GuildWiki talk:Build Split/Archive 1

Discussion
I've created this policy suggestion in response to No Original Builds, which has some good ideas for PvP builds but seems to throw the baby out with the bathwater in completely removing PvE builds at the same time. The split between PvP and PvE in the game is deep to the point that the two hardly ever meet - I think that should be reflected here, allowing those with PvP expertise to apply their knowledge to the PvP section, and those with PvE expertise to apply their knowledge to the PvE section. What we've got at the moment works fairly well for PvE but, according to those in the know, fails badly for PvP - let's try and get the best of both worlds. --NieA7 07:19, 19 December 2006 (CST)
 * I'm interested to see how this pans out. It would help simplify things a lot but then who knows how many things may go wrong too.  I'm kinda on the fence at the moment (as I fear change and love it) and I won't be upset if this is implemented or if it isn't.  It does seem to address PvP build problems but leaves PvE hanging in mid air.  Though it may help reduce PvE problems in the long run just by separating the two.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  08:24, 19 December 2006 (CST)
 * I know it leaves PvE builds hanging, but I intended that from the start. The whole voting thing isn't working quite as it should, but I figured it'd be better to get this proposed and adopted (fingers crossed) using the current build voting criteria for PvE, then once it's all properly separated out restart the debate on how we vet PvE builds. You never know, it might even be easier to do that once the PvP stuff is shipped out elsewhere. --NieA7 10:34, 19 December 2006 (CST)
 * I agree with that. I think it will make for an improvement for the PvE builds if not fix them at least.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  10:43, 19 December 2006 (CST)

Well, I just discovered this page and the other No original build page, and rather than chiming in over there somewhere (I think I actually read most of the discussion over there, but if I tried to jump in, I feel like my post would be lost) I'll go over here where my opinions might come across. I've been trying to work with the builds section for a while now, but its size is truly intimidating, and often times while doing that work, I would realize that the wiki was really losing something over there. As a wiki, we're supposed to provide encyclopedic information, which means staying objective. However, the builds section has become less and less encyclopedic. I support the idea of changing the PvP section, because that's the easy part of the job, but with PvE, a lot will be lost if we were to reject all of those builds, since it is near impossible to "document" what builds are being used in PvE, and those builds developed here can be extremely useful (my current PvE build was discovered on the wiki, and it works great). Thus, this idea here makes much more sense than the "Original Build" concept. VegJed 11:17, 19 December 2006 (CST) (it should be noted that I am slightly wary of the PvE build section remaining the way it is, but if that's the cost of finding diamonds in the rough, so be it)
 * I don't mean for this to imply that the current PvE builds vetting procedure should be set in stone from this point on for all time, far from it. I'll change the proposal a bit to show that using the current vetting shceme is only a temporary fix until something better can be decided. As Vallen says, hopefully splitting the sections will make creating PvE Build vetting criteria a bit easier... --NieA7 12:15, 19 December 2006 (CST)

It looks like you want to apply no original builds to PvP builds and leave PvE builds alone. I think you'll probably end up hurting the PvE build section more than helping it with a split like this. What you need are some stronger guidelines to help prevent crap from getting favoured. PvE farming builds are fine in the current system, PvE running builds are fine. High end PvE builds seem to do well enough. All those have criteria that the current system works with. Can it make the run, can it farm the bosses indicated, do we survive DoA more than 30 seconds? The problem is what do you do with the regular PvE builds. Any old crap works in general PvE. [Build:E/any Gust Support], [Build:N/any BiP Necro] , [Build:A/W Axe-assin] are examples of what kind of stuff gets vetted in PvE. The necro is a great example he has BiP which is good, but a bunch of other poorly though out skills. Why would you need to run both BiP and Blood Rit. Yet, he get vetted solely on the fact that he has BiP. You need some sort of safeguards to help prevent sub-par builds from getting vetted for general PvE. If you cause a split like this I suspect a good number of the more knowledgeable people will move away from the PvE section leaving the people who don't know what they are doing running the place. -Warskull 12:24, 19 December 2006 (CST)


