Wikipedia (which isn't the only Wiki on the web, as Gem pointed out), and the main point of the policy is to point out that we can't use all of Wikipedia's policies because they would conflict with our aim of being a fansite and a guide. The only real claim it makes is that we are not *merely* an encyclopedia... which I discussed here.
 * Also, Gem, your suggestions mirror the ones made in NOB (which I assume means you support that policy, or at least a bit of it; correct me if I'm wrong). -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 02:12, 23 December 2006 (CST)

Even Karlos said such an act would be unwiki-like, and it is. It is also not in support of the true reason for Guild Wras, which is creative thinking. This idea is not only defying the wiki concept, but also the GW concept, the only two things this site is. Thus, this idea is hurting the site's rep mroe then having a few bad builds in the "unfavored" section and even less in the "tested" section.
 * You make an excellent point, TheDrifter. That's what it boils down to. Here's the question:
 * Do we stick to the Wiki policy, and by doing so, have a shitty build section? or
 * Do we throw the Wiki policy out the window in hopes of implementing policy that will make a Build section work? -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 03:53, 24 December 2006 (CST)
 * As I've said on the other two pages where we're having a discussion, splitting builds into "documented" and "original" makes the most sense, since the totality of your problem is basically "I can't find popular/standard/archetypical/FOTM builds easily because of all the other builds, both good and bad, that people are posting," and it's stupid to destroy most of the pages and severely limit future user contributions just because of that inconvenience when there are much simpler ways to fix it. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2006 (CST)
 * I don't think anyone's complaining about not being able to find builds. And if they are, I'm not (plus, if someone was dead set on finding FotM, they'd look in observer mode, not on GWiki). "because of all the other builds, both good and bad, that people are posting" <--- I'd like to agree with you there, but the number of bad (and just plain unimaginative/boring) builds so greatly outnumber the amount of good (or excellent) builds, I don't think its a matter of "both." Show me a truly great build that originated from GWiki and I'll be singing a different tune, but as of yet, the best builds we have, we've copied (as it should be).
 * The crux of everyone's arguments/complaints either for or against the two proposed policies has originated from that question; users and admins alike have commented on how un-wiki the build section is, and must be in order to work. And everyone's agreed that the Wiki is a poor format (because of the policies) for build work, and they've all been saying that since we started this discussion (I think Chris with Lime inquired awhile back as to why the Wiki was such a poor format, but I believe he was answered sufficiently. Shout off if you still disagree). Every time we'd get close to discussing the actual proposed policy, someone would comment "oh, but that's so unwiki-like" and the discussion would stop. So let's ask ourselves the question, and if enough people are willing to work toward a better build section, it has a chance; if the majority of people are afraid of (positive) change, nothing will happen. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 04:58, 24 December 2006 (CST)


 * What 130 said is exactly what I want. People can use the wiki for fotm builds and they can also have the original builds a lot still want to have. Anyways heres every reason why I think the fotm section is better than the current system. People spend some time on either good or bad builds. Some people spend a ton of time just voting through builds. Most people come on to wiki looking for the exact skills and attributes of a fotm builds and rarely look at the actual original builds. So basically time is wasted making original builds and is also laughed at because half of it turns out to be crap. The fotm section is what most commonly viewed anyways. Anyways I think we need to have a poll having the options No original builds, 2 sections, or keep it as it is.--A Guy 06:58, 24 December 2006 (CST)
 * Just a word of caution from someone who's been here for a long time: voting on a major policy decision means that 10 people come out and decide policy for thousands of users. You have to be very careful that you're taking a representative sample when you do that. (And I say that as someone who's voted lots, enjoyed the power it gave me, and felt that good things came of it.) &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2006 (CST)


 * Ok, hold on, before my own point gets hijacked from under my feet... Allow me to make somethings clear:
 * Changing the definition of the builds section is CRITICAL here. If the definition of the builds section was CHANGED to "Documenting popular builds in the game" then in such a case, I would have absolutely no problem with only allowing builds that meet a certain bar of popularity. This would be no different than the currect Glossary in the wiki which does not document ANY term that any player comes up with but only popular terms and expressions. As such, it is not unwiki-like to say we will only "document" builds that meet a certainly level of popularity.
 * My objection was because I was unaware that such a change in focus and function took place. I was under the impression that it was still to allow users to post their builds, as such discriminating against certain users seemed improper.
 * I still have a MAJOR concern on how the metric of a "popluar" build will be defined. However, if we WILL be shifting the builds' section focus into a documentation mode, we NEED to make it clear that we did that, and then alter aLL the builds' section policies and articles to make it clear to users that we shifted in that direction.
 * I personally do not oppose such a shift. Decades ago, I said that if the builds section was to continue to allow any user to post his/her build that there MUST be no vetting process other than the debate on the discussion page. This is a welcome change as far as I am concerned. It actually means that the builds section falls in line with the rest of the wiki in terms of being more like a wiki and less like a forum. --Karlos 17:02, 24 December 2006 (CST)
 * While such a thing could work for PvP I really don't see it working for PvE, which is while I'd like to get the build split in place first. --NieA7 17:43, 24 December 2006 (CST)


 * Why wouldn't it work for PvE? There are popular builds which should be documented (55hp, SS, trapper teams, ...) and deleting all of the nonpopular PvE builds is actually even more helpfull than delelting the non-popular PvP skills. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2006 (CST)


