GuildWiki talk:Post no builds

Discussion
Someone had to post it, and I got tired of waiting. Let the flame wars discussion start. --Rainith 21:29, 30 December 2006 (CST)
 * Do we even need this anymore? I mean, it might have made some sense when the Untested section was at like... 400+, but now it doesn't really matter. We have more testers now anyways. Plus, I doubt there will be much of an influx of builds until we get to the next campaign, but with as many testers we have now, I doubt it's going to have as significant of an impact that NF was. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 21:45, 30 December 2006 (CST)
 * Should I go through the Tested section and pick out all the ones that suck? That's always a fun task, but it takes awhile.
 * On a side note, this is what I suggested ages ago, and for mostly the same reasons. Since then, however, options like Build Split -> NOB surfaced, and they seem like more of a solution than a "ditch this project entirely, or at least move it off the Wiki." -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 21:48, 30 December 2006 (CST)
 * This, this and this imply to me that it is. Add to that the 'drama' of things like Skuld's recent purges and the issues that they bring up about administrative abuse and I think that this is needed.  --Rainith 21:53, 30 December 2006 (CST)
 * Yeah, after all that wiki-drama, NOB looks pretty good right now anyways. Just wondering what will happen when neww campaigns surface... every build would be "original" in a sense. Meh. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 21:51, 30 December 2006 (CST)

I'm weakly in favor of this. The current policy is broken for several reasons. The build split proposal achieves nothing; the proposal itself simply creates two namespaces and the discussion didn't lead to any supported steps beyond that. The no original builds proposal is in the right direction, removing subjectiveness a wiki is poor at and replacing it with factual reporting, but only for PvP builds. Despite people saying "PvE builds are easier, they do what they say or not," it's exactly the same. --Fyren 00:33, 31 December 2006 (CST)


 * Build split is specifically designed to achieve nothing in terms of policy at this point. It's meant to be a simple foundation to the development of policies for PvP and PvE builds, whatever those policies will be. For example, after split NOB could easily be applied to PvP and not PvE, or vice versa - the flexibility will be there. Look around - anything which includes even a shred of policy is discussed to death before a stalemate is reached and nothing achieved. I made Split as simple as possible so it could be done, and once done be of use to people developing policies after it. Better to take it one step at a time and start walking than go for a sprint and fall flat on your face. --NieA7 08:26, 31 December 2006 (CST)


 * I'm partially in favor of this...things like the W/E Starburst Warrior just give me headaches now. However, I'm seeing another potential disadvantage: for folks who actually and truly want some scrutiny of their builds, they would have no way to advertise. If something's stuck in your namespace, it gets a whole lot less traffic than something in Builds...and the chance of a random user finding and commenting on it are much more slim. If you've got a theoretical build idea and want feedback on it, how do you go about doing that, other than posting to all potential testers' talk pages. That's my main concern with this policy...Entropy 00:40, 31 December 2006 (CST)
 * We could make a category like "build feedback requested" (or multiple, more specific ones). --Fyren 00:42, 31 December 2006 (CST)


 * Edit conflit - I'd suggest that people who want feedback on their builds go to forums dedicated to builds, places like The Campfire and The Gladiator's Arena on GWG. I'm sure that GWonline has something similar in their forums, and there are other places too.  They're better set up to handle this sort of thing.  It is obvious that the Wiki system is not.  --Rainith 00:46, 31 December 2006 (CST)


 * But I've heard that all the flaming and general elitism is even worse on places like that. Moreover, I'm not willing to make an account at Guru or such just to get one or two builds feedback. I'd rather just get some imput from fellow Wikians. I like the idea of a "feedback requested" section. It changes the feeling of it...you're not Favoring or Unfavoring a build, only commenting on how it could be better. That way you can't "compare" it to "superior" builds, since there's no Favored section to be embarrassed about and such. Entropy 00:51, 31 December 2006 (CST)


 * I wouldn't be opposed to Fyren's suggestion, but I think you would get the same sort of comments you get now: Yore a  using ?!?!? U phail!  But as long as it is on a talk page in your userspace, you can edit out those comments all you want.  --Rainith 00:56, 31 December 2006 (CST)


 * Yeah, the Starburst Warrior is enough to convince me that the builds section doesn't work. Not just because of the policies but because of the people. If the majority of the major contributors just want to amuse themselves and feel superior, there's no point in keeping this around anymore. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2006 (CST)
 * It is sad that the actions of just a small number of people have brought us to this point where we may abandon rather than fix the builds section... 3 or 4 people, really, and I'm sure the main names jump readily to mind. But hey, they're superior players, right? They know what's best for us all. Obviously, I don't support this proposed policy. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 01:26, 31 December 2006 (CST)
 * Are you saying that a superior player is defined as being pretentious, elitist, snobbish, impudent, insensitive, and/or reckless? I beg to differ; and I must argue that none of the already-proposed fixes (so far) would actually fix the builds section. Entropy 01:30, 31 December 2006 (CST)
 * HL was using the term sarcasticly. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2006 (CST)
 * >< It's so hard to tell nowadays anymore. Sorry. :S Entropy 01:34, 31 December 2006 (CST)
 * Heh, yeah, I should have put it in sarcasm-quotes. "Superior". Adding to my opinion above, I think there's too much value in the builds section for GW players to remove it, even if not everything is good. Looking at, and reading the talk about, bad builds has made me a better player just as much as as the good ones. Not saying we WANT bad builds, but we should want the discussion about professions and skills that can only occur in a builds section, even if it does push the bounds of usual wiki content and editing policies. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 01:38, 31 December 2006 (CST)
 * You bring up a very good point and I agree wholeheartedly. Even when a bad build gets shot down it's a learning experience for the rest of us. I've certainly learned a lot about skill usefulness and synergy from watching opinions fly on builds. Like Cripple - never knew it was so great until I saw all PvP builds had one. Things like that you learn from players, not from reading Hamstring or such. That's a definite good part about the Builds section. I wish we could have the best of both worlds, though, and get rid of all the...junk...and flame wars. Those aren't learning experiences. Entropy 01:51, 31 December 2006 (CST)

Definitely not in favour of this. I don't have time to go through a million and one Guild Wars sites, signing up for accounts, getting into discussions and looking for builds, and I imagine that applies to a lot of people. I don't see why guild wiki shouldn't aim to be a complete reference for the game, and such a reference undoubtedly requires builds. How we go about doing builds does need to change, as with only a couple of exceptions it seems like everyone is dissatisfied with the current situation. However, that dissatisfaction doesn't mean we should just throw our hands up in the air and tell people to bog off to some other site. When the page hit counters were still in place it was pretty clear that the build pages were some of the most popular on the whole site - that's a good thing. It's a bad thing that some PvP players regard our builds as useless, but that means they need to be improved, not removed. --NieA7 08:26, 31 December 2006 (CST)


 * It's like a part of life. Certain children are being bad playing with a toy, they are going to ruin it for everyone else and that toy is going to be taken away. That's what is happening here. The "children" are undeniably rude on most occasions, break builds policy and in some instances broke main policy, and offer little to none positive feedback, if there is feedback and not just a /signed or a straight out deletion. I have never thought this decision revolved around some people posting their opinions on another site. Guild Wiki is better than that and it's more experienced contributors should be as well, though it's hard to see an air of maturity, helpfulness, and sometimes calmness, in most of the comments posted on builds.


 * I don't deny Entropy's claim that watching bad builds is a learning experience, but does that little bit of knowledge you gain from that build worth that author being mocked for his/her idea or variation of an idea? With your sentence regarding not knowing snaring (crippling) was so good in PvP, you don't need hundreds of builds to tell you that kind of information. Players kite (strafe) and the AI tries to as well, though players have been doing so since the game was introduced. What do you do when you can't catch something? In this case by slowing it down with the use of techinques, such as cripple and knockdown. Any widely used information such as that usually ends up on the skill page itself under notes or its own quick reference, see Crippling Shot, Crippling Slash, Frozen Burst, or Movement speed quick reference.