 * You know I keep waiting for one of the builds I've submitted to come up in a context like that, but as only one of them has ever been approved I guess I've got nothing to worry about... Anyway, yes, that's exactly what I want to do, though with the caveat that leaving the PvE builds alone at the moment (i.e. prior to and during the split) doesn't mean they can't be cleaned up and gain a new vetting policy later. There's a difference between something that works and something that works well, but getting that difference enforced when it comes to vetting builds seems to be nigh on impossible. It sounds to me like the more knowledgeable people are needed more in the PvP section (I haven't played much PvP, to be honest the players tend to put me off), but that doesn't mean that they'll be nothing left for PvE. I think the basis of what I'm trying to get over is this: while No Original Builds appears to make good sense for PvP I don't think that's the case with PvE. Rather than holding that up for PvP while we try and sort PvE, let's split the builds up now and work on what's left. One step at a time and all that. --NieA7 13:41, 19 December 2006 (CST)

This does make sense, but I agree that the pve section will need additional help after the split --FireFox  15:27, 19 December 2006 (CST)


 * I've compared this to GuildWiki:No Original Builds, and while both are better than what we have now, NOB is a better policy to deal with the problem we have. Cutting out original builds would clear out the crap from both PvE *and* PvP; and the only areas that may require specific builds in PvE will be documented... no use keeping heaps of crappy PvE builds around. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 00:00, 20 December 2006 (CST)


 * It would also decimate what it unquestionably one of the most popular sections of the wiki (the page views for builds, while they were still viewable, were orders of magnitude higher than the views of most other pages). I think there's a real silent majority out there who don't play high end PvP and do use our builds - we would be doing them a great disservice if we removed everything. --NieA7 04:48, 20 December 2006 (CST)

I agree a policy can and probably should be developed that treats PvE builds different from PvP builds. I disagree that the current PvE section should be left alone as is, but that's not your point -- your point is let's move forward on at least part of this (or at least that's what I think this says) so in terms of intent I'm in agreement. I believe this entire proposal can be worked into the No Original Builds policy simply by stating different policies will be worked out for the separate sections, and so is not really needed. I don't see a need for an actual separate namespace as is stated; categories and/or article names should be enough to separate out the PvP and PvP related build items.

And as for the builds section being so popular based on page hits? Could it maybe possibly potentially be there are so many page hits due to there being so many articles to weed through to find a good build? I know I personally have gone searching for a build I can use and will end up opening up many many builds that I deem are junk just to find a single build I can use ideas from. --Zampani 15:22, 20 December 2006 (CST)

PvE Builds
As far as PvE builds are concerned, I think it would be useful to have a single page regarding heroes builds, highlighting the strong and bad sides of the AI, suggesting skills that usually work better or worse for heroes than for humans (for example, heroes have good interrupt reflexes but bad judgment as to what to interrupt, putting throw dirt on a hero ranger is a sure way to make them rush in melee ...).

On the nerf topic, I'd suggest a transition period of a fix length where a nerf related section would be added to the article mentioning what update nerfed the build and, if possible, pointing toward what replaced it in the metagame.

Also, I think solo builds should be limited to stereotypical profession based guides explaining what people usually expect from a person in such a role (for example, a "standard" protect monk, with variations and must have skills). All in all, I think it's a good idea to split PvP and PvE. --Theeth (talk)   11:20, 19 December 2006 (CST)
 * [Build:R/any General Interrupter] is an example of what I mean by stereotypical builds. --Theeth (talk)   11:32, 19 December 2006 (CST)
 * It almost certainly would be beneficial to not put "Hero Builds" as part of the PvE category, but rather place them in their own category including discussion on limitations and strengths of the AI, as noted above by Theeth. -- [[Image:Ranger-icon-small.png|25px]]Oblio (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2006 (CST)
 * Agreed about hero builds, I'll amend the policy to include this. As for having stereotypical stuff rather than specific builds, I'm not so sure. Personally though I'd rather not get into that now - let's split them off, then worry about how we're going to deal with them. --NieA7 12:15, 19 December 2006 (CST)

