Talk: No original builds

Archives

---

1. /Archive 1

Laying down the hammer

I am sorry, but this is just wrong. This is against wiki principles (no original content posted by users, must be content from other users who are more important than current user). This is plain bias. I want to make sure a few principles are clear here:

1. No one here should ever care (looking at Skuld as I type this), that our reputations is a "joke" on other sites. We are a documentation site, not just a guide or "guru" site. As such, it is not necessary that everything we document is something pretty and impressive to all the leet players. Otherwsie we should just deleted the beginner guides, because, come on, who needs those? We are all uber-leet players anyways. I have no problem with documenting a decent build that is not great, but good, and is efficient though not as powerful as the main-stream GvG builds.
2. The problem with the builds section is NOT that there are bad builds or less than great builds. The problem with the build section is two fold: A pile up of builds waiting to be vetted, making it harder for users to find the good builds cause many are not vetted yet; and the fact that the vetting process is messed up because of voting. This means that the real problem is develop a vetting process that is fast and accurate so we get builds vetted quick and we make sure that what we label as good is actually good.

So, yeah. I give this proposition three thumbs down. --Karlos 21:12, 21 December 2006 (CST)

Addition: Oh, another thing, I think it's impossible to measure the "originality" of a build, or how often someone sees it somewhere. Same problem revisited. Joe Schmoe will login with 14 of his highschool buddies and swear on their science teacher's honor that they saw it in TA. What will you do then? --Karlos 21:18, 21 December 2006 (CST)

So what do you make of GuildWiki:Build Split? I put it up in response to this, but the more I think about it the more sense it makes to me. PvP and PvE are certainly different, so why not treat them differently? Different doesn't have to mean elitist, of course, it's just whatever's the right tool for the job. --NieA7 04:19, 22 December 2006 (CST)

Just for the record, I still like my 3 votes up 2 votes down idea. It's faster, good builds stay 1 vote longer than unfavored builds do, but it gets the job done. Remember when we only had 100 or so in untested? =P

Of course, I have to agree with Karlos on the subject that this is against the very foundation a Wiki is built on; the fact that anyone can make suggestions. There will always be some disputes over whether a build should be vetted or not. That's fine. The point is, that we do not have to turn into some elitist fansite in order to be correct. If the concept works, fine. If it's not used by every single guild in every single match, it doesn't give a reason to delete it. Elitism = Bad. Build voting = Good. That's just my two cents on this issue. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 21:20, 21 December 2006 (CST)

On that note... I suppose that, since we are a "documentation" site, it makes sense to have a lot of builds of builds that fall short of greatness still documented on the site. Approaching the problem from that angle, one could say that we should even have something like this:

Ew, right? How stupid is that build? Well, a lot of people use something like that. Maybe we should be "documenting" it: talk about how it works and why it doesn't work. I, for one, wouldn't have a problem with a lot of mediocre stuff being posted to the wiki as long as it was reasonably discussed (that means no over-the-top power claims, as we see in a lot of build articles today). Then you can just categorize things as "Top 100 GvG" &c. freely on top of that.

Thoughts? Should the Mending wammo be catalogued? Why or why not? — 130.58 (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2006 (CST)

I agree with the cataloging of builds, and support the "Top 100 GvG Label" idea. -- Dekan 22:04, 21 December 2006 (CST)

It seems like a good idea, but I'm not sure it'd work in practice. Just look at the bitching that goes on on any W/Mo build's talk page - I can't imagine agreement being reached there in order for a sane discussion to be put on the build page. Maybe I'm too cynical though... We could insist that there was a fairly detailed discussion of the pro's and con's of every build on the build page itself (say at least five points listed for each), that'd be handy. The "Seal of Approval" thing sounds interesting as well, though the criteria for applying one would have to be worked out in more detail. Why not write it up as a policy and see if it flies? It goes against this but it could easily be run alongside build split. --NieA7 04:19, 22 December 2006 (CST)

The obvious solution, based on your reply, is that we should just document builds - any builds - scrap the vetting/vote process - and just list available builds regardless of their quality. At least, that how I read your post. Build documenting = good, vetting process = bad.

Actually, that could solve much of the current problem. The endless debates are about if a build really is good or not - and even then builds that do not work, or which defy basic common sense are still making it to the approved status simply due to volumes, guild-mates swamping bad builds created by their members, or just plain sockpuppetry to get it to favored. Eliminate the ratings entirely, just list builds regardless, and the problem goes away. Of course, then it's even less useable for quickly finding good builds; but it does eliminate the current problems. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:27, 22 December 2006 (CST)

See also: "The cure is worse than the disease." --Eudas 20:54, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

I have said (somewhere, in one of the bazillion pages regurgutating this issue) that I think we should do like Guru, have people post builds, with no rating system what so ever, and then have anyone TALK aboutit all they want in the discussion page. So, only the original poster and a builds admin can edit the page. The other component to this (to prevent the clutter) is some admin with the authority to say "Nope, this is an obvious rip-off of the XYZ build with just one different skill" or "This is a build on its own." (That admin has to be anyone but Skuld though, or we'll end up with 3 builds in the whole builds section.) However, with the departure of Xeeron from these affairs and in the absence of a replacement, I feel bad for the builds section because it's falling into neglect. --Karlos 14:29, 22 December 2006 (CST)

That could definitely solve one problem, and substitute a clutter problem in it's place. To mitigate the clutter problem I'd love to see a simple "rating" system available that anyone could give a page a x/5 or x/10 stars. I don't know if there are any plugins/extensions out there that do this well, but ideally one would tally votes, weigh number of votes, ratings, and perhaps other things to come up with a final rating that could be used displayed on other pages. Yeah, some builds that get popular on the site may suck, but at least it would give users some indication of which builds may be more popular than others. --Zampani 13:07, 22 December 2006 (CST)

The problem is, anytime you try to do something like this, it just becomes a matter of gaming the system. Very few people actually use things the way they're intended... See also: Moderation system on Slashdot and Kuro5hin.--Eudas 20:54, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Karlos, you are my hero. I think what you said is great. I also like the idea I saw a guy above suggest about a Seal Of Approval. I think that such builds shoudl have to get at least 15 "voucher" votes of people saying they saw these builds being used, and then most importantly which guilds they saw use them. the, members of those guilds should be contacted to varify the info.

The vetting process should also be reformed, but that should be for another discussion.--TheDrifter 22:29, 21 December 2006 (CST)

The voting system was flawed from day 1. The problems with the voting system have been thoroughly documented in a lot of previous threads. Let's not reopen that now. --Karlos 14:29, 22 December 2006 (CST)

I know, that's why I said it is best saved for another discussion at another time.--TheDrifter 22:59, 22 December 2006 (CST)

To Karlos: You make conflicting points. "No one here should ever care (looking at Skuld as I type this), that our reputations is a 'joke' on other sites." - Why not? We have a build section - those people are better at builds. Ignoring them would make us noobs, plain and simple. While their arrogance and pissy attitude aren't the greatest, their knowledge of PvP and builds in general is; blowing them off and pretending we know what we're talking about is folly.
"We are a documentation site, not just a guide or 'guru' site. As such, it is not necessary that everything we document is something pretty and impressive to all the leet players." If we're a documentation site, then we should document the builds; not make them. There's a difference between making the elite PvPers laugh because we suck at builds, and them not liking our layout/S&F. Nobody makes fun of the Wiki's S&F - they make fun of the build section. -Auron 04:06, 23 December 2006 (CST)

Side note, mostly to 130.58: Yes, in our Effective Warrior Guide, we can include (or link to) a generic mending/healing breeze/live vicariously build, and detailed discussion on why it sucks. Including that in the guides would not only dispel the notion that using healing prayers makes you invincible, but it would open the eyes of many newbs as they see that a W/Mo fails at healing anyway. -Auron 04:06, 23 December 2006 (CST)

While we're talking about wammos... I fired up observer mode today and saw a guy running this bar (on a wammo) in 6v6:

(There was probably another attack skill in there, as well as a cancel stance; most definitely no condition removal, as he wasted like 10 seconds Blinded). I think that shows that PvEers definitely aren't the only newbs around. — 130.58 (talk) 04:19, 23 December 2006 (CST)

o.O PvP has its fair share of newbs/noobs, which is why farming fame when heroway was around was so easy - not only would the teams bunch up because they're heroes, but 90% of them had sucky skillbars because their human player sucked at PvP. -Auron 05:01, 23 December 2006 (CST)

Yes, well Heroway needs to be destroyed. Heroes should have NEVER been put into the game, Guild Wars was meant to be a team based game, not a game where u march around with your supercharged AI Characters. I think the Top 100 GvG idea is fine, some of the builds in the Vetted Section are toltally outdated and are just very old FoTM builds.--Llednar 15:03, 23 December 2006 (CST)

lol, I didn't have access to my computer for two days, and it doesn't look like this has gone anywhere ;) Am I wrong, or does it seem like after around four or more months of trying to come up with a new policy for the builds section, yet another proposal will end up falling flat like all the others?— Azroth 17:19, 23 December 2006 (CST)

Give it a week, we've all got wintersday and rl wintersday :) — Skuld 17:26, 23 December 2006 (CST)

We are not saying the top-100's builds shouldn't be listed. They should, we are simply saying their builds are not any better then other people's succsesful and effective builds. You all want to put the top-100 on a throne and tell everyone else to stop thinking. This may sound stupid, but this sounds alot like the way big cooperations put the little guy down. This totally defys every principal wkiks and GW stand for. You are all beinf elitist on the highest level and are discrediting the intelligence so amny people that are not in the top-100 have.--TheDrifter 23:02, 23 December 2006 (CST)

If the agenda is to document things that are currently widely played and successful in GvG then the "Top 100" thing makes sense. Why? Because you and I can hit 'B' and see a build in action. We can get a sample both of what's popular and of how different builds tie into the larger strategy of a particular guild. However, we can only do this for "Top 100" battles. That's a design decision that ANet made. For us, it's a practical cutoff, not just an arbitrary one.

There's a different between documenting existing stuff and creating new stuff. Wikipedia has lots of pages about famous novels. But you can't go start typing your novel inside a Wikipedia page, can you? "No Original Builds" amounts to "Only write up stuff that is verifiably widely-used," not "Your creativity is worth less than the GvG champions'." I'm not sure Skuld et al. have done a good job expressing that, but that's what this is about: mixing up the "creativity" with the "documentation" means that the relevant stuff gets lost in the shuffle. It's a bit like if we listed current green items side-by-side with "wishlist" green items that players wanted ANet to put into the next expansion: people could post all kinds of great creative content, but finding the items you could go out and actually find (just like finding the builds other people will actually be running) gets harder as a result.

So, here's Skuld's question, stripped of all that unnecessary crap that's just confusing the issue: is the build section about making up new stuff or describing the state of the game itself? — 130.58 (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2006 (CST)

That is why some have been pushing for a split in the pvp section itself, creating a section for comunity created and tested builds, and a section for the popular builds. It would both document the game as it is and allow for the creativity that a fansite needs. I am not agaisnt the documenting of top builds, its a good idea but I am agaisnt replaceing the pvp build section with that only. My reasons for this being that this site is most popular for its build section.

Either way the top guild observe checking wont work for the arenas, and if you think that because a build works in 8v8(with npc support) it will work in a 4v4 arena setting then you may need to stop messing with pvp. And there is no way to easily check what builds are being used in arenas, the Nob policy may work for gvg but it wont work for the rest of pvp, and the NoB would go on not documenting the rest of pvp and that is infact unwiki like. A better system would be needed and allowing the comunity to make thoose builds is much betetr then what has been proposed.--Sefre 01:22, 24 December 2006 (CST)

As far as I'm concerned, NOB is dead (too restrictive, very little support from people commenting) and we should start talking about Build Split as a way to get both good documentation and an outlet for community creativity without having one purpose interfere with the other. — 130.58 (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2006 (CST)

It's a bit like if we listed current green items side-by-side with "wishlist" green items that players wanted ANet to put into the next expansion: people could post all kinds of great creative content, but finding the items you could go out and actually find (just like finding the builds other people will actually be running) gets harder as a result.

I'm sorry, but I totally disagree with that statment. This is not like that, beacuse the green items are made by anet, while these build you all think should be documented were made by players just like you and me. This is elitism, you are putting a few (less then 1000) players over all the others, stating that they are the only people that play GW that are worth anything. A main selling point of GW was that it supported creativity and design. You are not supporting that aspect of GW. "creating you own green items" was not a selling point of GW. --TheDrifter 09:20, 24 December 2006 (CST)

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

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

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

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

Ridiculously strong support. Even if we placed great policies into place for the PvP section, the top PvPers wouldn't come here; so including original builds for PvP would be pointless. If someone wanted to tweak their PvP builds, they shouldn't come to the Wiki for advice; they'd be better off going to GWGuru/team-iq.net etc in the first place. This works well with the Build Split plan; after BS splits PvP and PvE interests, the PvP section can team up with a partner site (an idea that garnered support here).