 * Basically the builds section has been attempted, abused, and now it on the verge of being removed. &mdash; Gares 12:54, 31 December 2006 (CST)


 * I don't think it's anywhere near the verge of being removed as far as a general consensus goes - there's just a cadre of high profile/very vocal users and admins who keep on pushing and pushing for it, and who are showing very little signs of quitting. Question is whether this cadre will outtalk everyone else. --NieA7 14:55, 31 December 2006 (CST)

I'm going to put all the builds in a section of my user dingy. Will put a link to it on my user page when I'm finished with it. Feel free to help. Shall start tonight. Bug 11:26, 19 January 2007 (CST)

Um... Agree?
Well, I support this also --FireFox  21:31, 30 December 2006 (CST)
 * /agree. The minimal benefits are vastly outweighed by the drama of the glory-seekers, and the flaws in the Vetting system. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 21:41, 30 December 2006 (CST)
 * I also support this. Auron put it very well. There are far too many flaws with having the build section here to deserve it staying. It belongs somewhere else. I will agree that having a place where you can easily create a builds page using template and get other people to see it is a good thing, it just does not belong on a wiki. Someone should host it separately using some similar technology. - BeXoR  [[Image:Bexor.png]] 09:01, 19 January 2007 (CST)
 * Agreed. A new, fair, PROPER, uncorrupted build vetting system over this, but yeah, builds FTL. Napalm Flame 11:02, 19 January 2007 (CST)

I agree too. The builds section is just a collection of opinions with a lot of angry people. Nuke it --Lania Elderfire 20:21, 2 February 2007 (CST)
 * I, too, agree. The build section is one big mess, and the vetting system is badly flawed. To much subjectivity, too much ego involved, too much e-drama. Lots of people want to post "their" build, but are not willing or able to give a thorough, fair and unbiased assessment of other people's builds. Having a website with builds is a good thing, but a wiki in general isn't a good website type for this, for sure not GuildWiki. GuildWiki should go back to what is used to be and what it's good at: An encyclopedia, a documentary of facts, information and knowledge, not opinion. The build section should be split from GuildWiki. Move it to a separate wiki (on the gamewikis network or somewhere else) or simply nuke it. Personally, I'd recommend gwShack for builds. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 03:03, 5 February 2007 (CST)

I 100% agree with this suggestion. the only thing that seems to stand in the way of it being implemented are the philisophical Wiki arguments that it might be unwiki-like perhaps. essentially GuildWiki is trying to do something that is A) too cumbersome to accomplish and filter down to usable format (the current open contribution--vetting charade) B) Not what a Wiki is for (See No Original Builds -- I agree witht is suggestion also)  People shouldn't be coming here for builds, and GuildWiki shouldn't be contributing it's resources to the endeavor, but it's not my dime! Singed: a once disgruntled contributor.--Rafe Alexander 22:13, 14 February 2007 (CST)

I agree, there isn't much I can saw that others haven't already said, but take out the builds section, while it is nice to think that there are plenty of people out there with calm collected attitudes who can accept the facts told to them, the truth of the matter is the majority are people who go insane with even a slight hint of negative feedback. They can still keep the builds on their pages to show others their ideas. But I would like to see guildwiki as a source of facts and not opinions... I'm pretty sure that statement I just made has already been covered by at least 3 other people before me Wyvern 21:07, 4 March 2007 (CST)

Disagree
Again, the strength of a wiki is the input from the public. An organic think-tank and creation site of builds is not a bad thing. Will a 'bad' build get vetted? Sure, I guess it can happen. Taking into account that the build is universally, outright, bad as opposed to ones one purely personal taste. But that's a small downside for a large possibility for creativity and documentation from the community. No one is going to be able to produce a purely perfect system. If anything, you need to find a balance that allows input from the community while allowing vetting to take place. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Not favored. Isis In De Nile 00:17, 3 January 2007 (CST)
 * While I do agree that this is quite extreme, I disagree with some of your points. We know what's "bad" and "good", and the Builds section, while intentionally "not a bad thing", has caused quite a lot of conflict. While it is one of our most popular sections, it's been pretty much the most troublesome. But I certainly disagree with wiping out the builds. It's just about finding that right balance. GW:NOB I think is the closest, but maybe not on the button just yet. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]]

(talk|contribs) 00:26, 3 January 2007 (CST)
 * I find it a little ego-centered that you are so sure of what is 'bad' and 'good.' You may think something is bad, and you are open to your opinion. If other players find it good, then they find it good, and they are also open to their opinion. They will use it and enjoy it and win with it. You won't, because you think it is bad. The conflict seems to be arising from people doing their best to force the Wiki to their vision at the cost of other people around them, by disrespecting them. Again, this seems to be a question of ego. Consensus requires the input of a wide range of people who are all involved in a system, not just a few particular people while excluding others.Isis In De Nile 21:14, 16 January 2007 (CST)


 * I believe your idea of a "popular" is not exactly the correct term to use for the builds section. I think it's great for people to express their ideas, but when a thousand people express their ideas by creating build articles, certain users circling the builds section start in on the immature comments and then an arguement usually ensues, that's not really popular. Nothing has brought out this kind of childishness on the wiki as the builds section, which is why this policy was proposed. &mdash; Gares 15:24, 3 January 2007 (CST)
 * Then ban the certain users from interacting with the Build Section if just a few troublemakers are out there. If that is it, just do it. The end. I don't see what is so hard about this. Isis In De Nile 21:17, 16 January 2007 (CST)
 * There's a full ban or no ban, there is no partial ban. As for a partial solution, look at No personal attacks. I suggest taking a step back if you feel so strongly about this. This is an all or nothing proposal and in my opinion will probably not be implemented unless it's absolutely necessary. &mdash; Gares 22:03, 16 January 2007 (CST)


 * I think we're all forgetting that the vast majority of visitors here never even bother to look at the talk pages - all they see is a useful (otherwise they wouldn't be there) section with several good ideas to try out. The arguments and suchlike are only problems for the people who take part in them, which I doubt totals more than a hundred souls or so. --NieA7 03:56, 4 January 2007 (CST)


 * Wanna hear a gwiki newbie's two cents? You are absolutely right that the builds section has SERIOUS problems, all those that wrote around here can see it, and have their good point about it.Heres my 2 cents because this page seems to be governed by the laws of plain logic, unlike some other sections of the gwiki. I tried (till yesterday) to make several builds that have been finally judged as utter poop, and they were. still, in that moment, seemed to me i had a valid point, i did that effort with good intentions and the will to contribute effectively. Often one has to say a stupid thing before he realizes it's stupid. What i'm willing to say is that, other than people who just want their build vetted, there are a few people who try to be useful,see their efforts become useless without anyone really explaining to them where the mistake was, and giving up the wiki. I was very close to that point until i had some kind of talk with more experienced users, that gave me some faith back. Guys you have more experience, thats true. To you our builds may seem bad.And probably they are but it's inevitable, if you allow all users to vote and make a build.you cant expect the average level to be so high. dont forget that the average level of the GW player is more similar to that of the average PUG doing a mission in PVE, or people who have never played at high levels,or like me, people who are just starting.Even so, given that you have your reasons, you really have to take into account that half of wikis users are here because they'd like to contribute in the best way possible.It's on the wikis spirit.  (may sound optimistic huh) For the rest, Here in italy sometimes we say something like "Idiots' mother is always pregnant". This is true, but not limited to the wiki. I do not need to tell you this.As a conclusion, i think Builds should be written, commented maybe but NOT voted on. Sorry for my bad english --Babbo Elvis  14:15, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

Nuke It!
The more I try to use it, the more I'm convinced that the fundamental idea of a build section is misguided. Too many bad experiments and trivial variants. What you really want are good guides telling how to think about stuff rather than build articles telling you what to staple to your skill bar. "This is how you manage adrenaline." "This is how you manage minions." "This is how you do Tombs." That kind of thing. Right now, we've got some good builds, a lot of bad builds, and a bunch of really weak guides. Which is why it seems like a lot of people posting builds and commenting on them don't seem to get stuff like how to manage adrenaline in the first place.