 * I have no objections to deleting "original" builds, whatever you consider those to be. I personally consider them to be all the duplicate, minor variant, seemingly useless builds that random people bring onto the wiki and dump them here and abandon them after only contributing once. I am more for a "Popular" or "Flavor of the Month" builds category, but don't think there should be a "vetting" process whatsoever. I think the only thing we would need on that is just like any other article we have on the wiki. All discussion would take place on the discussion page and if the general consensus (not a vote) is that the build is not popular enough in the aspect that it was created for (PvP or PvE), then it will be either deleted or archived. One of the two. The only way to test whether a build was popular or not (at least in PvP) would be to go into observer mode and watch most of the matches. If the build isn't seen or isn't advertised in the least, it can't be accepted that it's "popular". The same thing can be said about team builds for PvE. You will commonly see people advertising for what type of character they're wanting and what type of build they want them to run, both on solo and team levels. The only type of builds that I see becoming a problem with this type of investigation are solo-builds. People don't normally advertise their solo builds in-game. Mostly due to fear of nerfing and/or they think they are sitting on a gold mine and don't want anyone else to find out their secrets.


 * So here are my views:
 * No original builds. Only document widely-used builds that have reached huge popularity both in-game and in the metagame.
 * No vetting process. Build articles should be treated like any other article on the wiki as far as varification goes.
 * This will eliminate the mass amount of drama related to the builds section where people think that unfavoured votes and such are personal attacks and more personal attacks won't result in retaliation.
 * Document every aspect of the build available (dominion of usage, origin, and date of conception, and (if necessary) date of death/dis-usage usually as a result of nerfing or over-usage and countering).


 * Now hopefully, someone can decipher everything I've said and not take it in the wrong way. — Jyro X [[Image:Darkgrin.jpg|25px]] 19:58, 24 December 2006 (CST)
 * I understand what you want, but I entirley disagree with it. The build section is one of the most popular part of this site, people may come to the wiki to look up info on quests or skills but there is even a larger comunity on the wiki that contributes mostly in the builds section.
 * Now if you want to remove all the original builds the sites population will fall but also the sites reputation as a fansite will crash(and dont give me that its already bad, the few obbesive pvpers who say bad of the site do not speak for the entire GW comunity).
 * Either way trying to document all of the popular builds and verifying their effectivness is impossible, for GVG you can use observer mode but that only refrains to the top 100 guilds and the same builds arnt used every time. But what about the arenas? What about Aliance batles? You cant check wether a build works there other then by what people say.
 * This post comments on what others have purposed, not only your post. And from what others have purprosed I can tell right off the bat that their solution would hurt the wiki in the long run, both in population and reputation. There are many flaws in the current build system, but are the supporters of the no original builds idea realy willing to risk destryoing a good part of the guild wiki comunity just so a few bad builds arnt in favoured, or so some pompous pvpers stop making jokes about it? Their talking about a purge of the creative guild wars comunity from this fansite, and that is not something that should ever happen.-- Sefre [[image:Prepared_Shot.jpg|24px|]] 21:45, 24 December 2006 (CST)
 * Lol. The site had a fabulous reputation because it did what it does best - documentation of the game - not because of the Build section. While the complete removal of the Build section would slow traffic to the site, it wouldn't chase anyone away that we would want to keep (people that only contribute to the Build section and nothing else do nothing for the Wiki as a reliable source of information about the game) or decrease its reputation one notch.
 * "But what about the arenas? What about Aliance batles?" ABs are a joke - I had an entire team of echo mending monks (as a Kurzicks, in Kaanai) and we pwned their pants off - are builds required for AB? Hardly. Arena builds, however, are harder to document, but they are a core part of PvP, and as such, have definite builds that do/don't work.
 * "And from what others have purprosed I can tell right off the bat that their solution would hurt the wiki in the long run, both in population and reputation." Lol. Nuff said. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 23:48, 24 December 2006 (CST)


 * Sefre, I don't know how long you have been around, but the wiki's reputation will not be affected by the builds section one bit. I do agree that it is popular and the good builds are very useful to a LOT of users. I know this from my own guild. My dream is to make finding and using builds very accessible to make the game more enjoyable for everyone. But, yeah, the wiki's reputation will not fall nor plumet. --Karlos 06:18, 25 December 2006 (CST)


 * Like Jyro X said, I think that no voting should be involved in the wiki builds. If a build requires voting, it doesn't belong here. The builds should imho be treated just like other parts of the wiki, based on stuff in the game and then discused on the talk page. All of the popular builds have a few minor variants, but they are relatively easy to put in the wiki so that most of the players recognise them. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 07:56, 25 December 2006 (CST)

I like the idea of having a non-original builds section, but then also having a build section on each elite. Since for most builds the elite is the key skill, it will largely determine the build's form and function. People could discuss the best ways to use the elite, and builds using it ineffectively would not stay on the build page. There would be no drama because their would be no "ownership" of a build really (as the elite, in a way, now owns the build. the build may not be bad, the elite simply doesn't fit it or vise versa). There would simply be people discussing and using creativity to find the best uses for each elite in builds. This would also encourage somthing some people beleive is now in short supply on the wiki: innovation. People are not afraid to put there ideas out there because they can put it on the discussion page and people can work with it or ignore it, without fear of unfavoured votes that some authors may take a little personally. The best builds for each elite would come out and you would have people working to make builds rather than crusading to prevent bad ones (or get their own favoured).-- Windjammer 01:29, 3 January 2007 (CST)

Partner Site (revisited)
Taken from GuildWiki talk:No Original Builds...

"I agree with Karlos that several users who wish to do away with original builds appear too concerned with the reputation of GuildWiki among high-level PvP players. I can't specifically recall any instances of anyone badmouthing GuildWiki at large in the game itself or on boards besides these Wiki users.  Before we make any drastic changes to the site, I ask those in support of this policy to ask themselves why they support it.  Is it primarily because they believe it's really better for the site, or because of peer pressure?  I don't mean to imply anything or make accusations, just putting that out there.