This not only lets creativity flow (people can still post their own PvP builds), but offers greater room for build improvement; a win-win situation. The Wiki would stick with what the Wiki has always done best (documentation of truly vetted builds), and the build creation workshop would be on the partner site. -Auron 23:37, 24 December 2006 (CST)

Won't work until Guildwiki fixes its reputation. No one decent would want to partner with the GW build section as is. -Warskull 14:08, 25 December 2006 (CST)

You are asuming that Guru, team IQ ect. support the abloishment of orginal builds. I imagine, as both of these sites are made up of top-10 guilds do not. It is worth a try to talk with them about this, but nothing should be final, ideas should simply just be thrown around among these sites.--TheDrifter 10:51, 25 December 2006 (CST)

You apparently have never gone to team iQ and don't post anything in the gladiator's section of Guru. Team iQ is very restrictive of what is allowed to be posted. Their general rule is that it must be successfully tested or you must specifically request permission from a moderator who reviews it before posting. If you just post it, they are very likely to delete it without saying anything. The gladiator arena refuses to have a RA section in Guru. iQ specifically enacted that policy because when you have a constant deluge of bad builds good players stop reading builds and providing feed back. -Warskull 14:06, 25 December 2006 (CST)

Failed? -- Add your comments!

At the moment, I'm not seeing a lot of support for this specific suggested policy. This is an invitation for people who haven't spoken up much to just chime in with a quick "yeah, me too" if they think wiping out the current build section completely and only allowing popular builds developed elsewhere to be submited to the wiki is a good idea. — 130.58 (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2006 (CST)

I've been thinking this over quite a lot. I have a lot of mixed feelings on the subject. I am in favour of a policy that aims to ensure that the Build section is geared towards documentation and not blind submission of experiments.

I think it should be the aim of the wiki to only document those builds that are or have been in popular usage. Whenever I start a new profession I like to go through tested builds and see what works, but as tested gets bigger, it's come to the point where I have to go to the discussion page to see whether a build is genuinely good or not.

The only thing that makes me cautious about the implementation of this policy is its destructive nature.

Since original builds have, by their definition, an author then perhaps we could keep original builds but relegate them to the author's user space.

One way or another I do agree that the wiki should not give original builds the same status as those that are in popular usage. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 07:35, 24 December 2006 (CST)

I agree that the obvious aim of the build sections should be documentation. I feel it's become quite convoluted and I hardly go through a build page without seeing an unconstructive arguement that starts with "[X] is better than [X]." But that's not even the point. The biggest problem with the builds section is not knowing what is good. I believe that if we worked something into the builds section that would explain what makes a good build and why the tested builds sections contain those builds.

More of a criteria for each specialized section, if you know what I mean. Example: PvP section contains builds that the GuildWiki feels would fit nicely into a GvG, AB, or a HA team. These builds are unique in nature while still being accessable to newer players.

Or someting like that. (Obviously not that description.) The point is that navigating the build sections of the wiki is horrid. I struggled to find any information on good builds for my Dervish...what would give my dervish alive, what would make him attack faster, etc.

I say we need to focus on making the builds section more accessible rather than attacking the builds themselves.

Jack 08:21, 24 December 2006 (CST)

I don't see how a policy like this would stop people from posting builds in their user space. As far as I understand, user space equates to "do whatever the heck you want with it." You would solve a bunch of problems with limiting the builds section to known and popular builds and shifting original builds to user space. You'll have less people throwing tantrums when someone edits their original build and you won't have to worry about favoring or unfavorings builds. Since you don't end up favouring bad builds you don't advertising "GuildWiki thinks this horrible build is good, everyone laugh at us." You could very easy have a page that just lists user space builds with the disclaimer that user space builds are not tested. This would shift the focus from GuildWiki not knowing anything about builds to specific users not knowing anything about builds when bad builds pop up. Just post an announcement before you do a purge of the build section that it is happening and anyone who wants to save builds should move them to their user space. -Warskull 14:47, 24 December 2006 (CST)

The difference between posting something in User space vs. wiki space / Build space / Special Original Build space is that it won't really get improved in the former case. You lose out on the "everybody shares ownership and contributes" thing, which is really the reason for using a wiki in the first place. — 130.58 (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2006 (CST)

That hasn't exactly been working so hot, has it? -Warskull 22:13, 24 December 2006 (CST)

Sorry to reply halfway up the page, but I thought I should say, original builds have "authors" anyway, which means they aren't the same as other wiki articles. Surely this is reason enough to have them in the user space? <LordBiro>/<Talk> 08:00, 26 December 2006 (CST)

---

Like this other guy and I said before, the player-made builds should be kept but al the popular builds should either be put into their own section or marked with a notice stating they are popular builds.--TheDrifter 09:14, 24 December 2006 (CST)

Bah! Which brings us back to the question. What defines "Popluar build" or "Not an Original Build" or "Top 100 Build"? How do you enforce such a metric? So, Onlyashadow (whose guild is a top 100 guild as he keeps reminding us) decides to post his new "experimental" build, which is utter bogus. You're saying we have to keep it? Because it comes (verifiably) from a person in a top 100 guild? Also, I have been playing with a person from Te a lot recently (in PvE mind you), and it does not seem to me that the Top guilds only have a select well known number of builds that they run. It would appear to me (never played more than 10 GvG matches in my entire experience), that it's more about concepts, not builds. i.e. What does this warrior have to spike with? How does he plan to stay with kiting foes? What will this flag runner build offer? I mean the way you guys are talking, if someone came and posted the Flame Djinn's Haste + Gale + Savannah Heat build here on the wiki we would have brutalized him. Even though it actually is now used by top guilds (I think it's a brilliant idea). ZOMG, not using Windborne Speed!! Ban him!! --Karlos 16:42, 24 December 2006 (CST)

Well, if we were doing something like Build Split, you can use a big cutoff (e.g. 10? 15?) of people saying "This is classic. I've seen this." You can look around for builds on the GvG TV, or you can just look around in-game for stuff people are running (e.g. SS builds were really noticeable at the hieght of their popularity). I think the definition of popular is that, well, it's hard to miss. How many times can you wander into an arena batch before someone shock-Eviscerates you, for example? — 130.58 (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2006 (CST)

Heh, i've used that (don't burn me! :p) — Skuld 16:54, 24 December 2006 (CST)

The top 100 metric is applied specifically to GvG. You log onto obs mode and can say "yep a top 100 team is running this" to enforce it. It is easily verified and communicated. I didn't say the top 100 metric should be used for PvE. I said nothing about top 100 players posting whatever experiments they like. It states "has a top 100 team run this in GvG successfully? If someone else logged into obs mode could they see this?" His experiments would be removed just like everyone elses. -Warskull 14:00, 25 December 2006 (CST)

As I've stated earlier, I support removing all experimental builds and builds submitted by individuals, so that only well known popular builds are documented. And I don't mean builds created by top 100 or even top 10 guilds, but those builds which are really really popular in the game, such as the 55hp monk, SS, trapper, etc. -- (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2006 (CST)

That is the goal of this policy. The metric for GvG would be top 100 teams as they are generally successful and they are observable. Each format would need its own metric to make it very difficult to misplace builds. GvG and HA can utilize obs mode. TA is more difficult. -Warskull 14:11, 25 December 2006 (CST)

Although the principal is the same, the method you suggest isn't to my liking. Top 100 guilds decide? No way. Observer mode patrolling? Who does that? It's the experience of all of the Guild Wars players that should be utilised to decide if a build is popular enough. I think that the builds should be selected so that if you ask many random players (but active in the game) they recognise the build and its purpose. No matter if the build is PvE or PvP. (Ofcourse PvE players don't need to know the PvP builds and vice versa) -- (talk) 15:06, 25 December 2006 (CST)

Observer mode is a very popular feature. Tons of players use the observer mode feature and watch matches to case what the metagame has shifted to. All you have to say is "I saw team X running this build in GvG" and other members of GuildWiki can make a note to observe that guild to verify the build. I use the top 100 because it is on observer mode and success can be easily verified. I have seen a lot of GuildWiki users mistake builds, for example they get owned by a rampage as one thumper, but think any R/W with a pet and a hammer was the build that owned them. It would be harder to mistake builds if obs mode was involved. -Warskull 03:50, 26 December 2006 (CST)

That's an incredibly unwieldy method for verification. It wouldn't work out, and it's also very exclusionary. Not everyone can sit and observe matches to carefully note entire builds... and do it again when different skills become FOTM or different teams rank up. It would severely limit contributors. Yuck. However, while I oppose this policy suggestion, I do think we can achieve the same goal with a tag or other marker on popular/successful PVP builds... ie, 5 people say it's been observed in top PVP matches, it gets a tag saying that (with discussion and the possibility for revocation, of course). I'd also suggest raising the vote bar for normal build vetting, and/or changing the wording on the existing build category tags to make it clearer that poorly-thought-through builds aren't wanted. To me, the real problem centers on putting the "vetted" tag on builds just because 3 people say so... that's where the potential "harm" to GuildWiki's reputation may come in (though honestly, I do not think the wiki's reputation for builds is a big concern). Anyway, change that and/or change the vetted language to distance the Wiki community from the merits of builds, and we're golden. — HarshLanguage 04:05, 26 December 2006 (CST)

Any player good enough to be allowed to vote should watch matches =P

But time difference does matter. See, I don't see eurospikes a lot in my time zone...--Silk Weaker 04:31, 26 December 2006 (CST)

Currently we have people who obviously don't GvG voting to vet GvG builds after they test them in RA. Call me silly if you like, but I think people contributing to the GvG build section should have some understanding of GvG and know a bit about the GvG metagame. Sure some time zones would have trouble observing other time zones, but shouldn't the euros be the ones commenting on what is in their metagame? All I have to do is give you a guild name and rougly when I saw it. You don't even have to enter obs mode until you see that the guild is on obs mode. -Warskull 13:21, 26 December 2006 (CST)

Another problem is with builds suitable for both PvE and some form of PvP - just because I vote favoured for the PvE aspect doesn't mean taht it'll work in the PvP bits it's categorised for. --NieA7 14:42, 26 December 2006 (CST)

I would rather keep the builds section, i don't like all the bad builds in it, but i think the builds section is part of the wiki, no matter what others think. it may be smirked at by some, but lots enjoy getting ideas and inspiration to make builds with. I think that we should change categories alot to fit different builds, such as pvp, pve, and "top 100 guild builds" or something to that effect. the only matter is to convince enough people to make the move and carry it out. we could have endless discusiions, or just decide on something to do, and get a vote on it BMW 14:53, 26 December 2006 (CST)

I really haven't discussed criteria for knowing if it's original or not. I think we could see the difference between a skull crack warrior and a spirit's strength weapon wielder. One is well known enough that an average pvper who knows his things knows what it is. In other words I would prefer common sense>observer mode and we can use observer mode for added proof of course.--A Guy 02:44, 28 December 2006 (CST)

FWIW my "ya, me too" is that I don't agree with this particular policy recommendation, even though I think some rethinking needs to be done on build categories and the policies for those categories. -- Oblio (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2007 (CST)

This is a horrible idea. No. The originality and input of others is what makes a Wiki strong and unique. If people want to go to a lock-down Stalin fisted forum, they can go to a lock-down Stalin fisted forum. Otherwise, no. I don't give a banana if a few players with chips on their shoulders constantly insist that Guild Wiki is for 'noobs.' Get over yourselves. Isis In De Nile 00:07, 3 January 2007 (CST)

I can see GW:NOB being a disaster... all original builds go into user namespaces, which leads to a vast sprawling mess of non-standard layouts (mabie 20 buils on one page etc, because individuals are lazy) one-man-band builds (since I'm not sure how tempted people will be to edit in other peoples namespaces)... I still can't see any reason why the current one is so broken, other than having separate categories for tested and untested, drop that and have a vote-o-meter at the top of the build showing favour/disfavour, and realise that builds are advice rather than a cheaters guide. --85.189.5.98 18:47, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Other Ideas?

(really i just wanted a new "edit" button, that last area was getting huge) I posted this Elsewhere, but reposting here... My suggestion would be to just seperate user builds and prominent builds altogether... prominent builds should only be FotM and Staples... while tested "userbuilds" should be in their own section. Placing my Impaler in the same light as the tried and true SS Nuker is just WRONG =)... The impaler might be good... but the SS is a staple and unless there is a massive nerf will always be a prominent build (even after the ai updates=P). Builds are the reason i like the wiki as much as i do and will only help the wiki's funding (as theyre pretty darn popular)... but people coming here to find the perfect build to copy paste can get lost in the mess... Basically, changing Miscellaneous builds to "User Created Builds" and moving "tested Builds" there, and then cataloging all the general FotM and Staple builds into their own section in prominent builds SHOULD help to ease the headache a bit... --Midnight08 12:42, 26 December 2006 (CST)

Btw, i love a partner site idea, but also love the wiki format... maybe use the partner site to handle the vetting process, then transfer tested builds to the wiki afterward... Either way,if someone can tell me the monthly cost of a site this popular (and the system requirements and such) I'd consider helping to start one... (which i've stated in the past)--Midnight08 12:47, 26 December 2006 (CST) --Midnight08 17:43, 27 December 2006 (CST)

Agreed, as per my suggestion in "Build Split". A partner site completely ruins the cross-referencing scheme. — 130.58 (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2006 (CST)

If there was a way to limit the rights of "users" who have registered for less than two months, we could solve most of the problems. How clueless can you be after staring at the builds section for two months? Or three, or six months? Skyreal 02:28, 28 December 2006 (CST)

The spirit of the idea is good, but it really does fall short. Unfortunately it goes completely against the GW:YOU policy, and that policy has good merit behind it. Just because an editor is newly registered to the site doesn't mean they have less knowledge of the game, nor does the fact someone has been registered for a long time mean they are more competent at putting together builds. --Zampani 02:51, 28 December 2006 (CST)

Good point. *sigh* /relurk Skyreal 05:16, 28 December 2006 (CST)