Moreover, the culture of builds on the wiki just doesn't work. It's polluted with self-righteousness and disrespect, with more penis-wagging and posturing than actual collaboration. Keep shouting "It's just a minority of users ruining it for everyone!" as much as you want, but it's still ruined.

Time to burn it with fire. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2007 (CST)
 * Is that gonna happen anytime soon? -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 21:31, 16 January 2007 (CST)
 * No, but it should. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2007 (CST)
 * Ain't gonna happen, far too many people want to keep it. Me included to be honest, it's by far and away one of the most popular sections on the wiki if the old page views were anything to go by. --NieA7 04:27, 17 January 2007 (CST)
 * Suprisingly, not many have been vocal for or against this proposal, so to say "too many people want to keep it" is an opinion at the moment. As I mentioned above in another section, "As for a partial solution, look at No personal attacks. This is an all or nothing proposal and in my opinion will probably not be implemented unless it's absolutely necessary."
 * To keep saying it is one of the most popular sections is only because it is the most forum-like sections. Anyone can post a build, edit a build, and anyone can comment on that build. This freedom of opinion allows people to spam the builds section more so than any other areas of the wiki, since the rest of the site is fact, besides user/user talk pages.
 * Lastly, there are more that have commented on this proposal for it, than against it. In those regards, it could be implemented anytime, so to say "Ain't gonna happen" is wishful thinking. But as I said, this proposal is a seemingly last resort if the builds section cannot be fixed and the behavior does not improve. &mdash; Gares 10:44, 17 January 2007 (CST)
 * People haven't been vocal as this crawled out last of a whole raft of build section proposals - by the time it arrived most all of us were utterly sick of the whole thing. I'm saying it's popular based on page views (before they were removed) rather than page edits, there's an important difference as only a fraction of traffic to the wiki actually bothers with editing things (which is partly why this whole builds debate is a storm in a teacup, Joe Punter neither knows nor cares about our agonising over vetting procedure, nor the dramas enacted on build talk pages). Based on the viewing traffic I feel confident in saying that the average user regularly visits the build section, and that if they knew that there was a danger of it being removed they would be quite vocal against it. It's only regular contributors like you and me who bother with things like this, it's in no way representative of visitors.
 * Now that page views have been disabled it would be very interesting to know how much traffic our tested builds get per day, as compared to other high profile pages on this site. Are the figures recorded anywhere? --NieA7 11:31, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Kill it, builds are temporary as a guild roster and mostly opinion. We have S&F for regular pages and you can't go wrong with those, its all fact so there isn't much dispute. We have S&F for the builds, but nothing to stop any gibbering idiot (not a jab at anyone ;)) posting a build, they're perfectly entitled to do so, no matter how ludicrous. I've done a couple of so-called crap purges, deleting dozens on abandoned/beyond repair pages at a time, this doesn't feel right at all and I get attacked by a small percentage of authors for doing so. Prehaps I shouldn't delete the beyond-hope crap, but prehaps the authors shouldn't post it? I'm pretty sure the whole thing would have fallen apart by now, and we would have had at least 10 times as much in stubs/untested. To stop this happening we really need some sort of check or standards of submission (see all the other failed policy proposals), but this is un-wiki-like aswell. I'm thinking maybe it would have been better just to leave the whole thing to rot so it would have been easier to remove, because at the moment it feels like dragging along a dead horse &mdash; Skuld 10:16, 19 January 2007 (CST)


 * "I'm thinking maybe it would have been better just to leave the whole thing to rot so it would have been easier to remove, because at the moment it feels like dragging along a dead horse" - I completely agree with this comment. - BeXoR  [[Image:Bexor.png]] 10:22, 19 January 2007 (CST)

Disagree with this policy
I agree with previous posters who said that the builds section is very useful and should not go. Not only does it help you get better at understanding how to make good builds, but it also fosters creativity, by having access to other people's brainstorming. Sometimes someone else's bad build contains an interesting skill combination that I hadn't thought of, and that idea can turn into a good build. I also have a friend who just started playing, and from reading the build section, he has a lot better of an understanding of good builds. Personally I think most of the problems relating to the builds section could be better resolved with a "Post No Flames" policy rather than a "Post No Builds" policy. Who cares if some bad builds get favored sometimes, or vice versa? As long as you take each build you look at with a grain of salt and evaluate it for yourself, its never bothered me that a build's community evaluation does not match my personal opinion. The only reason this causes a problem is when people allow their ego to get involved, take it personally, and take out their frustration on other users. I do agree with some of Skuld's statements, things were getting messy and it seems like the only way we could keep up with a lot of bad submissions was to bend the rules and allow him to make a lot of deletions. Personally though, I think this can be resolved by having a stricter submission policy of some kind. Its just too easy to submit a build right now, and considering all the red linked usernames and ip addresses submitting builds, it seems half of the submitters are just signing up for an account in order to submit their build. Since they are not really part of the community yet, they don't understand what standards are expected for builds, or what impact they have on the site by spamming poor builds onto it, and they are able to submit a build without having any interaction with other users. This could easily be addressed by changing the submission process. For example, you could require build submitters to have a userpage, and first create their build on their userpage, and request feedback from at least one other contributor. They would need a nomination from another user in order to move the build to the buildspace. This would force them to interact with other users, and give them a taste of what our expectations are, before they go and throw the first build they could think of onto the buildspace. I think there are a lot of ideas that can be explored before resorting to removing a very useful and popular section of the site, despite its problems. -- BrianG 11:14, 19 January 2007 (CST)
 * There will never be requirements for editing like like that. --Fyren 11:21, 19 January 2007 (CST)


 * As much of the unpleasantness that goes on in the builds section comes from voters rather than authors this policy is attacking a symptom rather than a cause (Sore toe? Hack your leg off!). The new templates that have recently been introduced should go some way towards clearing up the confusion that's been the cause of at least some of the disputes - any move to remove builds en masse before they've had a chance to bed in would be far too premature. Once the templates are up to speed the system can be further improved, one step at a time.
 * In general I don't think we should have requirements for submitting builds (policing them would take too much time and effort) - the current stub -> untested -> (un)favoured method goes a long way towards keeping Untested Builds clean. --NieA7 11:23, 19 January 2007 (CST)
 * I see it more like a fleash eating bacteria and for that you have to take the leg off. Well I'm not touching it again people are way to protective of there stuff and think because theire group survive that make it a good build.  Well should go for great not good build.&mdash; ├ A ratak ┤  11:27, 19 January 2007 (CST)
 * That's the kinda thing that should be thrashed out when the next round of policy talks comes about, rather than just a general throwing up of hands about the whole thing. It's impossible to be sure but I'm pretty certain that the average visitor to this site doesn't give a flying monkey about all the angst that goes on in the builds section, they just use tested as a highly useful resource. It'd be a real shame to get rid of it just because the 1% of contributors don't like it, rather than the 99% of visitors. --NieA7 11:31, 19 January 2007 (CST)