That said, those who are against this policy (that is, those who wish to keep original builds on the Wiki) should ask themselves how those builds really make the Wiki better. Yes, they probably attract more users to this site. However, we could also attract users by hosting daily crossword puzzles or clip hilights of the week's NBA games. GuildWiki is first and foremost a site dedicated to documenting in-game content, not creating it. Crosswords and basketball don't fit under this definition, and neither do original builds. Currently, we have made an exception in for the Build section. While the current Builds section is Wiki-like in terms of specific GuildWiki policy, it is not Wiki-like in terms of the general purpose of the site.

Some users seem to object to the "elitism" of eliminating orignal builds. I have said in the past that builds are a subjective issue, but this is only because many users don't agree on what makes a build "good." If a good build is defined as a build that is fun to play (as fun is, at least in theory, the overall goal of Guild Wars), then it is indeed subjective. But if your definition of a good build is a build that accomplishes a given task at X standard, then it is not subjective. Saying that everyone is equally well-equipped to determine what builds are at or above that standard or, possibly more importantly, to determine the standard itself, is ridiculous. That doesn't mean that most players with experience in high-level PvP are better in an absolute sense than PvP newbies, but they are usually better at determining good builds.

Continuing that concept, GuildWiki is probably not the prefered site of most of those experienced players. Also, putting into practice a solid, defined documentation process of defining "good builds" through Oberver Mode only would time-consuming and impractical. So, '''I propose that GuildWiki partner with a "pro" site, such as team-iq.net or Guru in build development. GuildWiki and the pro site agree on a space and system for developing and vetting builds, possibly through a review commitee of experienced players. The idea is that any build vetted by the pro site should not simply be agreed upon by the pros that it could probably work, but actually in use in high-level PvP. Builds that pass this process will then be hosted on GuildWiki.''' Of course this is only a conceptual proposal doesn't go into detail on how this would actually be put into practice. However, this may provide a method of making the Build section a comprehensive, diverse, and, of course, respectable resource. --Chris with Lime 9:23, 24 December 2006 (CST)"

(My response, also copy-pasted):
 * Ridiculously strong support. Even if we placed great policies into place for the PvP section, the top PvPers wouldn't come here; so including original builds for PvP would be pointless. If someone wanted to tweak their PvP builds, they shouldn't come to the Wiki for advice; they'd be better off going to GWGuru/team-iq.net etc in the first place. This works well with the Build Split plan; after BS splits PvP and PvE interests, the PvP section can team up with a partner site (an idea that garnered support here).
 * This not only lets creativity flow (people can still post their own PvP builds), but offers greater room for build improvement; a win-win situation. The Wiki would stick with what the Wiki has always done best (documentation of truly vetted builds), and the build creation workshop would be on the partner site. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]]


 * Stop and think about the partner site thing. I promise you team-iQ would want absolutely nothing to do with GuildWiki.  Guru would be strongly opposed to partnering with GuildWiki also.  Why would another site want to ruin their reputation by partnering with the GuildWiki builds section?  GuildWiki would have to clean up its build section first and rebuild the reputation of its build section. -Warskull 03:55, 26 December 2006 (CST)

Thoughts? -Auron  00:02, 25 December 2006 (CST)


 * As I've stated many times, I support the idea of only documenting well known popular builds, nothing more. A partner project can be freely established, but please keep those builds out of the wiki itself. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 02:04, 25 December 2006 (CST)

You are asuming that Guru, team IQ ect. support the abloishment of orginal builds. I imagine, as both of these sites are made up of top-10 guilds do not. It is worth a try to talk with them about this, but nothing should be final, ideas should simply just be thrown around among these sites.--TheDrifter 10:49, 25 December 2006 (CST)

--TheDrifter 10:49, 25 December 2006 (CST)

To be honest the wiki has the best resources to host a build section. From a wiki page all you have to do is put a skill name or item in brackets and it makes a direct link. Besides the fact that the people who were said to be making fun of the guild wiki builds probaly visit all of the potential partner site and I doubt they would be very happy to see the stuff they consider bad to be on other sites too.-- Sefre  11:06, 25 December 2006 (CST)
 * Moreover, I can't go to a forum, look up Furious Axe or Desecrate Enchantments or Rage of the Ntouka, click "what links here," and get a list of builds that use it. That reverse lookup capability is very important. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2006 (CST)


 * The builds that have been vetted by this system will be on GuildWiki using GuildWiki code. The GuildWiki code itself (programming code, not policy) is fine for build hosting.  However, the userbases of team-iq.net, etc. are better suited to build-vetting than that of GuildWiki.  This way, we get the best of both worlds: Builds thoroughly vetted by experienced players hosted in a crisp, clean, easy-to-use format.
 * This policy in no way abolishes the development of original builds, unless one's definition of "original" is just "builds first developed on GuildWiki." Builds have been, are, and will continue to be created outside of GuildWiki.  This policy would provide more structure in a more appropriate location.  --Chris with Lime 13:43, 26 December 2006 (CST)


 * Refering to the point above, about "reverse lookup" capabilities. One site that has this is www.gwkb.org, and it is a very powerful feature. There is a way of course to do this in essence - the skillbars in builds link to images, such as Signet of Toxic Shock - this image file lists all pages that link to it, providing a list of builds using it.  A bit of tweaking and this should be a usable system, if it's possible to sort these lists by type of page (builds listed separately for example).--Epinephrine 09:54, 2 January 2007 (CST)

Untested Back Down to 1 Page!
I'd like to thank all the major contributors and build testers, and the admins for deleting the useless builds, who made this possible.

