User talk:NieA7

Fed up
quote : "I'm interested, but I and, I imagine, most other people are pretty fed up".

Bah, dont give up on that build split idea. I think it is a good one that has reasonable consensus. The problem is that it takes an admin to actually do the work (which means you have to get someone off their ass who is interested enough to spend time). That is why you have momentum issues. But as it is written right now, I think you have policy if you can get an admin to do the work. -- Oblio (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2007 (CST)
 * I'm still with you on this. What did you think of my suggestion to try to get this started using categories?  You'll probably get less resistance from admins this way, and I don't think it will be that hard to get people to use the categories, especially if the front page is set up so that the build doesn't show up in any untested category unless it is specified as either PVP untested or PVE untested.  This could be accomplished veru easily right now with everything so tidy.  If things go well the namespace split can be revisited.  You may also have an easier time convincing admins if you call a vote to demonstrate how much consensus you have. -- BrianG 12:30, 2 January 2007 (CST)

Thanks for the support you two. I just find it kinda irritating that Split could initially be criticised for the policy part, then after that was removed for not having a policy part in the first place. Catch 22 - won't get done if people feel it won't achieve enough, won't get agreed on if it tries to do too much. Unfortunately as a new name space it requires more than "just" an admin, it needs someone with access to the guts of the system. As far as I can work out, at the moment that means User:Fyren. Their opinion of split is that it achieves nothing as it is not accompanied by any policy to come after it (GuildWiki talk:Post No Builds) - as it's them that will have to do the work behind this it seems very unlikely that it'll get done unless there's overwhelming support, which there isn't (and nor can I imagine there being). A vote wouldn't achieve anything much as votes here are considered non-binding unless they're unanimous (can't remember the policy, it's out there somewhere), and I'm sure that wouldn't happen. I've pushed Split in as many discussions and talk pages as I could find, but the problem seems to be that while nobody is rabidly against it, most people don't think it'll achieve anything much and therefore isn't worth thinking about. Add to that the general malaise over builds (which in the long run will only lead to them being removed entirely I imagine) and it looks to me to be an insoluble problem.

I think what it really needs is for someone with the access to do it to simply recreate the builds section in their own image. Collective intelligence just means thinking down to the lowest common denominator (check out the talk page, and its history, for Build:W/E Starburst Warrior), there's enough people talking about the builds section to make it impossible to reach the holy grail of consensus. Trouble is if somebody actually did that then everybody would cry out for it being "un-wiki like". Probably me included, though not so much because of the whole wiki thing (see above re: collective intelligence) but more because doing something like that now would make many people's hours worth of contributions to the "debate" worthless. So basically either way we're stuck - consensus is not going to be reached, drastic action will (at least partly rightly) be decried.

BrianG: I answered that a while back, but it was a good week or so after you posted so I don't blame you for missing it. Here's what I said:
 * Technically yes, you could do the same thing with categories, however if you go through the builds we currently have I reckon at least 50% are mis-categorised, and worse than that most new builds that go up have no categories at all. We're asking for trouble if we simply force more categories onto people - better to make it as non-ambiguous as possible.
 * Personally I don't really see the point of hosting Random Arena builds - I doubt there's anything that works in RA that doesn't work in PvE or some other form of PvP, better to let people sift through the other builds. RA is just a bit of light PvP fun anyway. I like splitting stuff on PvE and PvP as it's a definite, concrete split along lines that the game has already set out - if we start following our own criteria it's just more stuff to document and confuse new contributors. If that means we lose RA builds, then personally I don't think it'd be all that bad. --NieA7 18:45, 2 January 2007 (CST)