I agree with Zampani's argument that "Just because an editor is newly registered to the site doesn't mean they have less knowledge of the game [or vice versa]," but I heartily disagree with using GW:YOU to defend any arguments. It's rather common knowledge that the Build section violates policies simply by existing; if you really wanted to get technical and start quoting policies, you'd need to take a step back first. GW:YOU doesn't really apply to the Builds section for the exact reason Midnight pointed out, but we can't use his suggestion for the reason you stated (time registered =/= experience). -Auron 06:22, 30 December 2006 (CST)

While I'm glad there's no disagreement on time registered != experience, I'm curious about your reasoning in stating GW:YOU doesn't apply. I'm not familiar with whatever point you reference that Midnight made (too many threads going on). As you said, the builds section has and does defy traditions and policies we've had on this site, but I don't believe I misspoke on this particular one. I believe GW:YOU still applies to every portion of this site, and that by restricting build creation, editing, formatting, etc. to certain privileged ranks you defy that policy. And just because a section of the site breaks some policies, this does not mean it can (or should) break any/all policies. --Zampani 17:31, 30 December 2006 (CST)

From Build talk:Main Page

Copied and pasted:

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

So here are my views:

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

Now hopefully, someone can decipher everything I've said and not take it in the wrong way. — Jyro X 19:58, 24 December 2006 (CST)

— Jyro X 05:32, 28 December 2006 (CST)

I agree. With help, I have a nearly complete list of all the popular PvP stuff. Gonna wait 'til the next balance to put it all up — Skuld 06:50, 28 December 2006 (CST)

But as a policy NOB has pretty much fallen flat - seems like most people don't want it, even though some very vocal members do. How is what Jyro suggests going to be put into effect if most people fundamentally disagree with his first point? I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but if GuildWiki:Build Split were put in place BEFORE we tried any other fancy changes I think we'd be making all our lives a hell of a lot easier. --NieA7 06:59, 28 December 2006 (CST)

Why can't we just have a flavor of the month catagory and a player-made catagory? This way, you can all hae your way about documenting the flavor on the month and there will be no objections.--TheDrifter 10:45, 28 December 2006 (CST)

see the Other Ideas in this discussion for that exact same idea --Midnight08 11:57, 28 December 2006 (CST)

I don't see much if at all very much opposition to the fotm section just the removal of original builds. Should we just add the section soon deciding how it is going to work and then decide if we should remove the original builds section.--A Guy 13:44, 28 December 2006 (CST)

I think we should just separate the FotM builds with some simple categorisation so that people can ignore the rest of the builds if they want. That way we can keep the old system, but concentrate on the popular builds as if they were just like any other article in the wiki. They should abide by the same rules as other articles, not by the build rules. Ie no voting, discussion of the build on the talk page, etc. -- (talk) 06:25, 30 December 2006 (CST)

But why keep the old way if we have all the decent stuff? If you can provide proof that it is a decent build, it would be in the decent section no? As a rule, if its good, its probably been done before, if someone can point at an example that falls outside that, it would be great — Skuld 06:29, 30 December 2006 (CST)

Because some people happen to like the old way, Its 1 of the main reasons i use the site. I enjoy trying builds and thinking of new ones and the format here is much more user friendly than the formats ive see elsewhere... and that seems to be a common agreement here... MANY userslike the build section... This serves as a comprimise seperating the really well known builds and offering a way for the large part of the wiki community that DOEs like this build section (even if the system in place to rate these builds isnt good)--Midnight08 13:39, 30 December 2006 (CST)

Popular/FotM section is not the same as good build section. The idea is to separate those builds widely known and used in the Guild Wars community. Those which are not well known or are being created in the wiki should stay out of the FotM/popular section and they could use the current build policy or a modified version of it, while the popular/FoTM section would work just like regular wiki articles. -- (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2006 (CST)

An example. Build:D/Mo 130hp Dervish is good and has gathered lot of positive votes, but if you ask anyone in the game, they will probably not recognise the build even if you explain how it works. This build would belong to the regular builds section. Build:Team - 55/SS has been recently vetted (again), but works well. It is well known. If you ask anyone in the game, they will most likely know what you are tlaking about even if you just say "SS" or "55hp". This belongs to the FotM/popular section. -- (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2006 (CST)

I've known about that build before it was here, been up on gwguru forums for ages. It does its job well, but its kind of a niche due to the small amount of farmable stuff, and the fact that 55 casters are more popular, of course it won't be heard of. — Skuld 06:39, 30 December 2006 (CST)

You listen to what those elitists say about farming builds? Tsk, tsk. -Auron 06:46, 30 December 2006 (CST)

I'm not even sure is Skuld is getting my point or not. -- (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2006 (CST)

(Resetting colons)Since the removal of original builds isn't going to happen, it's best that we work on a way to separate the FotM (aka tried-and-true) from the... not. While the generic solution would be adding another category tag (which makes sense, at least as part of the solution) we should mark the article somehow. Wikipedia's featured article idea comes to mind (the bronze/copper star in the upper-right-hand corner of the Featured Build page). -Auron 07:07, 30 December 2006 (CST)

That'd be my inclination as well. A namespace split might be a decent idea, too. — 130.58 (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2006 (CST)

Meh, scratch that... burn them all. — 130.58 (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2007 (CST)

The Culling of Imagination (or lake thereof)

Well, I'm divided on this. As for regular, garbage PvE builds using generic crap moves, I'm all for getting rid of them. Builds dealing with hard areas (Elite missions, UW, FoW, etc) should stay.

• As for no actual original builds, I think that's stupid.
• I think what's needed with the builds section is an organization scheme that doesn't (and pardon my language) suck balls. Baseballs of course, they're not tasty, so it shouldn't suck them.
• Splitting the favored builds section up into HA (team and solo), GvG (team and solo), RA, and PvE (Farming and Team Farming) is my suggestion.
• There shouldn't be a single "Favored Builds" section but there should be a single "Unfavored Builds." As for "Untested Builds", that section should be broken down identically to the tested builds section proposed earlier by myself (look a line or two up). Real Top 100 guild builds should be vetted just like regular original material.
• Top 100 guild builds should have a template on top of them, like, say, {{top 100 gvg build}}. This could also work for HA/HoH builds using a similar template, like, {{ha winners build}} {{hoh winners build}}, except only builds from a winning HA/HoH team will be applicable. Screenies of each will be required.
• Modification of the top 100 GvG or HoH builds should not be allowed, although proposed variations can be placed under a "Guildwiki variations" sub-category.

This is my 2 cents. This allows for both originality, better navigation, and understanding what is actually vetted by the top-dogs and simply "Favored". Please use multiple *'s under each of my points to argue them or propose modifications to them. This can be done by using the edit button. If you wish to argue my entire proposal, disregard the previous two scentences. --Mgrinshpon 23:25, 30 December 2006 (CST)

EDIT: Commonplace PvE builds should be documented (Minion master, for example). --Mgrinshpon 23:40, 30 December 2006 (CST)

ugh.. @ Skuld, In response to if it's good it's been done before; SOMEONE had to make them, right? So therefore it has happend, allbeit I can't name a specific example.

I'm in favor of keeping the PvE builds section, 'everything works' and such is utter BS if that's true then no builds at all would be unfavoured. IMHO opinion this seems to me to be a bunch of PvP elitism BS. Make a Favored Builds and a Tested Section. Just throw all the cookie cutter SS, MM, Etc Builds into there and have a section so that people who make a unique build can do so. --Dazra 04:03, 3 January 2007 (CST)

This is not elitism, this is not only top 100 GvG.. all the barragers and fire nukers and stuff aswell, but no cleave monks or spellcasting paragons k?

allbeit I can't name a specific example.

kk — Skuld 05:36, 3 January 2007 (CST)
But but... but... cleave monks win PvE! /sniff -Auron 08:33, 3 January 2007 (CST)

Whirling Axe monks imo. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 17:20, 9 January 2007 (CST)

HA and GvG Only?

This is what it seems to boil down to. There is PvP outside of HA and GvG. People fixated on these two battle types need to stop belittling other game types just because they find them distasteful and insist they be removed from the builds section, which is what this ultimately boils down too. This is incredibly egotistical. Isis In De Nile 21:06, 16 January 2007 (CST)

/yawn. The problem isn't in the HA/GvG section. We can find those easily, and ones that suck are quite obvious; not to mention, there aren't nearly as many HA/GvG builds posted as there are PvE builds. If people would focus on guiding the newer players and not shoving builds down their throats, the benefits would be neverending; the newbies would not only learn how to think about builds, but in the future, would make builds that are good enough to turn into FotM. As 130.58 said, Guides are really what we should be focusing on.

On a side note, keep the flaming down. I know I'm egotistical/elitist/arrogant (can you think of any others? Those get OU after awhile), but beating a dead horse (or a horse that doesn't care) serves no purpose. -Auron 21:42, 16 January 2007 (CST)

Ephatic agreement

UnWiki like? Wiki handles things that have atleast one firm foot in objective criteria. So dicussion can revolve around something and a page can be refined and improved. A builds section in a Wiki is like having a bunch of kindergartners present their finger paintings to each other. Highly subjective. Even those builds that are designed for a spcific purpose, and might appear to be more easily commented upon for criticism do not overcome this conceptual obstacle because this is a Wiki about a game, not a guild website, not a "how to farm" website. At least it's not limited to that. You know what should be on GuildWiki? things like this: http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/showthread.php?t=89491 see people at these other fan websites don't have to pose as anything else, like a wiki--yet they can have contributors there that rival or exceed what is being done here. Wikis can excell at these things, but it seems aparent that the Wikified process of presenting builds falls directly prey to the community of Wiki masters. If you dont type 80 wpm, multitask and do what the restof the community seems to be doing, then you'll be processed out. Maybe I expect too much, this is after all, just a fansite right? --Rafe Alexander 23:31, 14 February 2007 (CST)

Out of idle curiosity, what's Guild Wars Guru if not a fansite? --NieA7 05:12, 15 February 2007 (CST)

Did I call it anything other than that? I don't know if it's anything other than fansite. It sure isn't a Wiki. It can do things a Wiki can't and vice versa. Both, it might be argued, are aimed at recieving and disseminating information, usuallu in the form of user contributions, and in some cases exclusive game maker/developer material or access--at lesat in the case of Guild Wars. Perhaps others may read and be lost on the point that I wrote above. I'll try to reword it, but first let me quote Fyren on one small point here: "The goal of the wiki is to provide information to readers, not to help people improve their builds. The build process is just to filter builds to accomplish that goal... --Fyren

perhaps it was some wording of mine somewhere that made him think i was looking for input to improve my build, but I wasn't. I was looking for thoughtful, relevant feedback, but that's another matter. Point being that in other fansites you can seek help with a build--if that's what you want. You're not making a contribution that has to go through any vetting process to find it's way on to some page. There is a looser environment into which you can discuss things in non-Wiki fansites. One thing I found out quick about Wiki, (even after a few snafus) is that it is easy to misplace your writing on a Wiki. If I want to discuss X--and I know people are talking about it--is it something that is even on the Wiki? No, it's not a subject of which the site is about, but it's seeping all over in the discussions throughout. or perhaps various people have made discussions about it but the wording in the titles of the subject are much different than how you might ask the same question or approach it. So now you might have several discussions going on at once that haven't been married up. Like the two Policy Proposals out there right now. This is only one of them, but they both propose certain solutions to what everyone sees as a problem. My argument is that the problem will never go away because conceptually, the Wiki format is not designed to shape what is---by nature--a creative endeavor. It's like art, and what is art for one person isn't for another. Likewise, what is fun in a game for one person isn't fun for another. So there's no objective standard to which any sort of vetting--in the Wiki fashion--that can be reasonably applied. Compund this with what I percieve as an inability to set any sort of standard within the vetting system for quality input (such as mentioning an example of a better build, instead of just saying it, voting then moving on) because of the Wiki way of doing things and you get a pointless excercise in futility. Talk and debate about how to stab the beast piles up everywhere in the discussions, taking away from the attention to the content of the Wiki itself, tainting it's quality, sucking the life out of people who are otherwise trying to keep things running smoothly.

Gah, use paragraphs! 132.203.83.38 15:33, 27 February 2007 (CST)

Have you seen the Recent Changes recently?