A special thanks to our section regulars; Skuld, Auron, Defiant, Silk, Midnight, Azroth, Warskull, Krowman, 130.58, Vallen, Naff, and all the others who I may have forgotten to mention right now.

And it only makes sense to have this happen on Christmas Day. =) &mdash; Rapta   (talk|contribs) 16:41, 25 December 2006 (CST)


 * Lol good to see. i may not always see eye to eye with... well most of yas, but thats what this place needs sometimes. People with various outlooks. Unlike some, when things dont go my way ive learned to take a step back, talk to a 3rd party, and the other party involved, and work to get it resolved... (tho i do go a bit over at times=P)... The reaction to the vetting process the past few weeks has been insane, but hopefully those of us who decide to contribute nonetheless continue. Some of yas will do things that i dont liek, and im sure ill do things that you all dont. but in the end we're all a team here for the good of the community. (Hence the various happy birthdays i sent=P) Keep up the good work, i'll keep looking at builds im familiar with (or otherwise interested in). Was good to hear my name there in the regulars too=P lol--Midnight08 22:08, 25 December 2006 (CST)
 * ugh, i feel like rapta the past 2 days.... ive been doing more voting/favoring/unfavoring/etc over the past 2 days than ever... Lets see if we can get this down to 1/2 page by new years =) --Midnight08 12:39, 28 December 2006 (CST)

Lol nice. We all wanted to delete those Paladinish builds out there, glad someone did so ;) Haha it was funny to see how many ended up in unfavored with all the testing tho (Not a fifty five 10:48, 2 January 2007 (CST))

And less than a 100!
Huge prune of crap, its actually managable now! Man i've waited for this day :D 91 left, HF ^^ &mdash; Skuld 21:34, 28 December 2006 (CST)
 * Big thanks to Warskull :) &mdash; Skuld 21:42, 28 December 2006 (CST)
 * Scrap the policy, we have a section! =) &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 15:38, 29 December 2006 (CST)

Build Template Suggestion
Perhaps we should alter the build temple to include which campaign a certain build requires. Like I tried to make a [Build:Me/A Neutral IW] eariler today but as I got half-way through buying the skills I saw that you needed Nightfall which I don't have. Perhaps we could have it so little icons or notaions appear at the top so people can identify right away if they are able to make the build on their account or not. Such as have something to the degree of the following in the code : --DragonWR12LB 21:13, 25 December 2006 (CST)
 * We have that at the bottom of the page, the category section. =P &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 22:13, 25 December 2006 (CST)
 * I think those categories are for builds whose skills are all available within a single campaign. Some sort of quick-reference campaign checklist might be useful, even if it's not the most important thing going on in the Build section.  --Chris with Lime 21:03, 26 December 2006 (CST)

How are builds deleted.
I made a build E/Any Air Knocker which is missing. I would like to know why. My guess it was inactive for too long and got deleted but I'm unsure. Are there any rules of deleting unactive builds. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sith (contribs).


 * only an admin can delete, usually inacvtivity is a reason, but a near copy of another favored build or unfavored build (or copies of various builds which have previously failed miserably aand been deleted) are the usual reasons. it is suggested if you are working on 1 to keep the build in your namespace (see User:Midnight08/Builds for an example) until the build is ready to be tested and you have time to focus on it. Also, pleasse sign your comments with --~ --Midnight08 13:01, 28 December 2006 (CST)
 * If a build has "no meaningfull changes" made to it for a week a abbandoned tag is added and it is set to delete 1 month later. But if someone starts working on it again the tag is removed. Now if your build was very similar to another already posted build it coudl be deleted right away due to the fact that its already existing.-- Sefre [[image:Prepared_Shot.jpg|24px|]] 13:56, 28 December 2006 (CST)
 * Unless of course you've activated the "Wrath of Skuld" skill, in which your build may be destroyed almost before you've thought of it. ;-) In this case you've listed a nonsensical build, no delete tag or abandon tag will be placed, and you will insult Skuld on his user page until he resurrects your build from the nether regions of the wiki. --Zampani 03:34, 29 December 2006 (CST)
 * Ahhh...I've heard of this skill. It appears to be so broken, and yet there is no nerf bat in sight.  This skill seems to be the cause of most discussions throughout the 16 archives worth of Skulds talk page.  Its rumored that the skill also has a 50% of causing the offending user to leave the wiki in anger, never to be heard from again :P&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]]  04:32, 29 December 2006 (CST)
 * Oh god! lol i am SOOOOO making a joke skill out of that!!!!--Midnight08 08:41, 29 December 2006 (CST)
 * Weird I didn't notice any (like being deleted for some reason) changes and I'm pretty sure I didn't callupon wrath of Skuld in that build page(I called it upon in some other). So can anyone tell me if it was deleted and by whom (so i can take my vengeance upon him ;) ). Oh yes and Sith 07:00, 29 December 2006 (CST)

Yeh, no meaningful changes for more than a month. No wrath this time, its back :( :p &mdash; Skuld 09:01, 29 December 2006 (CST)
 * =) Enjoy--Midnight08 10:05, 29 December 2006 (CST)

A Suggestion
I think it would be a really good idea if someone were to add a "Hero Builds" section to the builds section... Since heroes' AI is so much different from what a human player might do, i think it would be very useful to be able to look at builds designed specifically for heroes that have been approved by the community...