 * Those numbers are kind of silly.. &mdash; Skuld 11:32, 19 January 2007 (CST)


 * Because I made them up - is there any actual way to find out the relative proportions of visitors vs editors? --NieA7 11:33, 19 January 2007 (CST)

In response to Fyren, it was just an example. I'm not sure what your reasons are for being opposed to the idea but NieA7 is probably right that it would be tricky to enforce. I'm sure you can agree though, that the people who are posting most of the poor builds are ones who are brand new to the wiki and are just throwing things up because its easy. Therefore I think we should be trying to think of ways to slow down, or "snare" those users, and educate and involve them before they post the first thing they think of. I realize it is "un-wiki-like" to have requirements for editing, but the current method of "auto-crap-deletion" is also un-wiki-like, so I think its clear that in order to continue the builds section, we'll have to bend the rules on what is considered "wiki-like", and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. -- BrianG 11:48, 19 January 2007 (CST)
 * That they have it on there page or in the categories untested is the same, we would have to have a cathegorie for them too even if they were on the userpage. People wont look on all the userpage to see if there is a build to test.  The untested categorie is there to make those connection with other users out there to help them do better build.  One more rant, a build that is made to patch up something really piss me off, all those think about ele who don't want to make a tank but want to deal melee dmg and those who say that a bonder can be made with only NF.  That make no sens, those shoudn't be alowed.  When I see a comment like well it's not as great as (insert original here) but if you only have (stuff here) it does the job ok.  end of ramdom rant.&mdash; ├ A ratak ┤  11:58, 19 January 2007 (CST)


 * This isn't in response to Aratak, just a statement I want to make on the general discussion. I don't think it matters if the builds are good or crap or whatever, they just don't belong in the wiki. I really want someone to just make a website that is for creating builds and build discussion, even if it is associated with gwiki as a sister-site or whatever. The community does need somewhere to do this, but it shouldn't be here. :/ - BeXoR  [[Image:Bexor.png]] 12:10, 19 January 2007 (CST)
 * Bexor, this suggestion has been made many times, and I'm not opposed to it, as long as we have a place to go. Unfortunately, every time its been suggested, nobody is able to come up with an actual plan to make this happen, so I don't know if its worth the time to continue to discuss it unless someone has a real proposal.  Personally I don't think the builds section is that bad of a fit for the wiki, I think its workable if people are willing to work together on a better policy. -- BrianG 12:23, 19 January 2007 (CST)

I think the builds sections provide newer players a place to see how builds work and how they should build one for themselves. This allows them to be more competitive in their play and thusly increase the spirit of competition of GW for everyone.


 * They should use forums and read guides for that sort of thing. We should be creating articles, not being a place where ppl can post a shoddy page and get it critisised :-/ &mdash; Skuld 17:34, 22 January 2007 (CST)
 * True but since Arenanet doesn't give users even premade builds, at least there is something for them to look at. Maybe instead of having a builds page having a builds guide would be better suited.  Show new users the basics of good build making and what to look for when making a build.  Either way I think something on those lines would be appropriate, either keep builds coming in or change it to a "guide to better builds" or something along those lines.

PROPOSED REVISION:
No builds that aren't standard. Things like SF: Submit a build, people vote if it is STANDARD and should be documented. No more build namespace, either. Have mostly standard builds found often, or if you've convinced several people on your userpage you made an absolute gem, (no offense gem :)) &mdash;Blastedt&mdash; 18:47, 7 February 2007 (CST)


 * Can all these "make the build section vanish" proposals be put on hold for a while? All of them have been dead for weeks but keep coming back to life in fits and starts. Substantial changes are being made to the section with the creation of the new category system, and several further changes are being planned. Before we throw all our toys out of the pram can we give these new changes a chance to bed in and see if they improve matters, without being distracted by an ever-hanging sword of Damocles? --NieA7 18:53, 7 February 2007 (CST)
 * 'No they shouldn' be put on hold for a while, they should either be implemented yesterday or the process sped up to end this idiocy.' Part of the definition of insanity involves someone doing something over and over again in a state of obvious and perpetual failure.  it's usually explained by the attempts to fulfill needs that are misplaced (generalizing).  This is exactly what the whole builds section in a Wiki is, insanity.  The reason it has fits and starts is because you get people like me who come in and contribute to find their work dismissed in a matter of a few minutes by the self appointed cadre of the untested build section.  As my head begins to slow down from spinning, I wonder what happenned.  I begin to investigate and at the end of following a web of talk pages, personal pages, policy pages,ad nauseum and come to the conclusion many old timers and Wiki-gurus seem to be banging their heads against a wall. This animal shouldn't even be in this  cage.  It can't and will not be contained, and the cage keepers fight endlessly to contain it.  The Wiki admin-wannabes are spending tons of editing time trying to contain a task that shouldn't even be in a Wiki.  They have perhaps the best interests of the Wiki as they zoom through the contributions chaperoning the articles along as the carrion of elitist voters swarm about it--meanhwile the carrion all know each other and the only scruples are dmonstrated on the vetting processes they themselves post.  That is the current condition of what you called the builds section here.  So then why does this area lay dormant for a period until another fit of activity?  Because eventually someone who cares and strives to overcome his own ignorance comes along and takes a poke--perhaps that occaisional person, like me, will come to the same conclusion or continue in the vain pursuit of self glory--to get something vetted into high visibility.  In a matter of one day or so I'm fully convinced that the builds section doesn't belong.  What--didn't anyone else watch Sesame Street and sing long to the "Which item here dosn't belong!?" song?  Cmon sing it!--Rafe Alexander 22:43, 14 February 2007 (CST)

I'd go a step further ythough and not allow more than one or two on any userpage. Get builds out of Guildwiki.--Rafe Alexander 23:12, 14 February 2007 (CST)
 * I wouldn't go that far, but the current voting/rating system is too ambiguous and open-ended. Everyone has different definitions of a good/bad build, and even more different definitions for conditions like viable, workable, effective, etc. The reason someone is posting a build is because they believe it's "the best build evar" (there's more nuisances, but that's besides the point). However, that sort of opinion should remain in the user space, where no one but the owner looks at. --8765 15:22, 23 February 2007 (CST)

Remove them ASAP.
I have glanced across "Build_talk" pages for a while, and have yet to see anything positive come out of it. I see terrible builds and a bunch of kiddies posting crap and generally being asses, i'm seeing numorous personal attacks and the most pathetic mock-sarcasm in a while. Its an unpatrolled wasteland of retardedness I'm tempted to do a blanket spam of No personal attacks, but I doubt it will make a difference, these users aren't here here to help; I can half-sympathise as sifting through the crap does wear you down and make you a jerk, but the way to deal with it is not to post mocking comments and bullshit, it is to step away.. The "build authors" I see do not care for the wiki, they do not wish to learn, they simply want "their build" "approved". The "voters" are substantially worse, however. I do not have the patience or energy to push any more, I want some long-standing contributors/admins to rip down this cesspool for the good of the wiki. Just take a look at 10 recent "Build_talk" pages, any will do. &mdash; Skuld 19:56, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * Comment removed --SBR 20:05, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * Personal biases should be left out of the discussion. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs)  20:18, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * Agreed in all accounts, Skuld. --Dirigible 20:16, 4 March 2007 (CST)

I disagree. The Builds section is a useful resource for the community. Our vetting procedure could use a little revamping, but we should certainly keep the Builds section. Skuld, you may not "have the patience or energy to push any more," but I do, and a number of other users are still eager and willing to contribute. It's a shame that you have retired from the Builds section, because you generally seem to have got your head on straight, and people like that are exactly what we need in the Builds section. - Krowman (talk • contribs)  20:31, 4 March 2007 (CST)


 * No it isn't. It's a playground for the eager newbie. I'd say it hurts more than it helps. The only decent stuff are the DoA guides etc and the cookie-cutters, the rest are well-meaning Good Ideas TM &mdash; Skuld 20:37, 4 March 2007 (CST)


 * Well SBR has removed his comment, but I'll just say Skuld has been actively involved the builds section but more recently he's had plenty of time to think about the builds section from the sidelines, I'm certainly interested to hear his opinions.