Seriously. At least half of all the edits are for some so-called original build that looks terrible on paper. Usually more during the noob-hours of the day. I'll be honest, I haven't tried those exact builds, but I have a feeling they either will work in 1 and only 1 situation, or simply is inefficient overall. Guildwiki is really turning into buildwiki, and furthermore, bad-buildwiki. I think the real source of the bad-build problem comes from the fact that authors don't really test their builds thoroughly before trying to publish them. 10-wins-in-a-row in RA is not a thorough test, winning a few AB battles is not thorough testing, holding HA once is not thorough testing, beating 1 mission or farming 1 mob is not thorough testing. What we have now is a bunch of untested builds, likely written by inexperienced players, that will never become FotM or gain any status of popularity. --8765 14:14, 27 February 2007 (CST)

I think much of the build problem is starting to cool off. I'll be the first to admit we have some bad builds in the Tested section, but we are weeding through them. Remember, you can still vote on a build once it has been vetted. One case in point would be the Build:W/any Perpetual Knocker. It was vetted, and the community took note and voted it into the Unfavored section. In my opinion, it is the position that many users have adopted, to ignore the Builds section entirely, that will be most damaging. Good, experienced, and knowledgable contributors are needed to ensure bad builds never get vetted. If so many users ignore the Builds section, it just makes it that much easier for some n00b build to slide through the cracks. (P.S. If anyone reading this would like to see some examples of bad Tested builds, just message my talk page and I'll show you what I'm talking about). - Krowman (talk • contribs) 14:31, 27 February 2007 (CST)

"Good, experienced, and knowledgable contributors" Good luck finding those. The reverse occurs as well: as people pour in bad builds, the legit testers get overwhelmed and frustrated and eventually give up. And what good is weeding out the builds when the bad ones always come back. You have to pull the weeds by its roots to kill it. --8765 14:39, 27 February 2007 (CST)

Can you provide some examples of bad builds that "always come back?" I haven't come across any builds that have moved from the Unfavored section into the Vetted one without undergoing significant changes first. There are knowledgeable players here on the wiki; you can usually find them voting unfavorably on bad builds (well, so long as they haven't abandoned the section entirely). What I'm saying is that the solution to the problem is for people to not give up on the Builds section; it can be improved through the contributions of knowledged and experienced players. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 14:51, 27 February 2007 (CST)

I can, there was a guy yesterday who posted the same build twice under a different name, I forgot the name, but it was definatly a bad build. --SigmA 14:53, 27 February 2007 (CST)

And it was vetted? - Krowman (talk • contribs) 14:54, 27 February 2007 (CST)

You overspecify a general statement. Most bad builds have similar properties, varying between professions. It's not a mending+HB build that shows up everyday, it's the whole concept of a spell-casting heavy war that comes back. I believe we have different definitions of basically a good player. I will say though, good players are becoming scarce ingame, and the guildwiki community is a basically a sample of the ingame community. Now I'll throw the question back to you, can you provide the list of knowledgeable players that actively contribute to the build section? --8765 15:01, 27 February 2007 (CST)

Well, I can't say they're always right, but here's a list of users that I respect:

• User:Defiant Elements
• User:Rapta
• User:Auron of Neon
• User:Lania Elderfire
• User:Llednar
• User:Silk Weaker
• User:Entropy
• User:Skuld
• I'm sure I'm not listing all the good players and editors; this is a top of my head list...

As well, I don't see the logic in your statement about GW having scarce skilled players. First of all, I flat out disagree with the idea, because you can see dozens of skilled players on Ob Mode every night. Secondly, and most critically, I can't fathom how you came to this judgement: If the collective skill of GW players is dropping and good players are becoming more scarce, then the scale you use to judge players would drop comparitively. Good players are those who are better at playing the game than others. How can there be less and less of these? Clearly, we all are not becoming more and more homogenized in skill levels. The good players will continue to stand out from the bad ones; I don't understand how you can say there are less of these outstanding players around these days. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 15:28, 27 February 2007 (CST)

IMO there are more skilled players these days... it just seems like there are less skilled players because the large influx of newbies since nightfall. Nightfall is a huge success for Anet but many of those newbies are quickly becoming skilled players. I mean just look at the top 100, there are a lot of new faces this season, changes in the meta, different fotm's, and new styles of play cropping up in GvG. The thing is that many top HA pvpers don't really contribute a ton to the wiki, especially the ones in the high 10+ rank. On the other hand there are some top GvGers that contribute to the wiki fairly often, such as Auron, warskull, etc. --Lania Elderfire 18:07, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

Out of curiosity

Rebuild the wiki's reputation as a documentation site, and not as a joke.

I don't want to say this is wrong, but I never, EVER, seen anyone call the wiki a joke. In fact, here's what I usually see on various chats:

• Person A:GLF one BoA Sin to go.
• Person B:What's a BoA Sin?
• Person C: Check guildwiki

I've seen "Moebius Impaler LFG". That's the name used to describe a high DPS assassin with Moebius Strike and an IAS, and the name as far as I know originated on the wiki. So, I've always seen the build section (read:TESTED part) as a mark of prestige and not a joke. I'll be more willing to retract this statement if someone can give me evidence that the general conesnesus outside the wiki is that the builds section is stupid.--Nog64Talk 18:47, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

Step one; go to GWG, and say "GuildWiki's build section ROCKS!". Step two; wait to get flamed/made fun of/ridiculed/thread closed/etc. -Auron 18:50, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

No one has ever said that our documentation side is bad because we have the builds section. People see them as separate sides of the wiki. -- (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

And Gem is correct there. PvPers refer to GWiki *nonstop* for skill descriptions, elite capping locations, and (less frequently) item locations, but they don't use it for builds. However... Proof, you ask for? Have fun. -Auron 19:12, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

General PvE

I mostly support the suggestion in its current state, but there is one small thing which I might want to change a little. The suggestion states that all PvE non-farming builds are 'original' and should be in user name space, which mostly is ok to me, but I would like to reserve a possibility for well known builds which work well in PvE, like the touch ranger. Also, some farming builds might be used for non-farming uses, sometimes with variation. For example the UW trapping build can be modified to be a UW clearing group able to complete all quests, which doesn't really fit under 'farming'. Any comments, ideas, suggestions? -- (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

Touch Rangers, for example, would be there anyway (while we have it as FotM for RA, we can keep the PvE general tag on it), but any other builds I'm not too sure on. I tried to include PvE as much as I could, but aside from elite missions, most of it doesn't have stringent-enough requirements for classes/skills (which is where the "it's PvE, anything works" comes from). If you have a suggestion, I'd be glad to hear it, but I couldn't find a way to include general PvE without running into the problems we have now. -Auron 19:36, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

I'll think about it and post any ideas I get. I know it's a hard problem to solve and that's why I posted here to ask for ideas. It's not a big problem really as most if not all important builds are also farming/PvP builds, but it's the only problem I could see in the suggestion. -- (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

We could expand and improve upon all the "Effective (profession) guides," and more or less eliminate the need for a General PvE section. But yeah, we'd have to maintain the more specific builds. It's an idea anyways. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 19:53, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

One other thing I noted while reading the revised policy. It states that one of the advantages is that it will "possibly attract the PvP player base." This means that our player base here at the wiki is largely PvE-oriented. Shouldn't the wiki be catering to the desires of its player base then? - Krowman (talk • contribs) 20:17, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

So you don't want the PvP players coming? We've got enough PvEers to stay afloat; if we're lacking anything, it's the PvPers (and that's partly because of your mentality, shared by others; "let us do what we're doing how we want to do it." Nobody wants to help someone with that outlook). The Wiki is already PvE-oriented, to a level that has chased PvPers away time and time again; it's high time we let them come. -Auron 20:26, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

Meh, that line is misleading anyway. I'm taking it out. -Auron 20:32, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

No, we definitely need PvPers. I have maintained this position for a long time. My stance is that we need more knowledgeable and experienced PvPers to contribute here on the wiki. My first suggestion would probably be the best combination of ease and effectiveness. My second point, though, I think is perfectly valid. We should be looking out for the PvEers, especially since the wiki is largely composed of them. I think that with either of my suggestions (more PvPers contributing, or dropping the General PvE section for more comprehensive profession guides) will work, and will cater to both communities of players. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 20:37, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

the alternative solution

i think the build section is useful, but i conceed it's become WAY overpopulated with junk, therefore, i am sugguesting we streamline the process to getting builds validated or deleted.

1. eliminate the stub section. no builds should be submitted without the complete build, including counters and weaknesses. this will force the writer to test before putting pen to page (so to speak). otherwise, leave it in userspace.
2. appoint editors (or call for volunteers) to patrol the untested section. people who wander those hazardous halls looking for the best (or worst, depending on your point of view) builds to disposition.
3. there are only two possible solutions to an untested build, a speedy promotion or a rapid delete ( if delete is unpalatabe, move to userspace instead, but one or the other, no case by case choices.)
4. four votes to promote, four votes to drop. (yes, i know policied voting is taboo, but this isn't an easily verifiable factsheet, it's somewhat subjective)

so the process becomes:

1. is the build complete, valid, and testable? this is a judgement call by the first admin on site. no=delete, author may resubmit by creating a new complete, valid and testable build article.
2. is the build suitable for purpose (i.e it works for a practical situation), and worthy of retention (i.e. not a single skill variant)? this is the vote. no=delete, no resubmitting.
3. the build is valid, categorize and place in the build section.

along with this, we'd need a periodic review. new campaigns would be ideal times to review. botmark all builds as "needs update" when a new campaign is released. any build not updated within two months goes to either the build graveyard or the delete bin. review could be as simple as someone looking up the build and deciding it's still valid and removing the update tag.

getting there, we'd need the following actions:

1. delete all stub builds.
2. botmark all current builds as "needs review"
3. start vetting good builds, archiving or deleteing bad ones.

m'kay, that's my proposal.

--Honorable Sarah 21:04, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

This would require a lot of extra work and appointing users to certain tasks, which are both bad. This also doesn't get rid of the voting problem. -- (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

any correction of the current mess is going to require more effort. the shower doesn't clean itself (no matter how hard i wish it would... ) --Honorable Sarah 21:47, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

I think we're past the voting/vetting stage. Too many people have acknowledged the flaws in that system, especially on a Wiki, and the policy currently proposes a better plan of action than keeping the system entirely with a few changes. Your policy sounds good on paper, but it doesn't change much; voting still takes place, people will still bitch and whine, and authors will still be overly defensive and unwilling to accept criticisms. Deleting the "unfavored" builds wouldn't be a bad change, but honestly, all that is solved by moving original builds to userspace. -Auron 01:19, 13 March 2007 (CDT)

the idea is to raise the bar of entry so we're not maintaining low quality builds. if all builds must be complete with counters before being submitted, that stops the anon from posting his "omega-l33t mending warrior" build for other editors to repair and disposition. if you only have 30-60 days to update builds after a campaign change, you are going to start with the best builds, and work down, leaving the low quality ones to the scythe. --Honorable Sarah 21:02, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

How about this instead?

I propose that what we just need is a better way of finding and organizing builds. This will make it easier for people to _play_ Guild Wars. Example: "List users who have this build tagged 'favorite'", and "List users who have this build tagged 'funny'". Then anyone who has the same taste/style in builds/play as "Random User 1" can just look for builds (by other users or Random User 1) that "Random User 1" has tagged 'favorite' or 'good'. If people like builds tagged good/bad/joke/funny by some other user let them find what they want so that they can _play_ the way they want. The admins can decide on the tags that users can use to tag builds e.g. 'favorite', 'good', 'soso', 'bad', 'wontwork', 'funny', 'joke', 'wtf'. Allowing users create their own tags is not advisable.

This way the site can have a NPOV whilst the users can have whatever POV they want. People could then find "whammo+mending" builds instead of those builds automatically getting voted down and deleted (believe me there are cases where whammo+mending builds are useful and the cases and builds might as well be documented).

To me the only reason a build should be deleted is if there is an identical build with identical usage. In order to reduce duplication of builds one should also make it easier to search for builds given a set of skills. Sure Anet has made things harder with duplicate skills, but it'll still be better than nothing.

Remember: Guild Wars is a _game_ and not everyone plays Guild Wars the same way as you or for the same reasons. Seems some people actually have fun playing that necro suicide build I saw the other day. What I found interesting was someone found it _fun_ and voted it unfavored. To me that's a sign the unfavored/favored concept is broken. I don't think Guildwiki should be in the "business" of documenting what works "best" when "best" is often very subjective (a build that works well for low ping+fast reflexes may not work for someone with high ping/slow reflexes). Helping make playing Guild Wars a more enjoyable experience would be a better (though not sole) goal. 218.208.192.175 09:45, 13 March 2007 (CDT) (updated for clarity: targetdrone)

Who is removing the section? -Auron 02:07, 13 March 2007 (CDT)

And furthermore, we can't and won't assign duties to admins, as most dislike the section as it is. The only one that got seriously involved was Skuld, and he's not an admin now. Regular contributors slap tags on builds all the time, that's all we can ask for. -Auron 02:09, 13 March 2007 (CDT)

I was just using Skuld as an _example_, I've replaced his name, and rewrote stuff a bit. Hopefully people will find it easier to understand my suggestion now. 218.208.192.175 09:45, 13 March 2007 (CDT) (targetdrone)

They shouldn't look for ones that I recommend, they should look for good ones and learn from that. — Skuld 04:38, 13 March 2007 (CDT)

I wasn't suggesting they do. The point is "good" can be subjective. So if people like what XYZ tags 'favorite', allow them to search for that. Whereas if others like whatever ABC has tagged as 'wtf', let them search for those instead. 218.208.192.175 09:45, 13 March 2007 (CDT) (targetdrone)

Did you read the policy suggestion at all? It doesn't suggest removing builds from the wiki. -- (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2007 (CDT)

Yes I actually did. Anyway, I'm removing much of what I said and leaving just my main points, so that people can focus on that instead. 218.208.192.175 09:45, 13 March 2007 (CDT)(targetdrone)

AB and CM?