 * Hero builds have been discussed earlier, but no real decision has yet been made. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2006 (CST)


 * Man, some of the AI is okay but Melonni's is so bad that I've just about given up. At least with henchmen its not as easy to watch and see how stupid the AI is. -- BrianG 11:17, 29 December 2006 (CST)


 * Hero builds vary widely from human builds, they tend to use skills most human players are either unable to use or maintain effectively... i have a handful of great ones ready for whomever wants to take it upon themselves to create the section. I would love to, but my wikiknowledge is marginal at best... 75.3.113.163 17:33, 29 December 2006 (CST)
 * For example, you can freely put Power Drain on a hero monk, whereas a human monk can't use them that well. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2006 (CST)
 * Well, I can see how the hero AI would be good at interrupts, but that doesn't help Melonni much. Dervishes need to be good at enchantment management and the AI seems to be horrible at that.  I also tried to make Dunkoro into an Air of Enchantment monk with smiting and protection skills, but he just didn't get how to use the enchantments properly.  But anyway, any suggestions for Melonni would be appreciated. -- BrianG 19:23, 29 December 2006 (CST)
 * You could prolly give melonni a build that doesn't rely heavily on enchant management (wounding strike/chilling victory with filler enchants like heart of fury and zealous renewal, but not so many that she runs out of energy because she sucks at putting them on). -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 03:53, 31 December 2006 (CST)

Well hero builds I think are quite vast and dependent on how one player can use three heroes and himself. I think the best thing for hero builds would be to add a section showing which skills heroes use well. E.g. NEVER put inspired hex on a hero cause he will use the hex!!! (Not a fifty five 10:44, 2 January 2007 (CST))
 * A list of skills that heroes don't use properly would be good, and perhaps a list of skills they use well or differently than a player would. Signet of Devotion for example is only used if the monk is out of energy (not as energy relief prior to this), since heroes will as a default cancel maintained enchantments instantly they use Holy Veil flawlessly as a hex removal.  A list like this could be handy, as it can guide making of builds.  Most skills that aren't particularly conditional are used properly, and interrupts are worth considering, since the AI is so good with them (almost no reason not to have Power Drain as a skill for hero monks; cuts down enemy spell use while providing energy).--Epinephrine 10:52, 2 January 2007 (CST)
 * Yeah, it may work to evaluate it on a skill by skill basis. There are certain skills the AI just doesn't understand. For example Dunkoro does not make sure he has a Divine Favor skill recharging before trying to use Deny Hexes, and Melonni doesn't make sure to apply her enchantments before using Mystic Sweep. I'm assuming that the AI for each hero is the same, and any of these problems with certain skills would apply to any hero. Has anyone tested that? I really don't understand why they can't make the AI better. It should be a simple line of code to say, for example, "If Mystic Sweep is in the skillbar, attempt to apply all enchantments before battle and reapply them when needed". The same thing could be done for Deny Hexes.  What would be really nice is if they introduce some additional features to allow us to control the AI better, like skill priority lists or something. -- BrianG 10:56, 2 January 2007 (CST)
 * Perhaps best solved by a section in the skills template? Rather than having it related to "builds"? -- [[Image:Ranger-icon-small.png|25px]]Oblio (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2007 (CST)
 * Yeah I was thinking that too, but the only problem with that is there is no way to find them easily without going through all the skills. It would be nice perhaps to have a "Hero Skills Quick Reference" page, which could be updated with information on the skills that especially work or especially don't work...? -- BrianG 11:30, 2 January 2007 (CST)
 * I actually suspect that information inside of templates can be tagged and then retrieved through other templates. It's well outside of my skillset, but I think you could add a field to the template, and then create a page that pulls those feilds out of all existing instances of the template and aggregates them. -- [[Image:Ranger-icon-small.png|25px]]Oblio (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2007 (CST)

Note to All Build Vetters
I've noticed that people have begun moving builds with 3 favored votes to Tested. That is good. I've also noticed that people haven't been removing the comment brackets around the categories when they do that. That is bad. Please remember to remove the "" tags around the categories (at the bottom of build page's code) when a build is moved to tested, and to add them when a build is moved to Untested, Unfavored, or archived. Thank you. =) &mdash; Rapta   (talk|contribs) 21:33, 3 January 2007 (CST)
 * pretty sure i've forgotten this a few times.... i'll pay more attention ta it, and will scan the tested builds occasionally (recently went thru a "non commented out untested&stub" witch hunt, so would be pretty much the opposite) --Midnight08 00:29, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * Thank you ^_^ &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 00:30, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * Ack! What about when they didn't fill that section out and you have no idea if it's PVP or PVE or RA etc...?  I run into this all the time.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  08:07, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * Pretty sure I've been doing that too, so I've jsut gone through and checked/corrected all the tested Necro builds. I second Vallen's query though, can be difficult to work it out if the author's not put it in there to begin with. --NieA7 08:57, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * Ah damn, I forgot about that too. Thanks rapta --Lania Elderfire 12:49, 7 January 2007 (CST)
 * (bringing LJ back a bit) They usually at least put PvE or PvP somewhere in=P... I say if it has a rez sig just guess RA (since pretty much any decent build will work ok RA, TA/GvG/HA are different stories altogether)=P if it doesnt guess CM/AB (since almost no build w/o a rez sig should be found outside these)... Most likely you'd be correct in that case=P... that or leave it as is... it will still be shown in tested, and the user can determine where they want to try it. (since for some reason it was vetted w/o cats in that case=P)--Midnight08 09:13, 4 January 2007 (CST)