For the PvE part: can we do away with the 3 votes, or voting altogether? I see a build i've never seen before sometimes, and its a flameburst warrior with 3 comments like "great build!" and its in tested and im like wtf o.O &mdash; Skuld 12:24, 19 December 2006 (CST)
 * What do you suggest then for a method to eliminate builds or vette them? I mean, otherwise, you'll be spammed with undelete requests more often than you already are.  I'm all for changing it but I don't know how myself.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  13:01, 19 December 2006 (CST)
 * I had a stab at coming up with something a while ago at GuildWiki_talk:Builds, but it's still basically a voting system. Fundamentally I can only think of four options - chuck all builds, let everything and anything through, vote on stuff or only allow a select group of people to vet stuff. First two are no good, third is what we've got and the fourth begs the question as to who should be allowed to vet stuff and why. The fourth would be the most manageable but I'm damned if I can think of some fair, provable criteria to let people vote. --NieA7 13:48, 19 December 2006 (CST)
 * Of those four... first one I already suggested, second is not useful (like you said), three doesn't work (obviously), so that leaves four. Which I also happen to agree with. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 23:43, 19 December 2006 (CST)
 * A hybrid would be nice. A build needs 3/5/whatever votes from anybody to go forward to be considered by one/some of these select group (or can only be vetted with more pro-votes from the group than anti-votes from the group, regardless of other votes, while still requiring 3 more favoured votes in total than unfavoured). Kinda getting into some are more equal than others territory there though. Maybe the criteria could be how much work they've done on the builds section in the past, with a candidacy procedure similar to the current one used for admins. --NieA7 04:51, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * That's a solid plan. Let the general voting procedure separate the chaff from the wheat, as it were... and all the builds passed by the general community (5 votes doesn't seem too bad) would go before the veto committee, who would... 1. delete the "wtf" builds that somehow made it through, 2. veto the build while keeping it intact, with comments on the talk page as to why it was denied, or 3. let it into the Vetted section. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 15:51, 20 December 2006 (CST)

Personally I think there is a great deal of work needed on maintaining and administering the PvE builds section. As people have mentioned several times on GuildWiki_talk:No_Original_Builds there are endless articles on 55hp monks, several are written with the assumption you recognise this as a 55 build because it is mentioned nowhere in the article. This begs the questions why is there not one page on 55 monk builds listing different variants and covering the general usage and equipment needed for this type of build instead of the constant repetition? If this approach was taken to all types of builds you could cut down on the number of pages and would prrobably enable you to find things far easier. A better system of categorisation would allow you to find builds easier and tell if the build you wish to submit is an original one or a variant of an existing build. Ajax Baby Eater 15:55, 20 December 2006 (CST)

PvP Builds
I've created this proposal using the PvP criteria User:Warskull outlined at GuildWiki talk:No Original Builds. I'm very much a PvE player - any PvP players who have better ideas are more than welcome to change what's here to better fit the PvP communities needs. --NieA7 10:34, 19 December 2006 (CST)


 * Top 100 seems to harsh to me, how about top 300 maybe?--[[Image:Star-small.png]] ~Edo Dodo~ [[Image:Star-small.png]] 12:14, 19 December 2006 (CST)


 * Only matches with a top 100 team show up on observer. --Fyren 12:25, 19 December 2006 (CST)


 * But you could be in a top 300 guild and use that build ;). But good point so I suppose top 100 is because it's more reliable as everyone can see it. It really is very harsh for top 100 but OK.--[[Image:Star-small.png]] ~Edo Dodo~ [[Image:Star-small.png]] 15:53, 19 December 2006 (CST)