Why exactly are all AB and CM builds judged as unworthy by this proposal? I was under the impression that this was a Guild Wars Wiki, not an HAGVG Wiki. AB and CM are just as relevant to the wiki as other forms of PvP. Cynical 08:38, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

I'm not sure, but it must be that these are PvP forms where the team is random, so you cannot efficiently have a 100% stable build, as a lot depends on your team mates. -- (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

They are randomfests for the main part, even worse than RA. Still, if you want to run a decent build, most GvG stuff works fine, they're sort of the same environments, unlike HA which is just designed around holding an altar. — Skuld 14:33, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

We could drop RA and CM, but we should keep AB. It has a different playstyle than the other areas, and you can't really interchange AB and GvG builds seamlessly. One example that comes to mind is the Build:E/A Starburster. AB requires some pre-planning and team co-ordination, and isn't completely random. We could certainly drop the RA and CM tags, as anything can work there, but AB =/= GvG. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 18:15, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

I reorganised it a bit. AB builds are now accepted too. -- (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

I was so disappointed by CM's, it would have been so much better if you could pick your teams. But as far as my opinion on AB goes, I think it should be pretty limited as AB still highly depends on the other 2 teams of 4 on your side, so there is still a lot of the random factor going on. --Lania Elderfire 20:30, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

You can still set up your squad though, removing it from the same category of randomness as RA and CM. It's similiar to TA in that way, even if AB does have a unique playstyle. (By the way, I totally share your opinion on CMs.) - Krowman (talk • contribs) 21:03, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

Yeah I agree it's about the same level as TA, just one step down... Just imagine, CM's with the synergy at the level of GvG style PvP. Now that would be great --Lania Elderfire 21:10, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

AB/CM/RA are cut-off typically because of the level of play there. Players go into RA/CMs/ABs with bad builds and think they are doing good because their team may win in spite of them. A good example of RA is how I got 2 glad points running a Eviscerate, Crit Chop, Glyph Sac Obs Flame warrior. That is obviously not a good idea, but I could run on guildwiki and say I got two glad points with this. Sadly, people would probably vet it and I wouldn't get called an idiot nearly enough. Go into Alliance Battles and you will find some terrible builds that noobs will defend ferociously as being the best build ever. If you want to have AB builds go for it, just be warned that section will require a lot more policing and will have a lot more headaches. There simply isn't a "popular and successful" standard set there. -Warskull 23:17, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

Well, to be fair, it's not like this doesn't happen in HA and even GvG. We were looking a water trident snarer, and we got a guy running Mind Freeze and Ice spear saying his build's better. I think it would be unfair to say that there is metagame in R/TA and AB/CM. There are definite builds that form as a result of this playstyle (read:Touch Ranger), and could be documented rather easily. This requires some work (i.e., you have to go ACTUALLY play the missions and look for these builds, not just observe), but can be done.--Nog64Talk 23:24, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

The are certainly builds that are good within RAs, ABs, CMs, ect. The problem is as you go down the chain of game play types the "popular and successful" test becomes more and more difficult to implement. Popular and successful is easy for GvG. Was a guild running it, did they do any good? It is a little harder for HA, but go ask an HA player what the HA water ele is and almost any player can tell you. You can watch HoH matches to get a good idea of what is popular and successful in halls too. TA is a bit harder, as you have no obs mode and a lot faster evolving metagame. The metagame exists in ABs and RA. Right now, I would say the AB metagame is sins, E/Ds (earth tanks are popular, but dumb), and bad warriors. In addition in RA/AB the popular builds diverge from the successful builds even more. When Skuld originally posted this and I gave rough criteria, the idea was to make it as difficult as possible for the wiki to shoot itself in the foot. The metagame and play level on RA and ABs can get so low that that arguing successful can be darn near impossible and I feel those sections would require too much moderation. Furthermore, considering the difficulty of tracking the metagame (it is not as clear cut with only weakly observable trends) I just think it would just share too many problems with the previous builds section. -Warskull 16:36, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

So should we deem all AB and TA builds 'original' too? -- (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

TA has always been viewed as a legitimate (skilled-based) form of PvP. Aside from bias, it's quite hard to get a ton of glad points from TA. It takes a real build (and skilled players) to win 10 rounds of TA (over and over). AB is a different story. I've made my argument against it a bunch, and I'll assume everyone knows it; however, if the community wants AB builds to be a category, here's the cut-off: 4-man builds. That would be the only sensible option (if we allowed single builds for AB, how would it differ from RA?). -Auron 17:37, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

TA can be tracked, but it will be more difficult than HA/GvG. -Warskull 03:47, 17 March 2007 (CDT)

You brought out one point which everyone was forgetting: Build team size limitations. I'm sure that TA, AB, HA and GvG should have a full team in the build. PvE running is solo ofcourse (none of the runs in the game need a duo build atm) and farming rangers from solo to a team. -- (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

I mostly agree. GvG builds aren't eight one-person builds thrown together; it's a build made to work well with one another. Cross-character synergy is hard to make and carry out, but most effective. However, there are some 1-person builds commonly thrown into GvG or HA teams (burst sin, monk bars, flag runners etc) that can stand alone and perform well. -Auron 18:17, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

In all formats you have some character archetypes that plug into most builds. For example the reaper's mark degen, shock axe, ZB monk, and LoD monk all fill a role and can be fairly easily plugged into most GvG builds with minor modifications. I don't think there should be a requirement to post more than one character. Just post as many characters as required to make the strategy function. For example you don't post the soul barbs spiker without his RI buddy. In the current 3-man recall gank you would post it as a 3-man team. -Warskull 03:47, 17 March 2007 (CDT)

CM/AB/RA is the breeding grounds for bad builds. A working build section would require staying away from those areas. Here's a typical scenario between Player1 (a noob) and Player2 (exped player):

1. Player1 creates a Warrior build running Riposte, Bonetti's Defense, Sever Artery, Healing Breeze, Mending, and Dolyak Signet.
2. Player1 enters Fort Aspenwood (Luxon).
3. Player2 enters FA (Kurz) with a Shock Axe build.
4. Player1 meets Player2. After several strikes, Player2 is unable to kill Player1. Player2 flees, begins to kill Luxon NPC's.
5. Match ends, Luxon have killed the Architect.

Now, does anyone see what has happened? Player1, a noob running a tank build in PvE, was able to make an experienced player flee. This leaves the impression that Player1 is running a good build. Plus, with Luxons having a natural advantage in the specified Competitive mission, Player1 thinks he's got a working PvP build that can win games. That is the problem with such areas, where the inexperienced only grow in arrogance when they can win with poor builds, and develop the idea that their build is good. Then, they proceed with posting their "pwnage" build on this wiki. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 23:10, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

Here's maybe an addon/alternative

Why not restrict editing of the builds section from anons and new users? That would take care of sockpuppetry, for one, and definately get rid of a lot of crappy builds. You look who made a lot of those unfavored builds, and they're anons who have edited that build alone for most of their contribs. That's a step we HAVE to take if we want a good builds section, IMHO. Most of your more "seasoned users":

• Actually have an awareness of FotM and metagame.
• Know what good skill synergy is.
• Know where there build is appropriate
• Make their builds stubs first
• Act like less of an asshole than the anons.

In my book, a good idea.--Nog64Talk 22:51, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

It's been said before. A build section like this is un-wiki-like. The whole point of a wiki is to acquire input from all users. Isolating a specific audience is against the very foundation a wiki is based on. The only way to have a working builds section is to remove the voting and opinion, and have standard, staple, metagame builds, with creative builds moved to the user namespace. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 22:57, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

Well, by that rule, couldn't you say protecting the main page is unwikilike? I would argue that by not doing this, it is detrimental to the wiki, so therefore it would be in the best interests of the wiki community to prohibit somewhat the editing of the builds section. By this restriction, NOB will more inherently flow into the builds section, while leaving room for viable original for say, PvE. Seems like a pretty good compromise.--Nog64Talk 23:01, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

The Main Page is protected to prevent Vandalism. There's no problem with Vandals in the Builds section. The problem is poor builds. Such a problem cannot be handled by a Wiki, unless it is simply restricted to standard, no-questions-asked builds. The current problem covers both the PvE and PvP sections right now, but is mostly worse with the PvE section as there is no standard "metagame" to look at. People can post what they want, and have it vetted just because it can kill one monster every 10 mobs. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 23:13, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

Implementing a policy like no original builds would reduce the need to do this. If someone posts their build and then gets 30 sock puppets to say it is a great GvG build it doesn't matter. It only takes one person to say "You are wrong, I have never seen this in the top 100. Prove this is a GvG build and cite a top 100 running it." -Warskull 03:49, 17 March 2007 (CDT)

Atleast one of the admins is also usually experienced enough in any of the different PvE and PvP fields and able to delete anything even if someone really creates 30 sockpuppets. Besides, NOB doesn't include any voting at all, just discussion to polish the build article into great shape. -- (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2007 (CDT)

<ri>I'd like to see a nomination system used to pull the NOB-acceptable builds out of the existing build section first, before existing favored builds are wiped. Then wipe. NOB is a vetting process, after all, whose criteria are observed "popularity" and "success" in the defined categories. I'd like to see those categories include some PVE non-run/farm builds (see Krowman's comments below). Of course, NOB still needs a method built-in for discussion of popularity and success for proposed build additions; I don't see any info as to how and by whom a build is OK'd. And I hate to see every single-character build removed; again, see Krowman's comments below. There should be some allowance for observed popular/successful single-character PVE builds. (And iconic single-char PVP too, if you ask me. Yeah, I know that's contentious. =) ) — HarshLanguage 22:20, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

Wipe is faster, easier. We can still extract the good builds, see User:Auron of Neon/Archive effort. If you want them, save them. I am really opposed to single-char PvP at this point, maybe if there is ever a more defined 1vs1 type of combat, we could go with it, but not now. It's almost useless. For the NOB selection process, it's pretty simple: popular builds get posted, unpopular or original builds go to your user space. If you've ever heard of it, or seen it on Ob Mode a few times, it will likely make it to the build space. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 22:28, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

Easier and faster, yes. Not sure that's better, though. I know popular/successful single-char PVP is likely a lost cause at this point. (Sadly, in the case of something like AB/RA touchers.) I hope PVE builds are not a lost cause; that would be bad for the wiki. As for the vetting of someone's claim that a build has been observed/popular/successful, is it supposed to just be assent/consensus on the talk page after posting? — HarshLanguage 22:38, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

Basically. If you play the game, you more or less know what wis popular. You demonstrated it yourself in the above paragraph when you were talking about the Toucher. It is very easy to determine if something is popular or not. I suppose that might be a good rule of thumb, but I honestly don't think determining what is popualr will be too big of an issue. If something popular is accidentally deemed unpopular, just back it up with references and evidence, and the problem can be solved. It's kinda hard for us to have a system for judging popularity, but as a general rule, if you've heard of it, or seen it on Obs Mode a few times, that would make it popular enough to get onto the wiki. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 23:41, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

This is an idea I'd like to see happen. Allowing only seasoned users to make builds would seriously cleanup alot of the, and pardon my language, sh*t commonly seen in anything untested. Honestly, 90% of the stuff is pure garbage. Having a 2 month minimum or something like that before allowing to make anything with "Build:" in it is where it's at. This was my first instinct to this proposition and after reading the other suggestions, this is the least drastic option giving both original builds and banning idiots from making stupid builds. --Mgrinshpon 19:31, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

Discussion on making this policy

On GuildWiki talk:Post No Builds we have planned a complete sweep of the whole build name space, after which a new policy comes into effect. I would personally like to see this one used, and I'm wanting to hear other peoples opinnions on the matter now. The policy has been tweaked and will probably be tweaked, but I would like to hear peoples views on the general idea of this policy and whether they supposrt it to be the policy after the build section sweep. -- (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

After a fashion. I don't see any problems with making this policy, I just don't want it brought into effect immediately after the nuke. The wiki needs a break from the build section. Also, I would hate to miss something simply because we were trying to blitzkrieg this into policy so we'd have no policy downtime. -Auron 17:20, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

I don't see anything good in a build section down time. It only removes something usefull from users for some time with no additional beneifts. The policy can be discussed before the sweep as effectively as it could be discussed after it. -- (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

Auron's right; let's not blitzkrieg this. Let's iron out the kinks of the policy, and then implement it. I don't think it will take that long, and we will probably have something pretty solid in the next few weeks. I also don't see any need for a wiki-break. I agree with Gem; let's get to it. Criteria for allowed builds looks good, though we probably should add a very minimalist section for (very) common, verified PvE builds, like the Renewal Nuker, SS Nuker, etc. Otherwise, these don't have a home in the new policy. That's an easy problem though, let's not waste too much time on it. I think the biggest hurdle is deciding who says a build makes the cut. It's not too difficult to determine which builds are popular in the metagame, so maybe a group/council of ~20 users could be selected to collaborate on what skills go into the main bar, the attribute spreads, etc. This eliminates the proven-ineffective method of voting, while also allowing for discussion, debate, and collaboration, which are the foundations of a wiki. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 19:10, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

No council or group of any sorts should be selected ever in a wiki. Users come and go, some lose interest, go on holiday, ... The policy should be built so that a certain group or person is not needed. -- (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

Any non-voting suggestions? - Krowman (talk • contribs) 20:15, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

I still like the builds section, but I agree, after the nuke, we need something, or people will just begin re-posting their builds. To cover obvious points, the vetting system's crap. We're still going to have trouble with arguements over what is or isn't a popular build (granted, not as many arguements, but the point remains, crappy builds can still make it into HA/GvG). I think something like this should be in effect, if not this exactly. There needs to be a restriction on what can be posted in the first place; and simply voting like normal to decide if the build is really that popular won't work.

Perhaps a minor Build namespace for new build articles to be posted into? Builds can later be moved up to the main namespace or deleted/moved to the creator's userspace, after people have discussed if it's a viable build ("viable" meaning, you've seen it used with success in high-rank PvP more then once or twice, or it definately works, in the case of a Farming build, if we decide to keep these). This would restrict the flow of new builds greatly.

one other thing I think would be good is to date builds, based on when they were created. This would allow players to look back at good PvP builds, and it would let GuildWiki document the metagame quite well at the same time.