(new PvE build... wtf?)
lol changing it a bit often now???, i remember not long ago when we were LUCKY if these changed monthly lol--Midnight08 00:38, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * I blame the people spamming for other people to go to GWiki ingame. Seriously. It's like 3 builds an hour now. Screw the new builds policy! xD &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 00:39, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * lol still cant believe just how negative my initial reactions to you were back when i 1st started here... now were both work our rears off together trying to keep this build section alive and in order... Its not like we could get annoyed at eachother anymore... no time to since we have to change the build page every 5 minutes=P And yyea... i blame people bugging people to check the wiki from in game (I know ive done it a few times, usually to extend my lead (from the usual 3-0 or 4-1) on my already vetted builds as the people im dealing with usually agree with me on em =P)--Midnight08 00:45, 4 January 2007 (CST)

Build Stubs... the new "Untested"?
I'm pretty sure someone's at least noticed this by now. With Untested falling rapidly, Build Stubs have grown as well. It's swelling up to 100+ articles. It's obvious that this has a direct relation to the Style and Formatting page, as the Untested Builds tag got commented out. So now, all the untested are being left in Build Stubs. Do we have to do the same thing with the stubs now, like the Untested? &mdash; Rapta   (talk|contribs) 01:30, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * Rapta, to try to help keep the untested area clean, I suggested to Skuld to move any builds that require cleanup, or otherwise look like they are not ready for voting, to stubs, at least until someone else has looked them over. I'm hoping the stubs area can be used for people who have a build idea and want to receive feedback and adjust the build in a more relaxed environment before being officially tested.  Then people who want to test proper builds don't have to sort through these half completed ideas, while people who have the patience to help noobs or enjoy collaborating on builds can go to the stubs section.  I don't know what the longterm impact would be if this section continues to grow, but I don't think it would be as big of a deal as there isn't the same pressure to keep this area clean, and the maintenance is fairly straightforward because it doesn't rely on other users' voting.  The build authors can have a certain period of time to work on a build and submit it, otherwise it gets an abandoned tag. It should definitely help the untested area stay tidy for the testers, and should also create less hostility, because it will give noobs a place to get help and feedback on their builds rather than having it immediately unfavored or deleted after posting it.  And maybe if we're lucky we can convince them to improve the build or not submit it at all, and prevent bad builds from going to untested.  But yeah, some people are going to have to help out in the build stubs area, and I've already begun doing so. -- BrianG 01:57, 4 January 2007 (CST)

My view on fixing "laughable" vetting process
Taken from guildwiki forums:

personally still say a pvp experience requirement to VOTE AND POST builds would solve all this. To those saying this is elitist, stuff it and read please.

What is a vetted build? I would say a build that, if used properly and with an experienced player, may be used in a very competetitive envirnment with a high chance of winning. With mending warriors voting in pvp builds created is this possible? No. With Mending warriors posting mending warrior builds is this a complete and total waste of time to the vetting process? Yes

And I would say a very high requirement for posting pvp builds be needed, and a relatively high for voting. Like at least 400k+bal faction, rank 9, or rank 2 gladiator for posting, and at least 200k+bals, rank 6, or gladiator 1 for voting.

And I mean those numbers emphatically, very VERY strict. Now those out there may say "oh this is SO elitist, this would totally shut out the voice of the community!" I say no it doesn't at all. First of all, ANYONE can comment, just few can vote. Also you can influence someone with the requirements to post your build if you are somewhat good but don't quite meet the requirements to post/vote

For example, you could send a build you like in your user page to me or skuld, and we can either support it or not. Or you can comment your point in a build's talk page to influence our voting.

My point is IF YOU CANNOT FIND A SINGLE PERSON ON GWIKI WITH HIGH EXPERIENCE IN PVP TO SUPPORT YOUR POSTING A BUILD, IT SUCKS. End of story.

Approval of this "Elitist" Idea would also, ALLOW TESTERS TO FOCUS ON TESTING AND VOTING, NOT JUST VOTING. I admit, I vote on half and vote and test on half, maybe less. More like 80% vote without testign actually. Why? I know for a fact ressurect + mending + gash + 5 optionals is total shit without voting.