 * The Gwiki has always been an incredibly idealistic endeavour and and ideally the builds section would both accurately document the popular PvP and PvE builds as well as being a great place to collaboratively create a build based on a good idea. This is happening to some extent, particularly in regards to the PvE side. You'll often see people referencing a team/solo farming build in all chat or if you stickybeak into the forums of other guilds, you'll see it there too, which is great. The PvP side I'm not so sure about, it causes lots of disharmony and I don't really think many people look at PvP builds anyway as a reference. For me, the question is not so much should we keep the builds section or not, the question is can we change it to work how it should? If it's not working but it can be fixed, then it should be kept.


 * I think the PvE section is good, it's a lot easier to test a build in an area vs testing a build for an arena. But should we change the PvP section so it is more documentation focused as opposed to submitting builds that you think might work? There's too many crap PvP builds at the moment and important builds which are in the metagame keep getting missed. If we change it to say only submit builds that you've seen a top 100 guild using/seen a group take the halls with then we may miss some builds that are being used, but not by the very top. But it's gotta be better than the current system and is a lot easier to verify. --Xasxas256 20:48, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * I'd say just the opposite: It helps more than it hurts. I'm not saying the problems you cite do not exist; certainly, they do. However, they are not so significant as to warrant getting rid of the entire Builds section. They can be worked around, and they have been for a long time now. You say that you've advocated this for many months now, yet the wiki has trudged on, in spite of all these problems. The benefits of providing a builds resource for the community certainly outweigh the downside of constantly having to shoot down bad builds. It really isn't that difficult or stressful to cast a vote anyways. To Xasxas, you've made some good points, though I think PvP builds are just as easy, if not easier, to verify than PvE builds. If you want solid proof of a build and how it performs, it can be as simple as looking for it on Observer Mode. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 20:55, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * Here's what's coming out of the Builds section right now:
 * Frustration for the submitters, having to put up with the most inane comments in regards to their builds, getting shot down for the most pointless and absurd reasons possible, and having absolutely NOTHING they can do in order to defend their builds from that. To hell with having to say and hear time over time again "Sorry, can't do anything about it, policy says they can piss all over your build if they feel like it for no reason whatsoever."
 * Frustration for the voters, having to deal with hordes and hordes of horrifying dysfunctional builds, and getting ripped on by stubborn immature authors when they rightfully shoot that build down, with authors that care about nothing else but getting that build vetted, completely ignoring any and all sensible criticism that they may receive (not rarely because they simply don't know any better).
 * Trashtalking and personal attacks and sarcasm and ripping on each other from both sides. The sysops can't possibly keep up with all the raging going on there. It's bar none the most hostile area of the wiki. There's one word to qualify the behaviour of everyone there: Ugly. And the more the section grows, the more this behaviour becomes commonplace, becoming normal.
 * The whole section has grown utterly useless. It's not serving its purpose anymore. Why do we have Favoured builds? So that readers can find good builds. Are they finding them? No. Why not? Because Favoured is full of horrible builds and Unfavoured is full of honestly good builds that get shot down by incompetent voters.
 * It's not serving its purpose, and it's most certainly not helping anyone. It's only serving as breeding ground for grudges and frustration and hurt feelings for all parties involved. This section isn't bringing anything good to the wiki. Cauterize it. --Dirigible 21:14, 4 March 2007 (CST)


 * To Dirigible, that's why I'd like to see a PvP system where you just submit observed builds, if Guild X was running that build then that's what they were running, there's nothing to argue about. I'm not sure I follow you Krowman, the problem isn't identifying a bad build, it's all the arguments that occur. It's easy enough to vote sure, but people keep fighting about people's vote, it spreads to user talk pages, people gang up on each other, the anger increases, eventually admin intervention is required, it's not doing anybody any good. PvE builds are surely easier to verify, if it's a running build all you need to do is see if it can run where it's supposed to. If it's a boss farming build, just see if it can kill that boss. That's it. But when little Johnny submits his first PvP build, who's running it in observer mode? How can you tell if Shutdown Mesmer can successfully shut down a monk, it's subjective how well the build works. Or are you talking about my suggestion where only observed PvP builds can be submitted? --Xasxas256 21:24, 4 March 2007 (CST)