Just my opinion. -- Jioruji Derako.> 20:50, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

Good idea with the dating thing. It would be impossible to document exactly when something became popular and unpopular, but a rough guess would be a useful little bit of information to have on the wiki. Your suggestion though, is very similiar to the current system, minus the voting. I can still foresee users slinging insults and the like when their builds don't make it to the upper echelons of the new buildspace. Maybe the disputes will happen anywhere; let's not get into that, and stay focused on policy building. People can still post crap builds, and the community will waste time shooting them down, when we could be improving the good builds we already have, or incorporating new ones into the wiki. I know Warskull would certainly like it if we could elaborate on some of the more complicated builds we already have. Anyways, I think you're 'minor build namespace' could basically be the same as our 'user space' idea. People add the tags, get them reviewed, yada yada, once they're good to go, we can add them to the new buildspace. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 20:58, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

Damn, dinnertime. However, I'll make this quick; if it's an original build, it won't be moved into the main build space. It will always be an original build, no matter how good it is. If it isn't an original build (if it meets the criteria of NOB), then we can post it straight to the build space. -Auron 21:02, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

That is what I mean. The reason for discussion first would be to work out things like attribute spreads and equip choices. On reflection, we could drop them right into the build space, and have a long list of variants on those sorts of things. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 21:05, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

That sounds fine to me. I like the idea of having at least one, good and effective build for each profession combonation though, as well. Perhaps not as entirely new builds, but an extention to the current profession guides (I think someone mentioned this before). More of a PvE thing. Just few ideas, and simplified; have a simple build, and follow that up with explainion on how it works, how it can be improved, and etcetra. I could probably whip up a decent S&F template for something like that. Other PvE builds, more complucated ones, would just stay on userspace, and maybe be linked from a simple catagory page, for people that enjoy looking at builds such as this. And we retain a good resorce for newer players, who are simply looking for a good starting build for a character; preferably a build with no secondary requirements, and one that works without too much investment. Easy-to-get skills would be a bonus.

And of course, this leaves the buildspace for popular builds, such as BoA Sin, 55 Monk, SF Ele... (those just off the top of my head.) -- Jioruji Derako.> 21:16, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

<ri>You're thinking of the "General (profession) guides?" If you want to improve them, that'd be great, I encourage it. If you want help with any of them, I'll help out as well. Just give me a day or two to finish backing up some of the builds we currently have here, then I'd be happy to pitch in. Glad to here you're on board. Message my talk page if you need anything. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 21:22, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

That's exactly what I'm talking about. The current layout uses other high-end builds as examples; my suggestion would be to simply have a few easy-to-use and simple example builds, with notes for newbies ("this is why this build works so well...") and notes for experienced players ("by adding so-and-so to this build, you can change it to a highly specialized so-and-so build"). I'm currently a bit limited in my editing capabilties (long story short, I'm left-handed, and my left arm is busy being in a sling at the moment). I'll see if I can simply copy one of the profession guides to my userspace later, and I'll run a few changes by you guys. -- Jioruji Derako.> 00:13, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

POLL: Well-known PvE Builds

Ok, let's keep this short and sweet. Here's the proposal: incorporate a minimalist PvE section to the NOB policy only for very popular PvE builds that don't fit into any of the PvP categories. Some examples would be the Build:E/any Renewal Nuker, Build:N/Me SS Nuker, and Build:R/any General Barrager. Without this PvE section, these popular builds wouldn't have a home in the new policy, and there's no doubt that the wiki would be a better documentation resource with them on it. So here's the question: Are you, or are you not, in favor of adding a minimalist PvE section to the NOB policy for very popular and unoriginal PvE builds? - Krowman (talk • contribs) 21:13, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

YES

1. Definitely. Can't ignore PVEers or punish them by relegating very useful builds into the wilds of userspace. Archetypal or very popular general PVE builds (beyond running and farming) should be considered non-original and included. — HarshLanguage 22:08, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
2. Ditto. General Barrage or Interrupt ranger builds are a good example; I really don't think anyone has much basis behind any arguement of "Barrage ranger is an original build." -- Jioruji Derako.> 00:06, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
3. Same. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs)
4. Yeah --Lania Elderfire 00:14, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
5. We need to, for sheer fact that this is Guildwiki, not PvPwiki.--Nog64Talk 20:10, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
6. Can you really call yourself a Wiki and not have articles for SS Nuker, Renewal Nuker, Flame Barrager, Impaler, Splinter Weapon Spike, EoE Bomb...etc? Even if they are kept strictly to bare-bones documentation I think it is absolutely necessary to have a Minimalist section of this kind. (T/C) 20:18, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
7. Will all the PvE builds be farming builds, because those are optimal? Should group farming builds be listed together or separately? As an example, the farming build for Kepkhet's Refuge is a tank, a monk, and a nuker (last time I checked). Which demands, what is a tank? what is a monk? and what is a nuker? These aren't trivial things, and they aren't in the profession guides. The renewal nuker really shouldn't be in the elementalist guide. The build doesn't have to be perfect or absolute. The pvp ones aren't.
8. What the others said. - -Sora267 12:55, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
9. There is a clear and common case of certain builds being used in the unique environment of PvE. There is no reason to ignore otherwise or say it is impossible to judge. It is certainly possible to judge what is usable and common and what is not to the avid PvE'r. Isis In De Nile 11:12, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

NO

1. Against the NOB concept in general. But how are you going to go about determining the rather subjective popular builds? How can one fairly determine if a build is popular enough to stay? Who gets to decide in accordance with GW:YOU? You'd need some sort of Rate-a-Popularity function, which would lead to flaming and other violations of GW:NPA, which is what this proposal seems to be geared towards.--Warwulf 01:16, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
2. Wipe everything, and if need be, start over — Skuld 04:16, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
3. Impossible to decide what works more than other builds, when PvE has no cut-off or definite way of telling which build is "best" for a general character trying to make its way through the game. If warriors with energy surge can win PvE, no built-in cutoff exists. Trying to force one in ourselves will yield results *very much like* our current build section. Anything even remotely close to our current system should not exist. Use "Effection (Profession) guides" instead of build articles. -Auron 05:55, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
4. Same as Auron. Packing it in profession guides is a much better idea, else you had to do the same for popular pvp builds, for the very same reasoning. --Ineluki 07:05, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

OTHER

1. Not yet. Let's first try the policy as it stands now and then try this addition if everything goes well. As pointed out earlier, most if not all of these builds either work in PvP or in farming, so they would still be allowed. -- (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
2. I think we should have a pve section, but not minimalist. —Blastedt 20:12, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
3. Load of good work in those builds, it'd be criminal to waste it. Seeing as builds appear to be a dying breed how about some brave soul re-writes them as guides with example skill bars? --NieA7 07:12, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Discussion

I've split the "discussion" of the "votes" here... I thought more of you guys than to pester everyone who disagrees with you, and the area should be kept clean and viewable. — Skuld 04:27, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

No need for the insult, Skuld. But thanks for the move. =) — HarshLanguage 04:33, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Removed the bullshit "response to ____ unfavored voter" section. Doesn't belong and isn't wiki-like. If you have a concern with said user and the way they vote, take it to their talk page; keep it out of polls and general discussion, as it doesn't belong and doesn't help at all. -Auron 05:57, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Added it back. This is valid discussion and belongs to this page. -- (talk) 06:02, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Meh. Waste of space/time/energy, but if others want to waste it, I'm not going to stop them. Sorry for removing it. -Auron 06:24, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

I moved the text from the "vote" part to its own discussion section, feel free to stick it on talk pages or w/e, I was in a hurry — Skuld 06:43, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Discussion is never waste of time and space if it keeps on the matter at hand, which the below discussion does. A vote or poll isn't a solusion, discussion is. -- (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

---

In response to Warwulf

1. Your objection makes some sense, but, on the other hand, can you really argue that we shouldn't have something for Barrage builds (i.e. Guides for well known builds) or Ranger Interrupter builds. I don't think the idea would be to vote on popularity, but, rather, just document the obvious ones. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs)

   Please just answer the question being asked. You can debate those other policies elsewhere; this is just a simple poll. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 01:25, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

   Warwulf, the exact same criticism can be made of NOB's vetting of PVP builds. What's popular enough? What's successful enough? PVP is slightly more quantifiable, but not much. When I brought up the issue of those vetting standards at NOB, I was told that it would be obvious. If so, popularity in terms of "well-known" and "oft-used" is obvious for PVE too: they're the ones people talk about, the ones they reference by name. Easy. — HarshLanguage 21:38, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

In response to Gem

1. But by the mere acceptance, we kick PVE builds to the curb. With only the possibility to come back. Do we really want that? Better to put the respect for PVE explicitly into the policy. — HarshLanguage 03:37, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

   I don't play PvP at all, only PvE, and I still see not having the general PvE build stuff as a good thing. As I've said many times, most of those builds would still be let in as they either work in PvP or farming. Allowing general PvE builds will cause trouble if done immediately as people are still used to the old system and try to get their 'original' builds into the build name space. If we have zero tolerance for them in the beginning, people will notice the new policy and the differences, after which making the change will be easy. Note that all voters are still in favor of the general PvE builds so they will likely be accepted later on. We just need some time and a agood working guideline for them. -- (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

   That's not really what the question is asking, though. The question doesn't have any tolerance for original builds, as it clearly states. It would be for very common builds, that are just part of an experienced player's lexicon, but are new and even confusing to a newer person. The most prominent example I can think of is the Barrager. No one uses that in any form of PvP, and it certainly isn't a running or farming build. This isn't the only example, as I mentioned a few in the opening paragraph of this section. The wiki would suffer without documentation of these very common builds, and there's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't put forth that information. Once again, this isn't about original builds, or applying a special procedure to these PvE builds. It is simply expanding the criteria of the policy to include those builds that are both, a) very common and unoriginal, and b) left out of the current NOB guidelines. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 04:07, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

I understand completely, however a random wiki user who doesn't read the policy discussions or even the policies doesn't. If we allow general PvE builds in the beginning, users will notice that these builds exist and will continue with their own stuff, which increases the work load of others. As the general PvE section is currently the one causing more trouble, I'm willing to give the few builds that only fit the general PvE category a small down time of two or three weeks. The wiki isn't harmed by such a small time without a couple of builds, especially as we are far from a good build documenting site currently. -- (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

New wiki users are often new GW players. They're the ones who can get the most use out of the notable/popular PVE builds. Look, I'm sure that the folks who inhabit the build area will be more than happy to shoot down any original PVE builds just like they will RA/AB builds. NOB would make it quite clear those builds are not wanted, anyway. But PVE builds that are well-known will be easily identifiable, just like the well-known PVP builds that NOB is designed to promote. NOB can handle them. I'm not sure many would be considered farming builds, which is why I don't think NOB deals with them appropriately in its current form. Farming builds are self-sufficient for their specific purpose; general PVE builds are designed for pickup or AI teams. What does it really hurt to add, "General PVE: Deemed popular and successful"? — HarshLanguage 04:43, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Because this will encourage people to post their builds and poor variations just like previously, supported with a few sock puppets telling you how "popular they are". I'm sure that the PvE build problems will mostly besolved if we keep a few weks downtime. It doesn't harm many if any beginners that we don't have a few builds for a few weeks. -- (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Gem makes a good point here; by posting a Barrage ranger in with the rest of the builds, it'll give the illusion that we're allowing PvE builds as well. I still think this needs to be documented somewhere though. Would treating it like SS or 55 builds work? Give it an article of it's own. A newbie player doesn't nessessarily need to know the exact and perfect skillbar for a Barrage ranger, but they do need an explaination of what the hell a Barrage ranger is (I know I did, after seeing groups asking for Barragers and B/Ps in some of the more advanced missions). -- Jioruji Derako.> 18:17, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

They need it, but a week without the build isn't going to kill anyone. It would be a bad idea to put these builds in the wiki in another format, and wating isn't gonna harm. Well, my point should be clear now, so I'll just wait for other peoples comments and votes. -- (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

In response to Skuld

1. That's what we are doing. Wiping the slate clean, then starting over. The question is whether or not to include popular PvE builds when we do. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 04:19, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Naming Policy

A policy should be tacked on to name the article as closely to what people call it in game as possible. Example: Build:A/Me_Disrupting_Steel No one has ever called it that. While Build:A/W BoA Assassin is a well known title. Builds should be names after their common name, if one does not exist they should probably be named after prominent skills (like shock axe and Dev tele-hammer.) Fancy names might be fun to come up with, but they do someone no good if they can't find a build as a result. A "Common names" category might be useful too where various names a build is called by are listed, even if they are as simple as SH Ele (Savannah Heat Ele.) -Warskull 19:22, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

I agree that a naming policy is needed. I'll try to come up with something soon. -- (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

You got my vote

Nuke em :)

Its simply a waste of time on the wiki with a) lack of testing b)inexperienced users posting builds. I've tried making an off-site forum for a new start for original builds, but even those interested aren't taking the 2 minutes it takes to make a profile there. I think people just don't give a damn. (Not a fifty five 00:52, 20 March 2007 (CDT))

I take some small amount of offense at that. Not everyone thinks it is a waste of time, not everyone doesn't test, not everyone is inexperienced, and some people are truly dedicated. Go ahead, nuke them, I will have them all archived on my user page well before you do so. I have already got all the vetted builds and that only took a day, I have a while before either of the build policies comes into effect and I for one care enough about the Build section to try and ensure that people who think it is a waste of time don't get to overrule the other side (which is by the way just as big) which believes that the build section is worthwhile. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs)