 * Top 100 isn't considered particularly great. Anyway, the reason it is top 100 only for GvG builds is because only the top 100 show up of obs mode.  This gives you a very nice way to verify a build.  I can say "Go obs the Me/Mo on Guild X, he is running this build."  You can then fire up obs mode and obs that guild next time you see them play.  If other people don't catch the character the person posting it either made mistakes or the build was short lived and not worth documenting.  The reason the voting system fails so miserable is that there is no concrete information.  "Is someone in the top 100 running this?" is a requirement that can easily be proven and is easily understood.  Even if your PvP knowledge is limited, you can still fire up obs mode and watch for a build.  You can't verify 101-300 range guilds like that.  In addition I find the metagame in the 200-300 range tends to follow the metagame of the 50-100 range. -Warskull 03:31, 20 December 2006 (CST)

To be honest, I dont see much you changed from the other policy itself. you have done nothing to help the side of the argument that is agaisnt the deleteing of most of the pvp builds for no reason other then people claiming that other people ingame make fun of builds section....-- Sefre  17:44, 19 December 2006 (CST)


 * That's because I don't disagree with it for the PvP builds, not because of people making fun of them (who cares?) but because PvP is apparently so restrictive that only a handful of builds are actually worth playing/documenting. I do disagree with deleting the PvE builds however, hence the split. --NieA7 18:24, 19 December 2006 (CST)


 * I think the Split policy is a good compromise between keeping and deleting the builds section. The only downsides I can see are: 1) A good build/ build concept could be developed, though never adopted by the Top 100 Guilds, and the Wiki would miss out on documenting it, and 2) The "no RA/TA/CM/AB/HB" builds part. I totally agree with the no CM part, as I think it is just an excuse for people to make builds with absolutely no defense (citing the auto-rez as making defense redundant). However, the site would miss out on documenting builds that are certainly very popular in those venues (the [Build:E/A Starburster] comes to mind). This would be degrade the site's reputation greatly. Our PvP builds can sometimes be lacking (ditto to some of our PvE builds), so I am totally in favour of setting up an "Established" or "Prominent" PvP Builds section exactly along the lines of your HA/GvG parameters. As long as the other arenas are stil frequented by GW players, however, they, and the builds used in them, need to be documented by this site. -[[Image:Krowman's_Sig.jpg]] Krowman [[Image:Krowman's_Sig.jpg]]  19:26, 19 December 2006 (CST)


 * I threw in the "no RA/TA/CM/AB/HB" part on the grounds that it's difficult to verify what builds are being used in those venues in the same way that other PvP builds can be observed. However, that doesn't mean it can't change - this is only a policy suggestion after all :) I don't think we need CM or RA builds (we could just put a note on builds that work well in those situations but primarily belong in PvE or HA or something). Individual TA and HB builds would be a waste too (in my opinion), but there could be scope for writing up complete teams. AB is a tricky one as it's essentially a really big CM type battle, but if anybody can come up with a concrete proposal they they're more than welcome to change the suggestions in the policy. --NieA7 05:02, 20 December 2006 (CST)


 * Krowman has put what I have tried to say on other pages into better words. I would fully support any policy useing that plan. And I think thats the only way there will be a semi peacefull resolution.-- Sefre [[image:Prepared_Shot.jpg|24px|]] 21:08, 19 December 2006 (CST)
 * All you guys are doing is complain about the lack of "good builds", but not actually taking the time to write these "good builds", and are requesting a purge of all builds or just "bad builds". If you've written a good build, chances are, it's going to be favored. All that's needed is careful revision of builds under tested. No build purge, no new build policy. Just review the damned builds. The build numbers have been dropping like a rock lately, and we should be down to just a few very soon, as soon as the repetitive duplicate 55 builds and abandoned builds are taken care of. Chill out, for god sakes. If you aren't going to review builds, don't start complaining about the policy. Maintaining a good builds section requires you to be impartial, not completely elitist like many are acting. If it's a good build, it will be favored. If it's a build that a Top 100 guild uses, it will most likely be favored. Stop the whining and start reviewing. That's the whole point of a wiki, after all. So anyone can make edits. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 21:26, 19 December 2006 (CST)