Though I still contribute to the builds section, I do think that the builds section is too much opinion and not enough experience. There are way too many anon and some registered newbs and noobs that constantly argue pointless crap to death. In an ideal world only experienced players should post builds and vote for a build, but that isn't the case, and putting a system like that in wiki is just way too much hassle.... I mean, how do you prove you have experience? Take a test? Hmmm... a test :-)--Lania Elderfire 21:46, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * Sure, there's bickering. These things happen. People fight everywhere, about everything. If users weren't bickering about the builds they submitted, they'd be bickering over which screenie of a green item gets on the wiki. It's a similiar problem: users not working for the greater good of the wiki, and wanting to get their snapshots posted on here. I believe that already has happened a few times. I will tentatively agree with Dirigible, in that there are some good builds in the Unfavored section; however, many of these builds get Unfavored votes because they are too similiar to pre-existing builds. Bad builds in Favored? Yes, absolutely, and you can usually find my Unfavored vote on all of the ones I've come across. My recommendation for a solution to the 'Builds problem' would be some baby-step policy changes (as larger ones get bogged down in debate, as this is a good example of), and to have more experienced and knowledgeable users participate in the Builds section. I have said this before. Bad builds would not get favored legitimately if there were more users out there with a firm grasp of the GW metagame contributing in that section. Many of the problems cited above stem from new users posting their builds, whether they be bad, pre-existing, or even jokes/vandalism. The Builds section needs more good users to vet to good builds and discard the bad ones. As debate and dispute occur all over the wiki, I don't think conflict is something we can escape. We just need more learned users to contribute to the Builds section. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 21:48, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * Uh... no. The Build section is home to more bickering and useless commentary  than anywhere else on the Wiki. And honestly, there's not a ton that can be done about it. It's getting old pointing out the shitty style/layout the Wiki has for builds, and having people turn around and say "OH, BUT IT HELPS SO MUCH." Yeah... no. It fails. The best it could possibly do is document farming builds and easily-verifiable PvP builds, but people found that too elitist (yeah, the same people that failed to see why we used the top-100-guild cutoff said "elitist"). Unless we implement a way to clear out the crap, the build section will be just that... crap. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 21:52, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * Krowman, the vetting system itself inherently encourages conflict just as much as discussion. Yeah there's people debating things on all parts of the wiki and they were doing this too before the builds section began but it's a bit different. The arguments are more frequent and nastier in the builds section. If you look at the times that an admin has been contacted to arbitrate between two users, the vast majority of cases the conflict started on the builds section. People might bicker about a green item screenshot but they don't launch personal attacks over it. I don't like the top 100 guild thing either, that would just be a source of more disputes. I'd like observed builds only for PvP, get away from the fights and back to our documentation roots and the PvE side doesn't need to be changed as much, it's easy to document, is easy to verify and isn't causing fights. --Xasxas256 22:00, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * Its also content in of the Build section. I glance at the section alot, normally while while forming a party or waiting for AB to start and I still cant understand how the 'vetting' process works to be helpful. If I come to a site to find a build good or bad I want to also know why it is good or bad and it is at that part the system fails. I see a build and it is tagged 'Community says its good' (or whatever the offical tag line is) my first thought is "Good for the community, why tell me why it is good because you say so?" which is strange because on some builds less than 5 people comment or vote on the build but that is tagged as the community. That doesnt sit right with me because as a browser looking for information I want to know as much information as I possibly can and as I have said in other places it still amazes me that I can quickly and easily find information on an elite, find the boss that has that elite, the green (if he has one) he carries and a map pointing to that boss with a couple of clicks of the mouse compared to the build section where I can go to a build read every word and still have no clue why it is favored or unfavored. It happens all the time there is no quick and easy reasoning in the tags(though to be fair a few actually have reasons) and sometimes the reasons that builds get unfavored or favored seem plain strange. While I dont think the build section needs to be 'nuked' it needs a heavy overhaul to it because many times it can be misleading or no real information to prove or disapprove a claim (but I have seen some funny reasons). One of the reasons that I stopped taking the build section seriously (glance at it for ideas, to read comments or leave comments) but mainly just to see what is there. One has got to wonder what the voting process is even for anymore. I always thought that the votes where to inform the browser but it fails because most of the time the voter leaves nothing to inform the browser about anything, they might as well leave in the sign there name and state 'I like steak' sonce many just sign there name and tell that browser nothing. As is stands forums and GWshack (prevoiusly mentioned) provide a better way for a browser to get information on a build opinions as to why or why not it works (which the browser can argee with or disargee with) to determine what they believe will work for them.
 * Auron, even though you say "no," I see a lot of my platforms resonated in your comment. Lots of bickering, and little we can do about it? Check. Poor style/layout for builds? Check. Need a way to "clear out the crap?" Yup. Like I said, the Builds section needs improvement, not deletion. Xas, I don't have much of a problem with that proposal (Build Split I think it is?), even though it is a liitle lacking on two counts. One, it doesn't take into account RA/TA/AB/HB builds. Two, many GvG builds are meant to fit into the entire 8-man team build; they are not stand-alone builds. Sure as sun, though, people will use them independently. That's their bad, not ours, but we will make ourselves look bad by providing information that gets a negative response. Anyways, I also stated that the site policy for builds should be revised in baby-steps, conceivably those baby-steps could be used to alleviate some of the bickering that does happen. I don't think we'll ever get away from it all, though. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 22:09, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * To sum it up; voting is stupid. It's inefficient and a waste of time. The best thing we could do for the build section is to have a group of people that vet builds, or turn them down until improved (while suggesting improvements). The group cannot be large; think of it as a small committee. That's the best (most efficient, least flame wars) way to deal with builds. The nabs that want their W/Mo Life Sheathers to be favored will still bitch and moan, sure, but IMO, they need to post it in the Gladiator's Arena and see how people react to it. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 22:25, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * A split in RA/AB/CM is somewhat redundant. It's not like anything used there are halfway decent, and anything that is is a spawn of what is actually used in HA (in TA spike groups) or GvG (Ranger/Monk builds, the latter with a bit more emphasis on self preservation in smaller groups), but generally the real division could be Team builds and Solo builds. Variation should be enough to take care of "in RA, you would want a heal on this character, such as etc". THe difference of Team and Solo build is that Team build sometimes twists it out of proportion and changes the solo builds a lot. A mesmer in a heavy melee context can be very different from a more baslanced one, even if both are Me/Mo MoRs, so a team section could give insight in team building as well, not that wikipedia is really that much of a guide site.--Silk Weaker
 * The toucher doesn't work and never has against decent players, but it's one example of a RA meta that does not appear in HA/GvG. B/P is an example of a PvE build that doesn't appear in PvP, same with bonders. However, like I said, touchers exploit stupidty, and B/P as well as Bonders/55s take advantage of AI stupidity, or the predictability of their skills. --Silk Weaker

Build pages lately have been rotting, all your fault Skuld, all your fault. It was halfway decent when you were around, we had usable cookie cutters.

Anyway, PvP build collection would be highly demanding, and variants would be pages long. There are billions of variation of the same builds, nor are those ideas being used necessarily good, and most of them become past meta in a few seconds anyway. Right now you have the new Eurospike as well, and a bunch of stuff. Man, I don't want to bother with it that much. I'd rather just document characters used before, and might in the future. Or.. not. There are at least 4 different Rit gank/flagger builds being run right now. Heck, in our alliance alone, we've got three. Same with many others. Many builds are just old builds revamped. Like "grasping earth is cool now, let's stick it in". A lot needs to be done, I'm not sure if a certain way to do it could be agreed on. -Silk Weaker
 * (To Auron) Sorry to be nitpicky, but wouldn't that just be a smaller community of voters evaluating builds? That said, I really do like that idea. We could have perhaps 25 judges voting (though not all on the same build!). That seems like a pretty high number, but with too few people in the panel, the Untested section would just surge up like before. The judges wouldn't have to all be admins, as many admins prefer to avoid the builds section, or prefer to play either PvE or PvP, not both. I'd love it if I wouldn't have to repeatedly explain why GvG warriors need speed buffs or an IAS to someone fresh out of Pre. Though this plan would likely work, it would be the source of even more dispute, as then new users would clamor to get on that panel, as well as get their builds vetted. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 22:36, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * I don't think it's "voters" necessarily. In talk pages, such as for user notes on skills, there is no vote system for usernotes, just discussion. And it works. The more experience players rarely have huge disagreements, more like preferences. For example, I hate flail, but I wouldn't vote "unfavored" because it's not about favoring or unfavoring, it's about what's used and what's not. Unless you're uninformed, how can you possibly disagree with something as simple as what people use in top 100 games? Meta doesn't necessarily mean good builds either. Some builds used by top 100s are notoriously bad in different hands. But does it matter? It's all about documentation.--Silk Weaker
 * Deadly Arts paragons are the new meta! &mdash; Skuld 07:07, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * @Krowman, there are some admins that like to play both PvE and PvP, but one thing I have figured out in my time playing GW and having a life is that in order to excel at either one, it takes dedication and that means casually playing one over the other from time to time.
 * And Dirigible is right. Sysops can't possibly troll through every build talk page to keep people in line. Half the time it doesn't even make a difference, cause once a person's ban(if it comes down to that) ends, they go right back to their same old routine. And those that do get caught most of the time say, "Others are doing it too, get them." That doesn't fly around here just as if you got a speeding ticket in real life and said that to a cop. Some just slip under the radar of admins, that is why I get msgs to check out this talk page and that from time to time.
 * With Banning, Anti-flame, Controlling conduct, and Arbitration, I am the GWiki meta. :p &mdash; Gares 08:13, 6 March 2007 (CST)

I've got it!
BuildWiki. :P -- Peej 22:25, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * As in User:Skuld? - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 01:28, 8 March 2007 (CST)

Why this has to be done
I see lots of votes below saying that the build namespace should stay under some changes. if this was to be done, I think the best way to do that is to remove the build section all together, (move to user pages, etc), and then rethink it, and restart something in the right way. In other words, this poll. as it is defined, might not give a definite conclusion as one asking if the system as it is could be maintained under proper standards. Foo 07:39, 9 March 2007 (CST)

Poll: Does the build namespace cause more harm than good?
Don't clutter up my poll with too much reasoning -- you can use the rest of the discussion page for that. I just want a quick, easy-to-count poll of what people think. &mdash;Tanaric 00:15, 9 March 2007 (CST)


 * Hi Tanaric! *waves*  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:17, 9 March 2007 (CST)