Well I don't. At least no vetting on original builds then. Because to be honest 1% of all original builds enter tested, count them. And 10% of all votes "tested votes", count them too. (Not a fifty five 01:20, 20 March 2007 (CDT))

I am not saying that the build section, particularly the vetting system, doesn't require a major overhaul, merely that cavalier attitudes that lead people to say "Nuke em :)" when about half of the editors want them to stay isn't going to help. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs)

If the concerned users were really interested in helping, they'd have come up with a solution in the past year. They haven't. Now it's time for major changes, because we've waited long enough. -Auron 01:44, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

I feel bad that so many people put so much time in the current builds section, but I agree with Auron. mmmm I think it's kinda like reformatting a hard drive and reinstalling an updated OS. Plus as it stands now, it is confusing as heck to new players. There are so many vetted builds, and most with limited use, or aren't good to begin with, and people get confused when what is supposed to be considered a "good build" Maybe even adding an article about what leads to a good build and what's a bad build like they did on GWmain site here [[1]], [[2]], [[3]]might be a nice idea. They'd have to be updated as the meta changes, but if there is an article that documents well known facts about builds and synergies, it might help new players play better sooner than later. Especially since PvP content in Gwiki is overwhelmingly lacking. --Lania Elderfire 01:56, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

In fairness Auron lots of solutions have been come up with, it's just been impossible to get consensus on them. Hell, it still is, hence the top down nature of the current delete. I still think most the problems are down to the innate differences between PvP and PvE builds, and I don't think NoB addressees that fairly (it caters for the PvP side of the equation). --NieA7 08:18, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Auron, are you really saying that folks who oppose NOB/PNB aren't interested in helping just because no other vetting system has been proposed? I'm honestly incredulous that you can take opposition to an idea and turn it into a rather nasty insult. — HarshLanguage 22:08, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

They have been proposed. People didnt reach a consensus. When I called for a revote, people said to wait a few months for it to settle down. Look at the mess we have now. However, some people are now testing out my offsite forum idea, and hopefully we can retain original builds in an environment with more solid rules. I, of course, have the sole right to make rules on it, but I'll listen to people. And, worst case scenario, it'll just fail and we still have guildwiki (Not a fifty five 00:32, 21 March 2007 (CDT))

I think it's just that the wiki doesn't work well on a democracy, but by good leadership. At least action is being taken now, but yeah there have been tons of ideas proposed, and no concencus just like 55 said --Lania Elderfire 01:10, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Say NO to dicatorship. Solus 01:12, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

This isn't exactly a dictatorship... hmmm well maybe yeah, but I think it works fairly ok. If it were a democracy nothing gets done, and nothing will happen. --Lania Elderfire 01:14, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Yup its a dictatorship of sorts. The difference is I don't chop your head off if you want to leave. (Not a fifty five 03:13, 21 March 2007 (CDT))

Applicable Quotes (From Monty Python of Course)

Quote Number 1

"Dennis: Help! Help! I'm being oppressed! Violence inherent in the system! Violence inherent in the system!"

Quote Number 2

Arthur: I am your king!

Woman: Well I didn't vote for you!

Arthur: You don't vote for kings.

Woman: Well how'd you become king then?

[Angelic music plays...]

Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering silmite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king!

Dennis interrupting: Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!

Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 01:22, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Gasp, Skuld is King Arthur?! Seriously though, Wiki = Community != Democracy, as Tanaric said somewhere. (T/C) 01:27, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Hah, god monty python again, barek and I threw in the same quotes when talking with tanaric a few months ago. (Not a fifty five 03:12, 21 March 2007 (CDT))

Some other good ones are:

Quote Number 3

Dennis: Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!

Quote Number 4

Dennis: Oh but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

Quote Number 5 Peasant 1: Who's that there?

Peasant 2: I don't know... Must be a king...

Peasant 1: Why?

Peasant 2: He hasn't got shit all over him. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 03:16, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

User build tag

Will/can/should this tag work something like {{user build|pve|farming}} or {{user build|pvp|ha}} or whatever? Otherwise there's just going to be a gazillion (or more) uncategorized builds. Although with no build oversight, {{user build|pve|pvp|farming|running|general|hero|cm|ha|ab|hb|ra|ta|omg|team|gvg}} could become a popular tag. ;) -- Peej 09:58, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

If/when we make a template for the user name space builds, the template usage whould have rules so that it cannot be abused even if the builds are in the user name space. Otherwise people will just advertise their builds in all categorie, aplicable or not. -- (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Why not crib the current one then? It's been given criminally short time to prove its worth, I think it's a good system. --NieA7 10:16, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Yes, the problem we are talking about are the build in the user name space. People are allowed to do what they want there, but in this case we need to implement a policy which prevents abusing that freedom. See my latest edit to GW:NOB. -- (talk) 10:20, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

I know, sorry if I wasn't clear - I meant we should mandate the use of the current system in the user name space if users want their build to be part of this wider system. --NieA7 10:28, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Idea

I'd like some input for an idea I'm working on to replace the builds section. Check it here and please donate to the talk page your comments or questions. I'd like to refine it to a real proposal and submit it once it's complete but require the opinions of others. Thanks. -- Vallen Frostweaver 13:38, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Guides

I added the idea of profession and role guides to the NOB page. Please view the changes and comment here. -- (gem / talk) 02:38, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Profession guides gets a thumbs up from me. As for the PvP builds, there are issues with NOB to be sure, so maybe it could be split into non original (as in, duh, it's SF build, as if we haven't seen that 1000 times) and original. WITH the caveat that original builds must be complete, as in they must include everything in the template, especially an explanation of their usage. Without all that information someone can't duplicate your great original build, and I think it prevents people from posting every build they can think of. So that reduces the number of posts, then I really like the stars idea- it is easy. Anyone who uses the page can rate it, so it evens out the people who rate everything 5 stars (too nice) and the people who rate everything 1 star (too mean). That rating system is similar to what I've seen on other build sites. --208.5.44.21 10:30, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Umm, the whole idea of NOB is to not allow builds that aren't allready popular and well know in the game. The idea is not to allow original builds for somthing and not allow them for something.

And what rating system are you talking about? I don't see any mention of any kind of rating. -- (gem / talk) 10:34, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Which Builds?

Just want to know which builds are going through. As a side note, I am reminded of the song Atlantis by Donovan.--Nog64Talk 14:28, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

How about reading the page? It's pretty clear and summarized as is. -- (gem / talk) 17:03, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Specifically which builds, to clarify. I meant, of our current favored build system, which ones are going to this new build paradise and which aren't? Does someone have a specific list? I just wanna make sure we know which builds to put right back up in the new section before we go ahead and nuke everything.--Nog64Talk 17:16, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

There is no list, because this isn't a complete policy proposal yet and it definitely hasn't garnered community consensus yet. Only time will tell. Also, nothing will be put back just like they are if everything goes like the NOB and profession role guide suggestions suggest. They will need heavy modifications. Everything has been backed up though, so we will have something to work on if/when a new policy is decided on. -- (gem / talk) 17:22, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

I know of the back up, I was just wondering if we should get a list of these builds ready to go after the wipe just for the sake of effciency. I wan't aware, however, that there was a still a plurality of people who opposed/remained neutral on NOB. I thought it was just a few offical words before we enacted this following the build wipe.--Nog64Talk 17:25, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

That might be because I've been promoting it so much. :) It's nowhere near being accepted. -- (gem / talk) 17:29, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

I was so looking forward to this, too. Auron's been promoting, too, that's why I thought this was the one we were choosing.--Nog64Talk 17:38, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Well, let's hope for the best. There are really no other suggestions than NOB and the profession role guide proposal, which are actually meant to work together. -- (gem / talk) 17:44, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Running

"deemed successful"

What about adding optimised, some runs are so easy you just need a run buff, so what if a page with a warrior sporting sprint came up, when pious haste would be so much better — Skuld 02:42, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

I added "and optimal for the task". -- (gem / talk) 03:45, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

I did not realize that there was an established Guild Wars meta-game scholarly community, complete with peer-reviewed academic journals, degree-granting institutions, and major respected experts such that a "No original X" policy could exist. This seems quite absurd. Seva 03:12, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

hard to make sense of that rebuttal Seva.. are you saying we should have 500 builds that can run droknars as long as they can run it? Or are you responding in the wrong title >.<(Not a fifty five 03:22, 4 April 2007 (CDT))

If such a community didn't exist, what would stop the mending whammos from getting vetted? -Auron 03:41, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

The community and the policy are two different things ;) (since this community exists but the mending wammos still gets vetted) i still prefear an idea of 'weighted' votes over a NOB policy. Gwain 06:03, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Guildwiki users are not scholars of meta-game theory with PhDs in pwnage, and builds do not flutter in nature for observation and preservation as a lepidopterist observes and preserves butterflies in glass cases. "No original X" policies in wikis rely on the existence of referenced sources. If your reference source is "an E/Mo in Observer Mode," your understanding of the build is LESS than if you had developed it yourself. If your reference is some guy on Guru, your information is unreliable. If your reference is experience, you are conducting original research. Stay out of the builds game entirely, I say. Seva 15:15, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

:D You'd like my offsite build then :) It's currently in debate about whether I can allow a link to it now... but I think Barek will see my line of reasoning ^^ Not a fifty five 06:08, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

kinda hard if i don't know the link ;) --Gwain 06:27, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Changes in the metagame

How would this Policy address the builds that have been considered 'vetted' when some changes in the metagame are applied? What would be the criteria for the deletion of a former-allowed-NOB that has fallen into disgrace? This is something that must be discussed too, i guess. (to be more clear: Who/what would define when a build isn't popular/effective anymore?) Gwain 04:49, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

A nerf or shift of meta would warrant an archive tag, much like we have now. -Auron 04:58, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Archive tag + all change all categories to similiar, but archive ones. Ie Category:Running builds -> Category:Archived running builds. It's not on the page yet, but I'm working to merge the role guide stuff with NOB, so I'll add that at the same time. -- (gem / talk) 09:48, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

How about dealing with somewhat odd ones like when the nerf to RaO happened? Yeah RaO thumpers became less popular but they are still effective even now. I still see them from time to time in GvG and HA, but in the builds a lot of people wanted that build archived because they simply assumed it to be ineffective now. The meta changed and the build should have changed on wiki but didn't. Then there are other ones like the shock axe that disappeared for a while, but is making somewhat of a comeback 2 weeks ago. --Lania Elderfire 10:13, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Shouldn't that be pretty simple? If the build still works, it stays. Ofcourse, I'm no PvP player and it might be a bit different in the PvP world. -- (gem / talk) 10:16, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Thats the point i wanted to show: who decides if a build "works" or doesn't anymore in those cases? --Gwain 10:52, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Voting is definitely a no-no. Discussion on the talk page has usually been the best solution and works fine. -- (gem / talk) 11:49, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

In Support of Original Builds

Before I start, let me state without bias that I understand the problems maintaining the Build section. It has become a monster, and it's WAY out of control. However, on occasion, out of control monsters are not a bad thing. Honestly, the whole point of a wiki as I understand it is to relinquish control to the users. If voting is causing too many violations of GW:NPA, fine...do away with voting, but I don't see that as a reason to get rid of what is arguably a useful section (1).

There are uses to the build section beyond "I need a good build for my Whammo, so let's go check wiki". For that kind of build searching we can all agree that GuildWiki falls short of many other sites. Honestly, that's not how I use the GuildWiki build section, and neither is that how many of my guildies use it. My favorite use of the build section is as follows:

1. While playing I find a boss. "Wow, cool...never seen him before...wonder what his elite is.".
2. I get to a safe spot, tab out, go to Wiki and find out.
3. I search, via the "What Links Here" link in the toolbox, and find builds that use that elite.

Because of the Build namespace, I can find the builds easily in the list of links. I can open these builds in tabs (or new windows for those of you not running a tabbed browser) and look at them and evaluate them for my own use. I can look at what skills synergize well with that elite, and get a feel for how it could or could not be useful or enjoyable to me. This search capability is something no other site has to offer, and does contribute substantially to documenting the game. Relegating "original builds" to userspace hinders this, because there are a lot of other perfectly valid reasons that users link to elite skills (not the least of which being unlock checklists).

Yes, I could do this research in other, more tedious ways, but that's true of almost all documentation. The reason to document something is to reduce the tedium of the next person doing similar research. While the other sites are all wonderful for "I need a build for X/Y", they are all primarily forum based and thus do not offer the broad realm of search options you get with MediaWiki.

To address the reasoning at the top of the page:

• If it works and is worth it, it's been done already

Wow...that's the same argument Congress tried to use when the wanted to close the Patent office...an 1920. This kind of argument leaves no room for innovation.

• No popular build has ever originated from GuildWiki. Popular builds are formed elsewhere.

Rephrased, this says 'we haven't come up with a winner, so let's quit trying'. I don't like that attitude in my children, and I don't like it here.

• A wiki is best used for documenting

A wiki is best used for community collaboration. nuffsaid.

• Some users want to play with build ideas so it is allowed, but kept in user name space to keep it out of sight for those who don't like it.

If the whole point is to "keep it out of sight for those who don't like it", why not move everything in the current Build section to a "Original Build: warning may contain suxage" section, and then create a "Builds we copied off of other, real, players while watching them in Ob mode" section. That way you can safely ignore my section, and I can safely ignore yours.

Am I going to rage quit the wiki over this? No. I can say, however, that this will curb the wiki's usefulness for me. I can say that I will be looking for other ways to do the research, and if I find one it may replace GuildWiki on my list of homepages that load as soon as my browser comes up.

