| abstract
| - ok then, here are my proposed changes: First though: none meta builds still get vetted just making this point clear =p ok here you go:
* all builds are the same in the build-stub and trial-build sections
* Meta builds no longer go through vetting, instead they are simply tagged with {{Meta-build|type1|type2|..}} (so no "untested" step for meta builds)
* This new tag will work in the same way the current good/great do, but will have a link on it which links to a section of the build called "Commonality" (we can change the name if we want)
* All meta builds must include a section called "Comonality"
* This is just a a little section which informs the user how common it's run/what's run instead of it (with links) and why (poor healing/bad dmg etc.)
* There will be a group of people who will be in charge of the section (community appointed (similar to an RfA)), and get final say on if something's meta or needs to go through vetting.
* these will not be BM's. They won't have any special rights, they just get final say in this matter.
* A list will be made of said users.
* If a build tagged "meta" suddenly stops being meta (meta shift etc.), then it will be tagged {{Archived-bild|category=Meta|type1=...|type2=...|reason1=...|reason2=...}} The main page will be changed so there's no longer a column on the builds table for "trial" builds, and there will be a new column that links to an areas "meta" category. go nuts. ~ PheNaxKian talk 22:05, May 1, 2010 (UTC) i like it--Bluetapeboy 22:20, May 1, 2010 (UTC) i'm not sure the whole thing works so well for pve. - AthrunFeya Image:Lau bfly.gif - 22:25, May 1, 2010 (UTC) why not? ~ PheNaxKian talk 22:28, May 1, 2010 (UTC) I'll explain more later when I'm awake enough to be able to type more than 3 words without becoming teh tpyo quene. - AthrunFeya Image:Lau bfly.gif - 01:40, May 2, 2010 (UTC) so Basically, if a Build is Meta, it will not go through the Voting Process at all. it will skip al that, and be put straight into a new Area, Meta Builds, and will only have a Meta Tag, not a great/good/trashed tag? also, can these be well'D? so Basically, if its Meta, its kinda like an automatic rating of 5.0? explain more of these things, people have Questions to be answered--Bluetapeboy 02:06, May 2, 2010 (UTC) That's the basic idea yeh (they'll still be in the build namespace, but instead of putting it into untesting ---> good/great, you just put it into "meta" with the meta template (similar to the good/great ones). As for the WELL tag...I imagine so yeh, but I can't see there any being any real incidents of WELLs within these builds (slight variations leading to dupe submissions, that's about it). "auto rating of 5.0" well...yes and no. Yes because we're saying this build is awesome and all that, but no because it isn't actually getting voted on, or obtaining a specific rating. If you have questions, ask away =p. ~ PheNaxKian talk 13:18, May 2, 2010 (UTC) Basically Lemming and I intended this to be for just the GvG section (but I guess phen wants to apply it to everything). The underlying principle is that a GvG meta only supports 3-4 teambuilds at most, yet PvX has dozens of builds in the good/great section (many of which are outdated or really awful yet got pushed through real vetting anyway). The idea was to separate GvG into two categories. Instead of good/great there would be meta/theorycraft. Theorycrafted builds would go through the same vetting process and wind up with either the good/great tag. Really nothing would change from the current process. Meta builds would have a special meta tag (basically the same as good/great but with a diff color, i like purple or red). The builds in this category would be strictly those builds that are played competitively in the current meta. As builds fall out of the meta they'd be removed and moved to an archived tag so that the builds in the meta category would actually reflect the current meta. Meta builds would NOT go through the vetting process since obs mode proves them to superior builds, we don't need PvX members who are generally pretty bad at the game to confirm it. This Meta category would be managed by 4-5 members of the competitive GvG community (myself, lemming, crow, and saint come to mind) who would be responsible for making sure that the builds in the meta category reflect the current gvg meta and would be responsible for moving builds into and out of the archives as necessary. I'm not sure that this concept should be applied to the other categories though., HA's strictly 8v8 kill setup allows for a wide variety of builds to be effective, the meta in tombs generally isn't restricted to only 3-4 builds. RA, CM, and AB can't really have a meta defined by only a few effective builds b/c teams are essentially random. Same sort of applies to PvE since each particular area necessitates different skillsets--TahiriVeila 02:31, May 2, 2010 (UTC) Admittedly have I didn't give a huge thought to how it would effect all areas, but I assumed for the sake of ease it would be best to have all areas treated the same. I see what you say about things working well in diferent areas, but we will still have the good/great category. To take an example from the PvE section, we have "imbagon" as meta. That would be given a meta tag as replacement of it's current "great" one. We also have 2 other PvE Paragons in the "Great" section, now these work fantastical well also, but they very rarely see use (because people would rather run an imbagon). So While stuff will still work great that isn't meta in these areas, there will be those builds that are just run over pretty much everything. RA/CM/AB don't have any meta build anyway that i know of, so they wouldn't get any tags =p. I'm unsure about PVE teams though, i'll have a think about that. ~ PheNaxKian talk 13:18, May 2, 2010 (UTC) Is it worth reading all this shit? Brandnew 07:24, May 2, 2010 (UTC) Everything except for Jake's post is self-explanatory. Read the first half of it or sth. The page also just says that we'd create a "Meta" category which bypasses testing. --Chaos? -- 11:14, May 2, 2010 (UTC) just read my first post at the top of the page (the bullet points), that's what will be changed if implemented. ~ PheNaxKian talk 13:18, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)