 * It doesn't work like that though, unfortunately - I've seen good builds get voted down while mediocre ones get pushed through, even by the same people. Plus as of now I think we do have too many vetted builds, not so much in terms of quality but just in terms of numbers. Many of them could be combined (like [Build:R/any General Interrupter] has done) to produce something far superior to the sum of its parts. That'd work wonders for the PvE builds. It looks to me like the No Original Builds is getting some momentum behind it - I think it's far too drastic a step for PvE, hence this proposal in order to save what we've got for another day. Simple as that. --NieA7 05:02, 20 December 2006 (CST)


 * There's just too much crap, Rapta. And it's not going to stop flowing. In response to your challenge that we should be writing good builds, I answer this; if I don't think the build section is worth having in the first place, why the hell would I be submitting builds? -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 23:39, 19 December 2006 (CST)
 * If you realy do think its worthless then it means nothing to you, and you should have no problem with it existing as long as you're not forced to visit it(which you're not), and its not taking up any of your server space is it now either? Why do you even care about it then? Leave it alone if you truly think its worthless....-- Sefre [[image:Prepared_Shot.jpg|24px|]] 23:56, 19 December 2006 (CST)
 * Because, unlike you, I care about the reputation of this Wiki; I've put too much time, work and effort into it to have the Wiki belittled by *everyone* because the shitty builds section. If it weren't already interfering with me every time I try to talk about the Wiki, I would never visit the PvE section; hell, I'd never visit the PvP section, I know the FotM builds by heart. But because every time I mention the Wiki, someone comments on how terrible the builds are, that makes the work I put into the rest of the Wiki a waste of time. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 00:03, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * ^Exactly!^ --FireFox [[Image:firefoxav.gif]] 00:09, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * I think we need to calm down a bit about this whole "reputation" thing - I know for a fact that I've never seen anybody say one negative thing about it in game, and many have said positive things. Sure, I don't play PvP, but that at least proves that not "everyone" is saying we're rubbish. --NieA7 05:02, 20 December 2006 (CST)

Rapta's right, you could help us weed out some of the bad ones. You're certainly not helping the Wiki by saying "There's too much crap for me to even bother starting." The Builds section is used by both noobs and elite players; it is not only for one or the other. Many people don't have the FotM builds memorized. If they do, they are probably familiar enough with GW not to need help creating builds. You do, so you likely don't need any help from the build section. You are free to steer clear from it for build ideas. The best thing you can do to help the Wiki maintain its reputation is pitch in and vote against the bad builds people submit. Because right now, you're talking and complaining, but nothing you're doing is helping the Builds section get any better. (IMHO) - Krowman  00:29, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * Break indent chain*
 * "The Builds section is used by both noobs and elite players" <--- LOL
 * But no. The "best thing [I] can do to help the Wiki maintain its reputation" isn't anything close to that. You think the best option is to wade through the endless list of crappy builds, cast my vote on them (most of which are met with hostility, which makes that a less-than-pleasurable experience), and see most of them become vetted anyway because the noobs outnumber the "elite" players? Both NOB and Build Split are better options, and of the two, NOB is the most effective one. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 00:50, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * If an elite player is unfamiliar with a particular build concept (for whatever reason), he may be referred to the Builds section. The Builds section also allows people to see what sort of builds are popular in the metagame, and can allow them to know what they can expect to be up against. I really do think you'd be more helpful to the Wiki at this point in time by eliminating some of the bad builds from the Builds section, instead of refusing to contribute to that part of the Wiki. There are over 300 builds that need to be tested right now, and I know I'd appreciate your help. -[[Image:Krowman's_Sig.jpg]] Krowman [[Image:Krowman's_Sig.jpg]] 01:00, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * High level PvP players never come to guild wiki for PvP builds. They only come to the builds section to laugh at bad builds.  In addition I don't know many mid-level pvp players who use the wiki to get builds. Whatever clean-up the people who know anything about builds do is outweighed by the players who don't know much about builds and PvP.  A voting system does not work for builds.  For the voting system to work you need a decent number of people with the authority to overrule any voting and purge bad builds.  That conflicts with existing policies.  The NOB policy enforces guidelines to ensure only better builds get posted, has suggestions for where to get the builds (obs mode), and doesn't require users to be overridden. -Warskull 03:46, 20 December 2006 (CST)