(1) Before telling me that the section is not useful, consider your argument carefully. As I understand it, one of the theories behind a wiki is that those items that are relevant and useful will be kept up to date, while those that are irrelevant or useless will fall by the wayside. The Build section, while not necessarily kept up to date is edited -A LOT-, thus indicating that a large percentage of users are using it. Honestly, if they weren't, it wouldn't be a monster, and we wouldn't be here. Thus, in at least some way, it must be that people find it useful.

ScionOfErixalimar 13:40, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

If you didn't notice, the NOB policy allows original builds in user name space. It also directly states that there will be an easy system to categorise the builds. Iw it will work just like the current build section, but with the exceptions that they must be under a users user name space instead of the build name space and that the user whose name soace it is in has dictatorship over the build. Those dictators may create their own rules for the builds in their user name space, which might actually improve the original build section a bit. -- (gem / talk) 15:44, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Where I see that breaking down is that user X has a build in her namespace, and user Y comes up with a variant. User X then deletes the variant because she can't play it or make it work, so Y recreates the page is his namespace to keep his variant. I could see this happening a lot. Fracturing the builds like this would, IMO, be very bad. I'd rather see them in their own namespace without individual autonomous control. ScionOfErixalimar 15:57, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

I understand that, but most of the vocal policy discussors think that it is a bad idea to have a real namespace to promote the GW:NPA violations and the other crud. I am pretty sure that a user name space driven system will concentrate in the namespaces of a few users who form a guideline on how other users may contribute builds to their name space. This also allow everyone to choose whih name space to submit their build so they can select which rules they want to follow. -- (gem / talk) 16:31, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

How does having a real namespace promote GW:NPA violations? And how does putting it in the User namespace change that? I really don't understand. ScionOfErixalimar 20:55, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

"Anything Works in PvE"

In addition to my comments above, I must say that I excluding PvE players really can't be acceptable. There are those of us who do not PvP, in any form, for any reason. I don't do it becasue when I PvP I tend to forget it's a game and then my physician lectures me over my blood pressure. I know for a fact that I'm not alone (maybe in my reasoning, but not in my policy). I am offended by the callous attitude of "anything works in PvE". While it is true that PvE offers more opportunities for flexibility than PvP, relegating PvE players to second class citizens by stating "anything works" is a bit much. So instead of dealing with the GW:NPA, this policy condemns a whole category of players. I can see that this way is much better.

ScionOfErixalimar 13:40, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

The aim should be to get optimised builds. They should fulfil their purpose in the best possible way. Just about anything does work in AB, RA, FA, PvE, WTFBBQ. My arguement is that we should document the game, as that is that what the wiki has always done, and does best. This cuts the development of ideas clean out — Skuld 13:55, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Why should that be the aim? Why should we document Team FuBar's builds? If we are in the business of documenting the game, we should dodge the metagame altogether and stay out of thu build business totally. I could see that pov, and even agree with it to some extent. However, to say that the PvP players in the top 10 guilds on the guild ladder are the ones who determine what is an optimized build and what's not is documenting the metagame, which by it's very nature is as solid as water. ScionOfErixalimar 14:39, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

I'm not saying that, don't put words in my mouth. I want the popular PvE builds on the wiki, but I don't want any development of builds — Skuld 14:41, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

No, you didn't say that, and I was not trying to say you did. Apologies. I was trying to say that this policy implies that. The only criteria specified in the policy are deemed successful in Observer Mode. The criteria for PvE running/farming builds are left as an exercise to the reader, and it states specifically that -no- general PvE builds are acceptable. So, rather than put words in your mouth, I'll ask: who determines what is an optimized build? Who determines what is the best possible way? How do we define the "popular PvE builds" you think do belong?

I have another question. If all we're going to do is document "tried and true" builds, which is what this policy states (No Original Builds, right?), what's the point? We can all agree that if what someone is looking for is a build that works out of the box, they go elsewhere. There are other sites that do that and do it better. Is this new policy going to bring the GuildWiki build section to their level? I seriously doubt it will. Instead, try to recognize the strengths we -do- have. If I wanted to develop a build, I'd run it by a few guildies first, the bring it here, because I find the community here much friendlier and open to ideas than the ones on the dedicate build boards. I find looking through other people's builds as they're being developed to be a boon to my play as well, as it can show me ideas I may not have come up with on my own. We have a useful, helpful community. If we take out the status symbol of "vetted" and get rid of the voting process, people won't spend their time "sockpuppetting" to get a build approved or posting the same build 16 times with minor differences trying to sneak one by, because there will be no point. Instead allow for constructive criticizm that doesn't violate GW:NPA, and if a build falls out of favor, someone will eventually put a delete tag on it.

ScionOfErixalimar 15:34, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

actually, i could just watch in observer mode what builds are going on and copy them directly from there. --87.1.196.99 15:40, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

I'm a PvE-only player and still like this policy. In the NOB suggestion the wiki build name space is reserved for anything that is actual documentation of the game and popular builds (this does include a lot of PvE builds) and the user name space is reserved for creating new builds and discussing about them. Nothing is really disallowed, but it is divided differently. If you think about it, it is pretty logical. Popular in game = game content = build name space. Creating something new, trying out stuff = user name space. :) -- (gem / talk) 15:50, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

When the policy specifically says no general PvE builds, I don't see where it can include a lot of PvE builds ;-P. And, last I checked, poupular in game == metagame, not game content. 71.193.185.130 16:46, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Quotes from the policy suggestion:

• 'Original' builds will be moved to userspace, where the author is in charge of it.
• Some users will probably create rules how others can contribute build ideas in their user name space, which allows users to concentrate their builds in the name spaces of a few users and gives users the ability to choose which users rules they want to follow.

yah, true about the game conent != metagame, don't know what I was thinking there. :D -- (gem / talk) 17:09, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Just want to point out that for PvE, you can "observe" by looking at what's LFG. Minion Masters, Echo Nukers, BP Teams, Bonders and Stance Tanks (RIP Oro Farming :`( ), DoA teams, etc. are all NOB builds for PvE. Also, The profession guides are a great place to build a good PvE build in once they're up, IMO.--Nog64Talk 17:23, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, I think the guides are a better place for 'general PvE' builds. It would be hard to regulate what kind of general PvE builds are accepted and what not, but a guide requires a lot ow work and must actually be based on something unlike a build, so general PvE stuff would do well in guides. -- (gem / talk) 17:28, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

I'm a bit late into the discussion, but the title of this section holds true. Here is my rant about why, in case you were interested. It's not an insult to PvE, it's merely game design. -Auron 19:29, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

After reading that I realised what we were missing. I added the following line to the accepted builds section: PvE high level areas: Builds designed for The Fissure of Woe, The Underworld, Urgoz's Warren, The Deep, Domain of Anguish and any similiar high level areas released in the future if deemed popular and succesfull. -- (gem / talk) 19:32, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Again, I'm not sure I agree with the statement (see bleow). More importantly, the way the statement as phrased is incendiary. You can feel free to say that PvE has more flexibility than PvP, and thus finding builds that work is easier (I'd agree there). You can say that PvE gameplay is different than PvP, and builds don't necessarily overlap. But saying "Anything Works" is more than a bit condescending.

I also don't agree with the sentiment behind the incendiary statement. Driving laws are designed to be grokked by any 16 yr old, but that doesn't mean "anything works" on the road, and it doesn't mean that there aren't things that work better than others, even within the law. Likewise, just because you -CAN- beat Abaddon, or THK, or Vizunah Square with a mending tank doesn't mean it's not worth looking into better builds to do it, so it doesn't mean that a PvE section isn't useful or should be relegated into oblivion. ScionOfErixalimar 20:37, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Correct. Although, it'd be stupid as hell to list *every possible combination of skills in the game* that could beat THK/Abaddon/Viz because the "favored" section would be about sixty pages long. Is it worth it to write up W/Me Energy Surge Sword/Dom builds, even though they work? -Auron 20:42, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

It depends. Is our goal to document, or only to document what we consider worthy of documentation? ScionOfErixalimar 20:52, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

The latter. It would make little sense to document everything that works, for a few reasons; but mostly, GW is a game. Play it. Make your own builds. The people that rely on GWiki for 100% of their builds should be out there making their own and having fun, not cookie-cutting >.< -Auron 20:56, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Fine. Who decides what's worthy and how? Please explain that policy? ScionOfErixalimar 20:59, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Admins. Not a fifty five 21:12, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Meh...I thought the whole reason to relegate this to userspace is so that the admins could wash their hands of it. ScionOfErixalimar 21:15, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Hardly. That would mean them doing nothing >.> Not a fifty five 21:16, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Sarcasm aside, having the admins decide what is a good build is like having librarians decide what is a good book. It doesn't work well. ScionOfErixalimar 21:26, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

consensus & compromise

Since the quick outlash against the build wipe after being announced, if people actually wanted to reach a consensus and compromise, both view points are going to have to be upheld. However, since both view points automatically void one another out, the only way is to uphold both but keep them seperate. Having both a No Original Builds ('Offical') section and a Original Builds ('Experimentation') section seems to be the only way for people to both have their cake and eat it too. Isis In De Nile 17:52, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

So are you saying that this is good? Or not? -- (gem / talk) 17:56, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

From what I've read, it isn't good. It's upholding the NOB idea but kicking the OB section to the curb. I think there should exist both a NOB and a OB build section. This current NOB policy calls for just a NOB build section with the idea OB builds can be kept in a private userspace. If there exists two distinct, navigatable, areas that are noted as 'NOB' and a 'OB', seperated from one another, and both are easy to reach to, that'll fly. Isis In De Nile 18:08, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

See my comments in the above section. The user name space is the 'new section for original builds'. Categorisation is what makes stuff easily navigabale, not the specific name space that the stuff is in. -- (gem / talk) 18:11, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

The problem I have with that is that it relegates OB to oblivion. We all know what User Space means. User Space means the powers that be wash their hands of this. This would imply that the NOB section is sanctioned, while the OB section isn't, and the total OB answer is "we hope someone takes control of it in their own userspace". Personally, I'm not really satisfied with that answer. ScionOfErixalimar 18:18, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

That's the whole point.... --Dirigible 18:22, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

You re allowed to make a policy suggestion of your own based on this one. I'm not going to change a 'No original Builds' policy to actually suggest accepting both original and non-original builds, but I wouldn't oppose a policy like that, atleast not atm. -- (gem / talk) 18:23, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

I disagree. Currently it is quite impossible to make a new builds policy. Consensus doesn't work because at least 40% ALWAYS will not give something a chance to at least be TRIED OUT even if it may have a few kinks in it. I can't even make a link to an offsite test forum I'm making to test a new builds format apparently! What harm to the wiki does this incur! If the admins didn't blatantly curb any attempt to help the builds section maybe a policy would be able to occur. Until then... I wouldn't bother. Not a fifty five 19:47, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Umm, why wouldn't you be allowed to link to a test site off that resides of the wiki? It is not impossible to create a new suggestion and get people to discuss about it. For example the NOB was almost being deleted, but see what happened when a few users pushed it? -- (gem / talk) 19:51, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

The link has been taken down and now I'm basically forced to write criteria for allowing links to offsite forums if I want to out it back up, get it ratified, i.e. have the link down for about a week and have the forum's current members move on to other things. (Not a fifty five 19:54, 4 April 2007 (CDT))

What are you talking about? Please provide me a link to a discussion, history of edits or what ever. I'm totally lost. -- (gem / talk) 20:02, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Check the talk page of the main builds page, it there.--Nog64Talk 20:06, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

I like waht Gem added to this page (and what Defiant started) so I expanded the idea a little and formulated it in a way that the builds are linked to the "grid" yet they are not part of Guildwiki, because they are in userspace: GuildWiki:Publish_your_build. --Vazze 22:41, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

This sounds a lot like the site I've talked about above. The difference is just semantics, experienced users are the editors and each one has to "sign" a build before it enters "untested" (library) This is just a talk page so I can provide the link [4] Not a fifty five 02:30, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

[5] is only one library, and it is off-site. This is on-site and it consists of more libraries: authors/readers have options. --Vazze 12:54, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Did I understand correctly that that suggestion is meant to be used with NOB? Ie NOB says what is allowed in the build name space and the rest of the builds that are in the user name space work according to PYB? -- (gem / talk) 14:11, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Techically NOB is compatible with PYB: in PYB builds are in user name space (of the author), the links of these builds are organized into various separate libraries in user name space (of the editors), and only the editors are linked to the a build name space on the Build Discussions (/Build Libraries/ Build Workshop) page. (see PYB for details) --Vazze 14:42, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

My opinnion is that NOB should be the main build policy and PYB the policy for those builds that are only allowed in user name space. (although both still need to be refined a bit) -- (gem / talk) 15:13, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Well sure the difference is offsite and on-site, but the one library acts as your multiple libraries pretty much, the editor(s) who sign(s) a build is noted on whatever build is passed on. There is one difference in that, after a certain amount of editors join, a build needs more than one. Not a fifty five 14:50, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

I think we are talking about very different concepts: the editors in PYB are NOT cooperating. They are competing for readers and authors! Each editor organizes his/her own library. --Vazze 15:08, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Hmm.. Doesn't sound very good to me imo then. If you get say 20 editors one of them is bound to accept your build. Besides, what criteria is made for an editor? I can easily see many editors who would accept just about any build. (Not a fifty five 15:28, 5 April 2007 (CDT))