 * Right, I believe I actually read that response but then with the holidays I neglected the thread for awhile. I think I just decided to restate the category suggestion, in light of the continued lack of support for the namespace split from admins (Karlos was one example) and also because due to the current tidy state of the untested section, the addition of categories to accomplish a split seems so easy I can almost touch it. :)
 * As for your concern about mis-categorization, I think you're thinking about it from the wrong angle. All the problems with categorization that occur right now are only issues with the secondary categorization.  You don't see people complaining that someone forgot to put the untested tag on a build, because if they did, it wouldn't be on the list.  If, for example, the current untested category was replaced by two different untested categories for PvE and PvP, and the only way for a build to be submitted would be for it to be in that category, people will make sure to add it just like they do for untested currently.  If people submit it to the wrong category, the users of that category would be quick to correct it, much like they currently are to make sure the builds that are favored or not favored go to the right place.  If its a primary category, and the builds page is set up to keep the categories separate it will not be as difficult to maintain as it is for the optional secondary categories that people have difficulty with right now.  Those categories are forgotten because they are not essential in order for the build to make it on the untested list. I agree with you that a namespace split would be ideal, but I just think the likelihood of actually achieving that in the wiki's slow moving policy consensus process is a lot less likely than achieving a category split.  I'll gladly support either plan though, the functionality is whats important to me. -- BrianG 20:46, 2 January 2007 (CST)
 * On a related note, I think another big reason why a category namesplit has a much better chance of succeeding is that users like us could actually contribute to completing all the required work. Whereas a namespace split requires us to dump all that work on probably one or 2 people's laps, so they are a lot more likely to start doubting whether it is worth all of the work involved. -- BrianG 20:52, 2 January 2007 (CST)

In my opinion, the big advantage of the "split" is that alternative policies can be taken per build-type. If this is solved with categories or namespaces seems a little irrelevant to me as both have advantages and disadvantages. The important thing is to try to ensure the quality of builds for the PvP folks, the efficacy of the farming builds, and the creativitiy of the PvE builds. So both the "namespaces are hard" and "categories get misapplied" problems are soluble (site-admin gets off ass, or everyone pitches in when they can are the relevant solutions). Regardless, I see the split as a pathway to a better system (that is- multi-policy) so I really hope we can go forward with it in some fashion. Additionally, I find that Starburst Warriar discussion horrifying. -- Oblio (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2007 (CST)
 * Quite horrifying. I agree though that it can be made to work either way.  I think we should just push for the split and let the admins decide the best way to implement it technically. -- BrianG 11:26, 3 January 2007 (CST)

Action Time on Build Split
I'm fed up seeing all this discussion on my user page coming up as "Fed up", time to leap into action.

You're both right, no point sitting around here chattering like a load of old women when there's a chance something could actually be achieved (radical, I know, but not impossible). I prefer a name space split as it's final, definitive, unambiguous and allows for build name duplication (for builds useful in both PvP and PvE). While it would require a sys-op to create the build spaces, once they were there normal users could move the builds into the appropriate space in the same way that any page is moved anywhere at the moment. However, as you point out, it seems like this is unlikely to happen, despite no real objections about the policy as a whole (other than it not being a panacea in one easy step).

If the split is to be effective it needs to be direct and unambiguous. Name spaces would achieve this overtly - rather than Build:N/R Explosive Extinction you'd have PvP Build:N/R Explosive Extinction and PvE Build:N/R Explosive Extinction. This would also allow a PvE build to share a name with a PvP build (e.g. Build:R/N Touch Ranger). This would not be the case if categories are used instead of the name space, unless it was enforced that builds had to have their intended environment in their title (e.g. Build:N/R PvE Explosive Extinction and Build:N/R PvP Explosive Extinction).

Category:PvP builds and Category:PvE builds already exist, so it wouldn't be difficult to get builds into them. As actual categories they'd be useless as there would be too many builds in them, however their use would obviously not preclude the use of finer subcategories (as is currently the case, e.g. Category:HB builds, Category:PvE team builds etc). Where the problem would occur - assuming we want this split to be definitive such that Category:PvP builds and Category:PvE builds are mutually exclusive, which I think we do - is with builds that can be used in both environments, and different builds for different environments that share a name. Thus, if we go with categories rather than a name space split I think we should also rename all the builds along Build:N/R PvE Explosive Extinction lines. It's awkward, but ultimately useful and - more importantly - overt.

So, assuming a name space is out (and I still think it's a much more elegant solution) in order to use categories to achieve the split I think we would need to rename all the builds on the wiki so that their title reflects their environment (and, if they're to be used in both PvP and PvE, duplicate them). We would have to add the PvP and PvE categories to the vetted builds, in the same way that vetted builds get the finer categories added to them. As I said, this will render those categories useless as they'll be choked with hundreds of builds each, but the finer categories will still be useful.

