| abstract
| - IMO even something in addition to this might be useful such as a code that applies a tag to the build calling for a review if any skill in the bar has been changed and to determine if the change led to a nerf, buff, or no significant effect on the build. This might expedite build changes and maintenance whenever a major skill balance occurs. Lania Elderfire 18:39, 23 April 2007 (CEST) What a pain in the ass. Why don't we stick with the old system of archiving the old RAB and throwing a new one on? It's easy to find, easy to read, but doesn't conflict with the new one. I'd have to see an example to really understand what you mean, but as I understand it, this is needlessly complicated. -Auron 19:50, 23 April 2007 (CEST) I kinda agree that something like this isn't really needed. But IMO an automatic code or bot that tags the build whenever a skill in build's bar have changed due to skill rebalances should be implemented or just replace this policy. --Lania Elderfire 19:57, 23 April 2007 (CEST) A nerf-bat detecting script? That'd be an impressive piece of work. -Auron 20:20, 23 April 2007 (CEST) Heh, yeah, i'm not a programmer so I dunno what that would entail ^_^ -- Lania Elderfire 20:38, 23 April 2007 (CEST) And Lania, i am an amateur programer at mIRC(noob geek) and I pretty much say, it would be a PITA to have a program automatically take information from GuildWars.com and decide whether it was a nerf or not, and then, after all that, put a notifaction on all builds USING that skill. Ni 01:37, 24 April 2007 (CEST) I didn't mean that the program needs to decide if it is a nerf or not, but just have a bot or something put a notice on a build where a skill have changed and then the users can decide if a build was nerfed or not. Would be easier to look through all the builds that have changed, instead of browsing through all the builds and seeing if any of the skills there have changed or not. Lania Elderfire 20:10, 25 April 2007 (CEST) That doesn't look bad at all, actually. We can use that instead of moving the RAB down. I still don't see the point of this being a policy. -Auron 20:41, 23 April 2007 (CEST) It grew out of my hate of having a build changed without a call for a revote so the old votes stood even when the reasons given were completely outdated. Armond 22:41, 23 April 2007 (CEST) I like the idea, not sure how well it will work in practice (since people may vote the same regardless), but from an objective standpoint, I don't foresee any major problems resulting from this policy except for people constantly graying RABs they didn't like or changing something very small and railing about how they need a re-vote. On the other hand, that isn't really different from the old system, and, if we define a few specifics we could hopefully lessen that prospect. We might also be able to add a clause in the vetting policy that strengthened this, like if we were to add something requiring constructive criticism (or at least some kind of reason), we could then add that previous votes could not be used as reasoning unless the voter could demonstrate the existence of the same problem. Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:39, 24 April 2007 (CEST) I'm really late, I fail, sorry. :P The point is not to change people's votes, but rather to at least let them know that the build was changed so that they have a chance to change their vote if they want. -- Armond WarbladeImage:Armond sig image.png{{sysop}} 17:54, 25 May 2007 (CEST)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)