(new indent again)

Hey all. One thing I don't understand is why the opinions of people who don't use the site are more important than people who do. If people you guys talk to are willing to disregard an entire encyclopedia of information just because they don't like the builds section, I don't think its a real loss that they are not coming here as it seems pretty immature. Also, because this site has so much information on the PvE aspects of the game, and not a lot of information on PvP strategies compared to other sites, its natural that the wiki will have a lot of PvE players, while PvP players will most often end up on sites catering to that play style. I know thats how I ended up here. So why would we want to change the build section to exclusively meet the expectations of the type of player that is less likely to use the site?

I'd also like to respond to people who are saying the PvE section will still have the same problems if this split is achieved. First of all, let's realize that there are 2 groups of people who want to achieve 2 different things with the build section. The PvP people want a build section that lists the best possible build for the job, regardless of profession or attribute preferences, and largely based on documentation of what builds are being played by the top guilds. A professional level PvP player usually chooses the job he wants to accomplish first, and the profession, attributes, and skills he uses for this job second. On the other hand, the PvE player is more likely to already have decided on his professions, and probably has preferences about what attributes he likes better (likes earth, doesn't like fire, for example). This type of player is going to want to use the builds section to look for ideas for the build for a character he has already created, that matches his attribute and play-style preferences. He will be less concerned if there is another profession that could do the job better, and more concerned with if the build generally works and is fun, interesting, or unique to play. These players want a builds section that will allow them to share these ideas with each other, and help each other improve them. Despite the fact that this is a totally different goal than a PvP player, there is nothing wrong with people enjoying the game this way, and nothing wrong with having a section of a site that they can use to facilitate this style of play, especially considering that these are the types of players that are more likely to end up here. Not only do these different perspectives cause most of the disputes during the voting process for each build, but I believe these very different goals are also largely responsible for the failure to reach consensus on improving the build vetting process. Splitting these sections will not only result in less disputes over individual builds, it will also allow each of these types of players to try to develop a submission policy that best serves these different, but equally valid ways of playing the game. The nice thing about Guild Wars is that they have created a game that can be enjoyed equally by both of these types of players, and they did that by splitting the PvE and PvP sections of the game so they could design the rules accordingly. There is absolutely no reason why we can't do the same thing to the builds section. -- BrianG 13:41, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * It's fun to bold every other word in the sentence. But aside from that... The bare minimum for work on the PvP section would be NOB - because, as you've said, the elite PvPers don't ever come here for builds, so they also wouldn't come here to post them.
 * My general comment on the PvE section is this; it's useless. What is the point of having a Glads Defense/Riposte/Deadly Rip/Shield Stance etc as a real build? It's common sense. It's called a "Stance tank." All of the builds in the general PvE can (and should be) summed up into guides to help the PvE players become more skilled and imaginative when it comes to builds; I don't care if they make *the best* build for the job, but damn, if they can't think up a build to beat PvE with, they need to uninstall. (As a side note, I've probably played PvE for longer than many of the people defending it on the Wiki - upwards of a year. If anyone blows off my comments by saying "he's just a big PvP meanie," I'm going to laugh at them. I'm saying this from experience, not from the perspective of a PvPer - I know from my many months of PvE that it isn't hard, and it's common sense.) -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 16:02, 20 December 2006 (CST)


 * That's the point though - you know everything there is to know about builds and Guild Wars, hence you don't need a stance tank build because it's just obvious common sense. Others, howeverm, will because they're new to the game. That's a build, not a guide - all the more reason to keep PvE builds as well as guides. --NieA7 17:14, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * I don't recall if it was covered here or in "that other proposal" but I believe it was mentioned that examples ARE a good part of the wiki. Something simple like an example build on the page Stance tank (or whatever other example you could come up with) would go a long way in explaining it... without the need for having 15 different stance tank builds listed on the site. That doesn't preclude such a build from being on the wiki, yet it keeps some clutter out. --Zampani 21:44, 20 December 2006 (CST)