Posting a build without said pvp requirements would be punishable by warning, second violation by banning. (Not a fifty five 05:57, 4 January 2007 (CST))
 * easy way to alienate... and possibly lose a good chunk of the community that uses the wiki for the builds section... A decent chunk of the build area love out there comes from casual pvpers... or PvE ers... (take a look at the # of RA/CM/AB/ and PvE builds if you disagree) i'll post more on this in a bit, but igtg ta work... oh yea, and Elitist? This is the most bs elitest idea ive seen in a while, if i continue to mention that side of it tho i'll get myself in trouble...--Midnight08 07:34, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * Did you read the whole thing? You only need an approval by someone who has pvp experience. If it you can't find one of probably 20 people here in the builds process that will support it, it is simply a waste of time to put in the untested, becuase it is goign in unfavored. We just had about 200 builds outright deleted by an admin, you call that fair?  Something should be done.(Not a fifty five 07:53, 4 January 2007 (CST))
 * I empathize with you 55 but I don't agree with your suggestion. I think Midnight made a good point that it might push people away from the wiki.  Now I'm not saying it won't happen one day but I think you are trying to jump to the end without taking the tour.  Currently, I am aware there is a proposal to start making some changes to the wiki builds section - slowly.  1st step is to separate the PvP builds and the PvE builds.  That should be an easy and relatively painless thing for any that use the builds section (though a minor headache for those that actually end up doing the work to get it there).  Next might be an improvement to the voting or build submission/deletion process but as I see your suggestion will cause a lot of ill feelings from the wiki community.  Electing build officials to judge builds isn't always the best idea as anyone can be biased for or against them plus they are then having an added responsibility and are required to prove what credentials they may have to support their decision making powers.  Not to mention, who's to say what those requirements actually should be?  So to sum up, I'm not totally against it, but I think you are taking too big a step for the common user to appreciate.  Smaller steps for now and we can tweak the builds section into something better in the end.  My 2¢.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  08:03, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * "...Like at least 400k+bal faction, rank 9, or rank 2 gladiator for posting...". I remember when you posted something very similar about 4 month ago except that at that time is was 100K Balt faction: (http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki?title=Build_talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=302581). lol allow me to congrat you on your 400000th B faction.--Vazze 12:45, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * 866th ;) (Not a fifty five 13:15, 5 January 2007 (CST))
 * ^ A perfect example of why we shouldn't do this (no offense Vazze, you just happen to illustrate my point is all). Just a PVP/PVE build split is all we need for the moment IMO and no need to appoint build-senate members.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  13:17, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * ? You'll have to elaborate on that a bit vallen. (Not a fifty five 13:24, 5 January 2007 (CST))
 * As above "...but as I see your suggestion will cause a lot of ill feelings from the wiki community. Electing build officials to judge builds isn't always the best idea as anyone can be biased for or against them plus they are then having an added responsibility and are required to prove what credentials they may have to support their decision making powers.  Not to mention, who's to say what those requirements actually should be?..."--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  13:27, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Fundamental flaw - we are a wiki. Existing site policies would need to be scrapped or re-written, starting with the fundamental concepts of "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."  and GW:YOU, and moving onto others from there.  Elitism DOES play into this concept.
 * It also has the basic problem that there is no software solution to limit who can and cannot vote on this site. That leaves it up to users and extra policing/intervention by admins.  If done, it will cause greater debate.  It will result in many more users abandoning the wiki out of irritation and frustration.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:40, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Agree with Barek, can't see this working at all. --NieA7 13:43, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * hmm.. you guys are being really vague. So you're saying an admin,e.g., would be elitist because he was elected and is allowed stuff normal editors aren't? And you're saying we can't amongst ourseleves decide the requirements needed to post/vote? I'm confused.  And I personally don't see the point of GW:YOU, editors are not equal, admins e.g. can ban people and editors cannot.  Let's just do away with admins and give everyone equal say, that what you guys want?  The example is the same as why you're against this.  Skuld e.g. should be banned for months for deleting 90 builds, vandalizing other people's opinions by saying they;re trash.  But he's an admin so he gots off scott free.  I support him deleting those builds.  And it is a "violation of GW:YOU policy".  I don't care.  Anyone wanna ban him?(Not a fifty five 13:48, 5 January 2007 (CST))
 * So... If we don't ban Skuld we have to support your idea? --NieA7 14:10, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Don't be silly, I'm saying if you don't ban skuld you shouldn't be against it for the reasons you're giving (Not a fifty five 14:43, 5 January 2007 (CST))
 * Actually, for what it's worth I think Skuld and all the other users who took part in the baiting that went on at [Build talk:W/E Starburst Warrior] should have been banned for a day, there's no excuse for acting like that. However, I don't feel strongly enough to make a fuss about it - another admin stepped in, made their decision and (most importantly) made their displeasure very clear. That's good enough to be getting on with. --NieA7 15:18, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * The comparisons you make are not relevant, as you should be fully aware. First, editors are supposed to abide by the same rules as others, although they have the ability to make administrative decisions.  The policy sections clearly spell these out at both GW:YOU and GW:ADMIN.  Second, the software supports tiers for editor, sysop, and Bureaucrat.  It does not support tiers for "voting authority".  Your elitist proposal will drive off site users and result in much stronger arguments than those already taking place.  It is not a viable solution.
 * As for Skuld, I will not defend Skuld's actions. Another admin intervened, and did what he fealt needed to be done.  I have not investigated the incident further as my input is neither needed nor has it been requested.  If you have an issue with Skuld or the other admin's actions about it, take it up with LordBiro.  Per GW:ADMIN and Special:Listusers/sysop, LordBiro is the only active admin who has the ability to appoint and/or remove administrators. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:11, 5 January 2007 (CST)


 * My point is admins became this way because a policy was made. All that would be needed is another policy to restrict the builds section.  This "elitist" stuff is just garbage.  Admins were elected because people had faith in them, and I'm saying I would have faith that experienced pvpers would do well to be responsible for builds that enter untested or tested.  (Not a fifty five 14:36, 5 January 2007 (CST))
 * I would turn that around and say that your argument shows that builds don't have a place on Guildwiki, since so much of our regular policy either doesn't translate well to builds or is being actively ignored by a large number of build-posting users. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Heh, I think you're right, lets just scrap it all :) nobody tests builds. If I went and scratched out all the obvious votes without tests, everything would be in untested.(Not a fifty five 14:56, 5 January 2007 (CST))
 * Getting rid of the build section wouldn't be a bad idea, if everyone refused to move it in any direction to fix it it will remain in its sorry state forever. Either fix it or scrap it. -Warskull 17:22, 8 January 2007 (CST)