Any thoughts or opinions before I alter Build Split? --NieA7 10:37, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * Is the namespace thing really out? Have you tried personal dialog with Fryen or some such?  I actually agree with you that it is preferrable. Anyway, I'll support and help work on this whichever way it turns out.  I'm cool with either. -- [[Image:Ranger-icon-small.png|25px]]Oblio (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * Oblio has a point. Fyren would be a good one to touch base with.  I'm so ready for this to happen.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  11:02, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * As far as I know Fyren is the only person who is active on the wiki who can do it, so yes. Unfortunately they seem distinctly cool on the idea - check out GuildWiki talk:Post No Builds, 6th post down. The general opinion of those in power seems to be we'd be better off removing all builds, and thus they are not in favour of doing more work on them now which doesn't immediately solve the perceived problems... I asked there for some more feedback on why he thought split was no use but didn't get anywhere, feel free to raise it on their talk page if you're feeling brave but I get the feeling that a name space split is currently a non-starter. --NieA7 11:13, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * Unfortunately I think you might be right. But in regards to the process you've suggested to do the categories, I think there might be an easier way.  I'm at work right now so give me a little bit to get my thoughts together on this. -- BrianG 12:20, 4 January 2007 (CST)

Okay, in order to achieve the split, we can't just use the existing PvE and PvP categories. We would need replacement categories for favored, untested, unfavored, and stubs. Each of these categories would have to be split to 2 categories (PvEuntested, PvPuntested, etc), and then the original category (untested) would be eliminated. Then we would have to go through all builds and place the correct category on each, and create 2 sections on the builds page with links to these categories. The only issue is how to handle builds that could exist in both places. I don't think we would need to rename all builds, maybe just duplicate and rename the builds that need to exist in both places. For example, R/N Touch Ranger (PvE) and R/N Touch Ranger (PvP). But for builds that will only exist in one place, they would not need to be renamed. Going forward, builds will originally only be submitted to one category, and if someone wanted to submit that build to the other category, that person would then have to split off and rename the builds appropriately. After the split is accomplished, we could then create separate build templates for each category to help ensure the right category names were used. -- BrianG 12:38, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * I've left a comment on Fyren's page, as a last attempt to see if we can gain his support. -- BrianG 13:04, 4 January 2007 (CST)

Proposal for redesigned Build Page
NieA7, I've done up a proposed redesign of the front page of the build section, to work together with Barek's redesigned template tags. The proposal can be found here: Build Page Redesign Proposal 1. If we connect this proposal to Barek's work we may have a chance to achieve something similar to what we were pursuing with the build split proposal. I'm hoping you can help me out by providing feedback on the layout. Is this the most intuitive way to organize things? The main thing I think still needs to be improved is the layout for the "tested" and "untested" links by category. I don't like how the text doesn't line up and I'm thinking a better layout is needed there, maybe tables? Any help or feedback would be appreciated. -- BrianG 12:06, 10 January 2007 (CST)
 * Thanks for the heads up, I'll take a look. --NieA7 08:40, 11 January 2007 (CST)
 * I've updated the talk page working example for the main proposal page. Make sure to peak in there too.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  10:06, 11 January 2007 (CST)
 * Hey, just wanted to say thanks again for your help on this. I'm happy with how it turned out and it should hopefully make things easier to manage for all of us. -- BrianG 10:22, 22 January 2007 (CST)
 * No problem, I'm pretty pleased with the way it's turned out. Kinda early to see if it's making any difference yet, but finger's crossed it'll help. --NieA7 04:38, 26 January 2007 (CST)

I'll take that prize :)
"I also suggest we offer a small prize to the first person to produce a pictogram that unambiguously conveys "PvP Build, Heroes Assent".

I submit: [HA PVP]

I'm sure someone will yell at me about that, but I'll be a martyr for humor any day. :) -- Oblio (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2007 (CST)

HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden &mdash; Skuld 15:05, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * Alterative copied link [HA PVP] (note that the original link works fine for me, I just copied it to a webspace I had access to). -- [[Image:Ranger-icon-small.png|25px]]Oblio (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * Very funny. Now what kind of pictogram is needed that was quoted at the top of this?  I'm curious if it's a reference to the need for a small icon like a ranger leaf for the profession or something larger like a skill icon.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  15:30, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * Yes, yes, but the well of my wit runs very shallow. Honestly, I feel like I should hang up my hat already. Seriously, yes, they wanted a pictogram for PvP HA (or any such thing). Seriously, I think that is a non starter. NOT seriously, well, at least I could contribute. Between Barek's contributions and BrianG's new Build page, I think we are ready to publish. (And by "we" of course I mean all those who have put so much work into this, namely more you than me, but whatever.) What we have is fully sufficient. I actually think that we are missing 1 set of voices from the discussion of templates and interface, it that is skuld's and those who want to add something like a category for "documented PvP builds". Just doing the work that we have already done doesn't really answer the wiki's need for a way of documenting top PvP builds (something I am NOT good enough to comment on. My interest in this is strictly 3rd party in that their arguments have convinced me that such a section, properly done, would add value to a significant section of GW players (a section I don't happen to be a part of, but is important nonetheless)). I'm hoping that the PvP community will come up with a creative way to build what they want on top of the new category system. -- [[Image:Ranger-icon-small.png|25px]]Oblio (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * Yes, I did ask Skuld for feedback but he didn't really have any suggestions. At least this will be a step in the right direction, because if it is ever decided to move pvp builds in that direction, the categories will be a lot more organized and will make it easier to do so.  I also thought there was some merit to their ideas about documenting builds, but it will only work for certain arenas like GvG.  I think GvG will be a pretty specific category under our proposed system (meaning, not a lot of crossover with other categories), so I think it would be easy to introduce different vetting criteria for builds that fall under that category. -- BrianG 15:47, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * Perhaps later we can add a page or two that list the skillsets seen used recently by top guilds. Then leave off stats (as we can't see them) and maybe add just a small snipit of how it was used or what it's role was with how it either succeeded or failed.  That's thinking way ahead though.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  15:50, 12 January 2007 (CST)

Thanks NieA7
Thank you for correcting the vandalism done to my build. Why someone would do such a thing is... Unknowable. RavynousHunter 15:15, 19 January 2007 (CST)
 * No problem, you get all sorts of weirdos doing strange things to seemingly random pages on the site - your build was probably just unlucky ;) --NieA7 06:48, 22 January 2007 (CST)

Build:N/Mo_New_Orders_Necromancer
Hello, I would like to see if I can change your vote from "Unfavored" on the new orders build. "Using both orders is a waste, generally BiP + OoP seems to work better for me than OoV." You happened to vote on the build right after someone decided to change the build to add both orders (which has since been changed back), also, I did add a variant for OoP usage as well, and BR is included, which makes BiP a bit unneeded as an elite (as it is for most areas). Just want to see if I can change your mind, as Wiki needs a good Orders build. Thanks again --Thelordofblah 22:43, 25 January 2007 (CST)
 * I'll take another look at it. --NieA7 04:38, 26 January 2007 (CST)

Fiends
I've seen you say in a bunch of places that you don't like fiends and don't see why people use them and they look worthless and blah blah blah. I kinda had to agree with you on that for a while - don't see the point of non-tanking minions in a b/p group, or lower dps minions in general - until I found a rumor that they have 25% AP...

Don't know if confirmation or anything is on the wiki somewhere, but if you can test (or shove off on someone else to test, as I'm doing now >.>) that'd be nice... Be a nice bump for the fiends if it's true... --Armond Warblade (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2007 (CST)


 * Didn't know I complained about Fiends so much ;p But yeah, they're probably my least favourite minion. They have higher DPS than others due to their faster attack rate (once every 2 seconds rather than once every 3), but I think their downsides far outweigh that. Unfortunately my Guild Wars time is severely curtailed at the moment, but I'll test out the AP thing when I get a chance. I'm almost certain it's not the case though - may just be a difference due to their damage type (piercing) as compared to most other minions (slashing) being noticeably more effective in some cases. --NieA7 05:13, 27 February 2007 (CST)

...
You obviously don't like the wipe of the build section, but you aren't thinking clearly enough to combat it. Your edit of PNB was made in frustration; it was quite a negative comment, and was only partly true (at best). If you want to make it known that the removal of builds will (possibly) lessen the flow of people to the wiki, pick your words more wisely. I wouldn't mind that being listed as a possible downside of the policy, but I will definitely mind if the downside is worded negatively and is false. -Auron  06:53, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't like how it's being handled more than anything else to be honest, though I'm opposed to it as an idea as well. The comment is fair, I think, and downsides are inherently negative the same way that upsides are inherently positive. Whether it's false or not can only be shown with hindsight, so I completly agree with your modifications to what's said there. Either way the risk is there and should be mentioned. --NieA7 06:59, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeh. Your point was entirely valid, and when it was written with a NPOV, I agreed much more readily. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 07:02, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Consensus then? ;p --NieA7 07:03, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Lol. Yes. I come across as a hard-nose, but I'm almost always willing to talk things out. Unless you're luxon. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 07:05, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Bet you'd never guess what faction my guild's aligned to ¬.¬ --NieA7 07:10, 20 March 2007 (CDT)