 * Warskull- Why should we care if when you mention the wiki your elitist friends say bad of it? If they dont use the wiki they should have no influence on it.
 * Auron-Your reputation excuse is pure crap, this is by far the most popular fansite for the game, and if it isn't in some pvp circles then theres no reason to change it so a couple elitist types stop making fun of it.... Also, if the pve builds are so common then they should be documented, thats the point of a wiki.... consider a person just joining the game, they dont know what(useing your example) a stance tank is, and they are made fun of in game for not knowing it, so they come here to find out what it is. Only to find some assholes who think that the site has a bad reputation has removed it.-- Sefre  [[image:Prepared_Shot.jpg|24px|]] 16:29, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * I think I hear the clue train coming, last stop is you. Check Stance tank. Does it look removed to you? Please be less ignorant before making claims/assertions. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 16:49, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * Sorry, but you are a dumbass, I used the example you used because you said somethnig was uneeded on the wiki.... it was a theoritical situation based on your claims you arrogant jackass.Ill quote you:'What is the point of having a Glads Defense/Riposte/Deadly Rip/Shield Stance etc as a real build? It's common sense. It's called a "Stance tank."'-- Sefre [[image:Prepared_Shot.jpg|24px|]] 16:55, 20 December 2006 (CST)


 * Try to be a little more polite in here, or there may be a forced "time out" to help some parties cool down. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:58, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * 1)Auron got upset because I used his example against him, or hes a moron, I realy do not know for sure if he even understands the fake situation I was putting out there...2) If I get insulted its natural to return the favor.-- Sefre [[image:Prepared_Shot.jpg|24px|]] 17:04, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * Now now, 2 wrongs don't make a right. &mdash; Skuld 17:06, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * I agree, let's keep things civil. Auron I'm sorry you didn't appreciate my use of bold, but I think its clear I wasn't choosing random words, so your sarcasm is unappreciated. I figured it was a more polite way to provide emphasis than using capitals, so I took the time to do it that way to make it easier to read for others. And at least I didn't insult anyone. :) Fair enough that you think the PvE section is useless, and you're entitled to that opinion, but that doesn't mean we should get rid of it, especially since many others do find it useful. And just because, as you say, people should be able to come up with their own build using common sense, doesn't mean you cannot find enjoyment in sharing what you designed with other people or collaborating with them to improve on it. Or enjoy looking through other people's creations for inspiration. And judging from the kind of atmosphere that apparently exists on the other sites, this is the only place PvEers can do that. Splitting it off will just allow us to improve it more easily by using different guidelines than are used for PvP builds. Your suggestion of having more generalized guides for each profession is a valid suggestion, but its very different than what has been suggested for PvP.  The bottom line is, to make the changes that people want for PvP, and to consider ways to improve or change PvE, the categories need to be split. -- BrianG 17:15, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * You are basically saying that we should open the floodgates. If someone likes the build then it should be posted.  If I enjoy playing Mo/R with a bow should it be a favored build?  If I like to play a W/E with flare should it be favored?  The current system tries to cull bad builds already, it just fails and allows a lot of bad builds to get through.  You are basically saying that GuildWiki should allow bad builds to be posted because some people like to play that way. You can have builds for all classes and still have effective builds.  I don't see why you have to carry poor builds to cater to PvE players. -Warskull 20:09, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * Sorry Warskull, I didn't come anywhere close to saying that. We don't seem to have any favored warrior builds with flare or monk builds with bows, so the current system is obviously good enough to prevent that, and I never said we should stop voting on builds.  And I do think the current system has room for improvement.  I just think it will be easier to decide the best way to run the builds sections if they are split between PvP and PvE, because they are totally different beasts, and because of this it would be much easier to develop improved submission, vetting, deleting policies etc, that are designed with the specific expectations of the users of that area in mind.  PvP users would have an expectation that the build is the best of the best and documents its current use in the metagame, while PvE users would expect that the build works well, makes sense, has synergy, and can successfully perform its role in PvE (obviously more subjective than PvP I realize).  A warrior with Flare would not meet that expectation. -- BrianG 21:15, 20 December 2006 (CST)