And, as far as GW:YOU is concerned, all builds should be in tested: Every editor thinks his own build is good. Who are we to say its bad? IT's elitist! how DARE we?! (Not a fifty five 15:01, 5 January 2007 (CST))
 * Intentionally twisting policies out of context / out of scope does not serve you in furthering your case. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:08, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * It's not out of scope at all. (Not a fifty five 15:09, 5 January 2007 (CST))
 * Na55 cmon man, yer bein pretty silly here... This is supposed to be a discussion... maybe a debate, all you seem to be doing is saying well if i'm not right nothing is. There are good reasons why this is not the time to make such a large change. Most have been explained here. Work towards that goal, help discuss policy changes that will bring the builds section in line towards that goal. The 1st step would be defining the different build generalities. Basically, GvG, AB, and PvP all have distinct differences and their entire vetting process should probably be seperate. PvE players would be pretty annoyed if only the "Vote Team" (who's requirements are all PvP based likely) could vote on them. CM/AB also gets alot of bad votes from GvGers... they just play that differently. RA is closer but RA builds should be more self sufficient... So 1st there should be some form of split. Next each area would have to be looked at seperately. I can see PvE as open voting... its just not as difficult to make a good PvE build. On the other hand Elite Area PvE might require something different. Taking everything into account will be a long proces but for this to be done right it will have to be. Just chill a bit please (this actually goes for alot of people in the build discussions). The builds are a BIG part of the wiki and if the community works at it we can make it work --Midnight08 15:16, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * That's only because everyone else is saying if they aren't right nothing is. People want good builds to be separated from bad builds, and would prefer only good builds to be submitted if possible.  They also don't care who votes for them or makes them.  They then say it's elitist to have only experienced peopel vote or make builds.  They then whine that nobody tests the builds even when some builds are so crappy they aren't worth testing.  They then whine that some votes shouldn't count because they didnt test the builds ("elitist anyone?").  They then whine that builds in tested are low quality.  You get my drift? (Not a fifty five 15:34, 5 January 2007 (CST))


 * Note: this theoretical "they" are not always one in the same person. One group complains about one thing, another group complains about another, and a third group has yet another complaint, etc.  None of them are willing to listen to each other, compromise, or look seriously at problems that their ideas create - but instead exagerate or pounce on worse case scenarios of the existing methods or of other groups ideas.  This same pattern falls into multiple groups that have various opinions on the builds section.  To make progress, I urge you to listen to Midnight's advice above.  You need others to buy into your proposals to get them adopted, not alienating other users.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:58, 5 January 2007 (CST)


 * First a little disclaimer, I'm not entirely familiar with the discussion going on so if I'm a little off base I apologize. That being said, if I've understood the issue being discussed, I think applying a little common sense would solve, or help solve alot of issues.  For example, I play mostly PvE.  I don't have the time to invest in being really good in pvp but also don't really have a desire to.  That being the case, common sense would dictate that I don't vote or comment on PvP builds.  I wouldn't have a clue.  Also, the current tested builds are split by appropriate usage, pvp (of various types), pve etc.  If I want a more solid build I'll go looking in that category as opposed to looking in the untested pile.  One thing to keep in mind also, that I think would help, is that everyone will have their own opinion which you may or may not agree with.  The strength, or at least one of the strengths, of the wiki is in the fact that its a collective brain pool.  Everyone is able to contribute their ideas.  Obviously not every idea will be good, and I'm sure we've all, at various points, had some incredibly bad ideas.  The one thing, that Midnight mentioned (apologies, I don't know who's original idea it was), was splitting the builds into PvE and PvP (presumably this would mean the untested builds also).  I think that would help alleviate some of the problems and avoid confusion.  Again, I apologize if I'm a little off base but those are my thoughts on it.  (also, I apologize if I just lost someone's comment.  I'm relatively new to the wiki and am not very familiar with the editing) Lojiin 16:09, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Actually, when it comes to builds GuildWiki tends to consistently get it wrong. -Warskull 21:32, 12 January 2007 (CST)

That would be Build_Split --Midnight08 16:22, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Hero's and Farming
Here ( [Build:Team_-_55/Hero_-_Famine] ) you have a build which is conceptually the same as here ( [Build:Team_-_55/Famine_Redux] ). Except one of them uses a Hero to perform a task.
 * Should they be merged?
 * Should Solo + (some number of hero's doing specific things) be considered solo farming builds?
 * Should team builds that can be performed in part by hero's have text on them explaining which jobs require a human?

How do we tackle this? -- Oblio (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * Merge, definately, but it would be considered a team build. Solo = 1 person. Team = more than 1 person. In this case, the second "person" is a hero, but it's still a team. I wouldn't say it's a team because it's an actual team build, more like team because it's not solo. =P &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 14:59, 4 January 2007 (CST)


 * I think its neither of both, is there no way to make a new section, Hero Team builds? (1 Solo/2 Team/3 Hero Team) [[Image:Monk-icon-small.png|25px]]Zspanky 16:55, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * I believe that would be impractical. Do you realize how many builds would flood that section? And how many over-zealous (easily offended) newbies would submit duplicate/uncomprehensible tripe into that? That's just asking for a headache. x__X — Jyro X [[Image:Darkgrin.jpg]] 17:03, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * Well, leaving aside the nub verbage, I worry about all the tank+hero bonder builds (really a generic idea) or general duplication of existing builds. I like the idea better of just commenting inside of team builds which have relatively mindless jobs who can be replaced by a hero. For example, a friend and I cleared UW the other day with a 2 man B/P team (2+6 hero's that is). Should we make a build to replace the standard one that exists? I don't think so. Anyway, I think I'm with Rapta and Jyro on this question in general, and will leave it at that. -- [[Image:Ranger-icon-small.png|25px]]Oblio (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2007 (CST)


 * There should be some new Categorys: Category:Hero team builds, then subsections "/1 Hero", "/2 Heroes", "/3 Heroes". --[[Image:Star-small.png]] ~Edo Dodo~ [[Image:Star-small.png]] 14:23, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Noooo... you'd have so many duplicate builds with only 1-2 insignificant minor skill changes and it would be practically impossible to properly manage once everyone started contributing to it. If there would be any hero builds, they should apply ONLY to the Hero Battles PvP. — Jyro X [[Image:Darkgrin.jpg]] 20:30, 7 January 2007 (CST)