Yes
]] 13:08, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * 1) As the author of this article...  --Rainith 00:55, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 2) Yes. --Dirigible 00:59, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 3) --Fyren 01:31, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 4) So long as the system remains what it is drop it but to me it needs major changes. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.163.150.49 (contribs).
 * 5) Yes.. &mdash; Skuld 02:28, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 6) Undoubtedly.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:16, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 7) In it's current form, most definitely. --84-175  (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 8) Yes. Foo 06:01, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 9) -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 06:13, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 10) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:56, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 11) Even though I contribute to it, IMO it does cause more problems than its worth --Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 23:20, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 12) The way it works now does NOT work. -  B e X or  [[Image:Bexor.png]]  01:03, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * 13) yep. --FireFox  [[Image:firefoxav.gif]] 08:54, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * 14) Builds are the main reason for NPA. The builds could be transerref to another site where ppl can happily make their builds. --[[User:Sigm@|Σιγ <font color=#d8be01>μα
 * 1) Builds already had non-colliading namespaces with the "Me/N" syntax. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 19:45, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * 2) Oops, forgot. --Silk Weaker 01:24, 11 March 2007 (CST)
 * 3) Well, yes. --<font color="Brown">Babbo <font color="Orange">Elvis 09:10, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

No

 * 1) It's a good thing. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 00:46, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 2) Keep the builds but change the vetting system so you need to give a reason.--Eloc jcg 00:48, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 3) Yeah, change the vetting system, don't get rid of the builds.  <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)
 * 4) Let me have my sarcasm. Its the only reason I live. --SBR 01:40, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 5) I think it has slowly gone downhill, but still represents a valuable resource.--JP 02:01, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 6) --NieA7 07:12, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 7) See below --Xasxas256 08:47, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 8) --Misfate 9:00, 9 March 2007 (PST)
 * 9) This site would crash and burn without it. I agree it sucks, but is nesesary. [[image:jups.jpg|16px]] 18:48, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 10) I like the builds section is good and will get better if a good policy is agreed on. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 11) &mdash;[[Image:BlastThatT.jpg]]Blastedt
 * 12) It helps me ignoring this whole builds knick-knack. --MRA 21:15, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 13) It's a good resource, it just needs better rules. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 23:50, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 14) Useful resource. So what if its not perfect, thats no reason to get rid of it imo. Banito 08:53, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * 15) From what I could tell, a good deal of site traffic is directed at builds. If that's not a reason, I don't know what is. Not to mention it's a valuable resource and all that.--Nog64Talk [[Image:Word_of_Healing.jpg|19px]] 13:12, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * 16) Remove builds and you will remove a good part of the sites population.--<font color="Black">Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|18px|]] 23:51, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * 17) Don't hate the builds, hate the game. Solus  [[image:Shield_of_Judgment.jpg|19px]] 00:10, 11 March 2007 (CST)

Xas gives some reasoning, a proposal and starts talking in the third person
I don't talk much about my in game exploits but I'm a PvPer and to remove the builds would be to the detriment of the GWiki. I don't know why anybody could argue against the PvE builds, there's so many good builds there in particular the better farming ones. They're well written, incredibly useful and by and large create few user disputes. Do we really want to get rid of this great resource?

As for the PvP side it's crap, it's just a source of headaches. Above Silk has quite rightly argued that trying to document the PvP meta is extraordinarily difficult, it keeps changing and there's so many variants. Submitting builds under various vetting guises has been unsuccessful for reasons that have been said numerous times already. But why try to keep up with the meta or invent some glorious new build nobody has thought of before? I'd like to see us get back to our documentation roots and away from the bickering.

I'd propose to get rid of the vetting system for PvP builds, instead only document builds that have been seen on observer mode. So only builds that have either won in a GvG match with a top 100 guild or builds that have won in the Hall of Heroes. Have a look at User:Xasxas256/GW:Xas for an example, it could look a bit nicer I suppose but it gives the general idea. There's no vetting required, it just documents what happened so there shouldn't be any arguments. That said it might encourage the PvP community to discuss some current team builds (as opposed to individual skills or player builds).

The PvPer isn't really that well catered for, I mean until I edited it just then, Celestial Tournament didn't even have links to the results or pairings for the first five rounds. The other ones probably only have content because of MRA's diligence. If this proposal was accepted, I'd hope it would fulfil our role as documenters, stop the fighting on the build pages, vastly improve the quality of the builds, encourage more PvP discussion (as opposed to build proposal discussion!), increase readership and usefulness (unlike the PvE section, I almost never see links to GWiki PvP builds on forums or in in game chat) and perhaps as a final bonus even encourage some of the people running these builds to discuss them. --Xasxas256 08:47, 9 March 2007 (CST)


 * I see no problem keeping builds that are in common usage, that are observed as winning builds in observer mode, or that are frequently requested by name. My vote above is solely on build development and vetting within the wiki.  My position is that all "common usage" builds or any published by ArenaNet as reference builds could stay, as we're documenting factual information.  All development builds can be moved to the user namespace if a user wants them - and vetting can be scrapped entirely. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:00, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * Haven't we been over this? We'd come to the conclusion that the best way to do it is document easily verifiable builds; i.e., FotM and pre-mades (which don't exist anymore, those are all archived). When we tried to make the cut-off for FotM top-100 matches, people screamed elitist. Short of telling them off (because they did, honestly, miss the entire point of using obs mode for verifiability), we've done this before. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 12:10, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * I don't think it's only PvP builds that are the problem here, Xas. PvE builds on GuildWiki can be divided in two groups: Farming builds and non-farming. The former are usually easy to test, because it either works or doesn't. The latter are tricky, because while they are less controversial than pvp builds, their vetting process is characterised by a definite "laxer standards" symptom, (a.k.a. "it's PvE, everything works there"), which shouldn't happen. Lack of controversy doesn't mean there's higher quality either; take a look at Build:Team - Shadow Flame, favoured DoA team which even the author himself reveals that he's only tested it only on the FIRST mobs of DoA. Yet the build is favoured, even though it's pretty much as terrible as it could possibly get for DoA, as those who have actually any experience with the place will know.
 * The problem isn't local to either PvE builds or PvP builds (even though, granted, it's more obvious in the latter). It's the entire system that is flawed. As Barek said above, development and vetting of builds on the wiki simply doesn't work, and our entire builds section has been built on top of exactly those two pillars. --Dirigible 17:45, 9 March 2007 (CST)


 * For months now there's jokingly been talk of either Tanaric or Fyren nuking the builds section which would solve all of the wikis problems. I've never paid the idea much attention but I get the vibe that this is the clostest we've come to it actually happening.
 * Heh, I view all PvE as farming to some extent, come on it is! But yes you're right, running and solo farm builds are easier to test than team builds. But that said the SB/55 FoW and the B/P Tombs pages used to be great (although I don't honestly know if they're still good articles). PvE is far predictable though, you pretty much know where the AI will spawn, what skills they will use, how they will react etc. The only variation is the group's skill, aside from some minor spawn variation different groups should be able to run the same build with fairly similar experiences as long as the build's tactics are detailed enough. But if we're going to change the PvP builds section that there's no reason not to change the PvE side at the same time however in the case of this DoA build I'd say it's the tester's fault that it was vetted.


 * A solution might be to remove the voting clause that you don't have to test the build, I believe it was originally there because of the influx of obviously bad PvP builds. But PvE builds are easier to test I think.


 * Back to PvP builds, my belief is that the "elitist" concept stems from the way people vote and comment on a build somebody has submitted. Not vetting process removes the main source of elitism, people saying things along the lines of, "I have heaps of experience, you don't seem to, this build is rubbish." This is just pure documentation, if you're referring to the problem that only builds run by top 100 guilds will be submitted then you have a point. But I wouldn't mind seeing any observed winning build, irrespective of whether it's the top 100 guild or a non top 100 guild, as long as the build wins. And with HA builds, we wouldn't only document builds by people with r9+ or HA guilds, it's enough that they win. --Xasxas256 22:12, 9 March 2007 (CST)


 * I agree with the concept of only posting common builds. As I've said a million times before, the wiki should be a place for documentation, not innovation. I don't care whether some people would be upset that they can't post their new build.