Opposision
Though I find this a better alterative then the "no orginal builds" thing, i still find the logic flawed. Beacuse you are realying on only the top guilds to get builds, there are no checks and blanences meaning builds can be ineffective yet still be lsited only beacuse no one has dared to challenge them. I think the real creativity comes from PvP not PvE. I would favor an opposite policy, were PvE builds are olcoked and PvP builds are open.--TheDrifter 18:37, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * Let me guess, you're a PvP player? Its quite clear that everyone is looking out for their own in this discussion. What pupose does locking down either builds section achieve? As for creativity, I'll corect you here as you are quite clearly wrong, creativity come from creative players whether PvP or PvE. This is just your own very flawed opinion which has absolutely no weight in this discussion.--Ajax Baby Eater 19:15, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * No drifter does have one good point. Once builds get in, how do you get them out.  I would think criteria to remove a build would be 1) it has been nerfed by a patch and 2) You ask "who still runs this?" "do we feel this is still viable?" "do we want to keep this around even though it isn't a popular build at the moment?"  A good example: [Build:W/any_Fierce_Hammer] I can't think of anyone still running that build.  It does remain a viable build.  I believe it should remain because the metagame has swung to an extreme direction at this point.  As it swings back towards mixed pressure hammer warriors should start popping up again.  Guildwiki is not good with build development.  The track record for original builds is downright pathetic.  When you set a bar, yes some viable builds may be on the wrong side of the bar.  However, the top 100 guideline for GvG builds is an excellent litmus test to immediately dismiss bad builds.  If a build is in the top 100 it would be a candidate for posting, if it falls out of the top 100 and shows little sign of returning it would be a candidate for removing. Top 100 guilds tend to run stuff that works. GuildWiki does not have the PvP playerbase to develop PvP builds. -Warskull 20:04, 20 December 2006 (CST)


 * We already have the means to sort out old build which are no longer run by archiving them. If we did then we could clean out old builds without getting rid of them, and would be able to bring them back quickly and efficiently if the metagame swung back around to reincorporate them.  However, I've never heard of a build coming back from the archives.  I'm sures its happened, I've just never heard about it.&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]]
 * It doesn't happen often, but occasionally a build you haven't seen in a long time returns in force. A good example is ranger-spike.  It nearly died out for a while.  But 1-2 guilds brought it back and iQ kept a ranger spike prepped for the tourney.  I don't think you would be bringing builds back very often unless you very aggressively combed the builds sections to perfectly mirror the GvG metagame.  That would be too much effort though. -Warskull 00:52, 21 December 2006 (CST)
 * Warskull, heres a idea, Why dont you quit complaining about the people that spend alot of time and work in the builds section that are suposedly all un-experianced and go document the builds that top guilds are useing? No one will stop you from doing that, but when you make stupid claims and side with people who would mock builds(but not have time to actualy comment on the builds page) about A stupid way to solve the build section being clattered? Guildwiki is the most popular comunity fansite for the game by far and that typicaly means that many experianced players visit here.
 * Besides all the huge flaws I can find with your policy, you and your friends do not know what is best in builds, the guildwars comunity thought that the builds you claim to be bad, were viable, and they are, otherwise they would of been voted down instantly(I know this from personal experiance),
 * A tiny fraction of the comunity seems to beleive that the rest of the comunity is uncapable of creating viable builds. I'd like someone to tell me that it is wiki-like to have the opinions of a few override the majority, warskull aparently thinks this way, and if that is his policy he can not have his way in the builds matter.-- Sefre [[image:Prepared_Shot.jpg|24px|]] 23:28, 20 December 2006 (CST)