 * I'm actually rather surprised at the results of the vote above. Although I must say that I think people have interpreted the question differently. I presumed that it meant "the contents of the build namespace at present"; of course I have no problem with the build namespace as a namespace, the problem is that it's filled with crap.


 * I would love to see a policy where the only builds recorded were ones with merit, i.e. popular/common/important, and where users were not allowed to post builds that they had just conjured out of the ether. But as Auron said above, we've been here before. I'm not particularly optimistic, and I'm not willing to take administrative action on it myself. <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 04:05, 10 March 2007 (CST)


 * So far, the only argument I'm seeing against this is that someone remembers that it was misunderstood and shot down last time it came up. That's not a reason against, so I still feel strongly that this is the direction in which we should go.  Scrap vetting entirely - that is the root of all build problems.  Only allow builds in the user namespace - only the user should edit the build itself - comments can be made on the talk page - BUT NO VETTING!  In the main namespace, only document popular/common/important builds.  Scrap the build namespace entirely as a failed experiment.
 * As to claims that the wiki can not survive without builds - those making such claims either are new or forget that tracking of web site traffic (Alexa ranking) had GuildWiki listed as one of the most popular (if not the most popular) fansite for Guild Wars even before builds were added.
 * As for the above poll - reading the comments, it appears clear to me that people have several different opinions as to what is really being asked here - as a result, I'm not 100% sure that I know - many make statements that seem to imply that I misunderstood the question.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:21, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * Nah, I'm not arguing against it (in fact, I said that same thing right below this section). So... naturally... I believe it to be the best course of action. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 21:49, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * Even if this proposal isn't accepted I think we really do need to get rid of the voting, particularly for PvP builds. It causes so many problems and I don't even think it is very successful at vetting good builds and unfavouring bad builds. As Auron said we can keep user submitted builds as long as they're in the user's namespace and we can even categorise them, they're just not "official" and there's no voting/editing them either by other users. Basically documenting builds = good, arguing over builds = bad. --Xasxas256 23:20, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * "As Auron said we can keep user submitted builds as long as they're in the user's namespace and we can even categorise them, they're just not "official" and there's no voting/editing them either by other users. Basically documenting builds = good, arguing over builds = bad." So in other words, you agree with this policy as it is proposed.  --Rainith 23:43, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * I don't, yet. It mentions nothing about documentation of popular/useful builds. If this became policy as-is, we'd have *no builds*; including FotM and successful farming builds. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 23:47, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * What? No, that's not what I said at all. I'd like to see us use observer mode for PvP builds, not no builds whatsoever. If people want to submit their own personal, builds that haven't been seen on observer mode they should be in the user namespace. I want to get rid of voting/vetting no builds altogether. --Xasxas256 04:59, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

The answer number 2!
scap the disfavoured/favoured vetting system. Now everyones happy. Instead catergorise them as number of views by... anyone. Over time more views = more popular. If all builds where divided into say 3 or 4 catergories of how much they are viewed, the least popular would be viewed less, and most popular viewed more. This is a sort of Capalistic system, but gives the opertunity for a build not view much (say has started being used in top guilds) to get veiwed alot more and rise back up. People can nominate featured builds on each section, which they feel deserve to raise up a "level" of popularity. I'll leave the complications up to you if you like the idea. but hows about Very Popular>Popular>Used>Unpopular, the question is wether to divide all builds into 4 groups (so each has same amount. Or do each group needs a certain amount of views or views over time. Opinions? 19:02, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * The page view counts were disabled on GuildWiki. If I recall correctly, it may have been a performance issue, although it may also have been disabled due to erroneous counts related to how pages are cached/rendered - Fyren would likely recall the specifics.  Even if functional, rating based on page views would be easy to code a bot to inflate a build's count - and no automatic categorization by page view counts exist in MediaWiki software, it would require someone to write an add-on extension.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:04, 9 March 2007 (CST)


 * To be honest I believe it would be very difficult to record. Because we are so popular, we use a caching proxy called squid which sits between the webserver and the outside world. When a page is in the cache, squid hands it to the user without contacting the webserver at all, so MediaWiki has no knowledge of how many times a page has actually been viewed. I'm not 100% sure of how intelligent the caching process is, but I think that MediaWiki might actually be under the impression that the more popular pages are viewed less often, since these pages are cached and less popular pages are not. Anyway, my point is that it would be difficult. <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 03:57, 10 March 2007 (CST)


 * Oh well just an idea, i still think the vetting system should be deleted, but there would be so many builds that the build sections would be use-able. Well its not life threating stuff[[image:jups.jpg|16px]] 09:19, 10 March 2007 (CST)

How about this?
We change that vetting system so that it goes like this:
 * Put a build in stubs. Anything going straight to tested would go to stubs instead.
 * Make a "Rate-a-build" for this build. Here people can say what's wrong with the skill bar, little things like that, before testing it. Users would just say what is wrong with the build. It would never go to unfavored, just stay in stubs. Make it so that the build is presentable to tested.
 * Once it gets three votes to go to untested, put it there. By then, I would think any major oversights of the build will have been corrected. Here, people would have to test it or at least give a very good reason why the build should be unfavored. The vetting system would then the same, once it has an excess of three votes on one side, it gets favored or unfavored.

That should help a lot of inherent problems with the vetting system.--Nog64Talk 13:19, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * It has voting. It fails. Just stick all builds in userspace and remove voting entirely. If a user wants to have other people try out his build, we can devise a template for it that people put on their userspace builds (like "try this one please"). The absence of voting/vetting and friendly nature of that system would solve much of the NPA. Beginning build makers and experienced ones alike can discuss/talk/edit the build for the better, and because it doesn't have to be "vetted" to be on userspace, overly defensive build authors will only drive people away from testing their builds.
 * I have no problem with making the Builds section documentation only. That's what people will see, that will represent the Wiki. Everyone else's test builds and neat ideas can still be here, yet they won't give a poor impression based on a flawed vetting system. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 15:23, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * In either case, I'm going to use BlastedT's Build:P/W Cruel Flail as an example/experiment for how this will work.--Nog64Talk [[Image:Word_of_Healing.jpg|19px]] 15:52, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * Yeah, I agree, we need the builds, just make it documentation only and remove the vetting system. I like the idea of a two step process to try to eliminate some of the issues we have, but even so, it would require a lot of change on GW:VETTING in terms of what constitutes a valid vote for it to work.  It may very well work if the correct changes are made, but as long as people can vote for no reason, without reading the build, without testing, etc, any attempt such as yours is likely to fall flat.  Good luck though.  <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)

The vote question could be better
The question of the vote doesn't really ask what it should ask. Instead of "Does the build namespace cause more harm than good?" it should be "Do you want to keep the build section or not?". There IS a difference. I would have possibly answered 'more harm' currently, but I still want to keep the section and make clear rules for it. -- (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I wouldn't presume to know what Tanaric meant to ask. The question he intended to ask might be different to what you think he should have asked. Indeed he might have intended the question to be as ambiguous as it is, although I can't think why. <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 09:13, 11 March 2007 (CDT)


 * That's true. I would like to know what he meant. Looking at the votes, it seems that different users interpreted it differently. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2007 (CDT)


 * A good example being Honorable Sarah who had a third interpretation of the question: "Builds already had non-colliading namespaces with the "Me/N" syntax." Talking about the namespace versus no namespace, but not about builds versus no builds. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2007 (CDT)