| abstract
| - Prior to making such a major and most likely unwise addition to our policies, we should first consider other means of improving upon the reputability and quality of this site. Therefore, I propose making the following minor adjustments to the vetting system in the effort of improving the general quality of our builds:
* We move to a out of 10 rating. This would hopefully provide more precision in the vetting system.
* The range for acceptable builds becomes from the 75% to the 85%; good 85% to 95%; great 95% to 100%. By removing the bottom 50% of currently vetted builds, the average quality of vetted builds increases.
* Innovation becomes a separate score that does not impact vetting, and is displayed separately. This would allow those looking for new concepts to find them, while not affecting build quality.
* Universality becomes worth 10% of the final vetting score.
* Effectiveness is split into three equal portions, each worth 30%:
* Purpose. Does the build accomplish it's stated purpose? If it is a tanking build, can it successfully take damage and survive? If it is a spike build, can it kill quickly and effectively? If it is a pressure build, can it keep up sufficient damage for a lengthy period of time? This is the most like the old effectiveness score.
* Utility. Is this build able to shutdown or hinder enemies? Self-explanatory. Might need a more detailed definition.
* Survivability. How well can this build survive? Does it have sufficient armor and health for its role? Does it have self heal, prot or condition or hex removal? Also fairly self evident. Other adjustments:
* Write a longer, more detailed beginner's guide. And we wonder why we get so many noobish/duped builds...
* Write at list of skills (i.e. seeping wound sins)/concepts (i.e. critscythe, ss rit, etc.) that have been unfavored and deleted before. Only add to this if we see something 2+ times. Things should be removed from the skills-based section after a buff to that skill, like that would ever happen. Should cut down on the number of crit_(insert non-dagger weapon here)_ sins, at least. Lord Belar 23:41, 9 November 2007 (CET) Seems to me Utility and Survivability are subcategories of Purpose, moreso Utility than Survivability. A BSurge ele's Purpose is Utility, and a BoA's Purpose is most definitely not Survivability. --71.229.204.25 23:47, 9 November 2007 (CET) To clarify my point because I didn't do such a good job last time: A (PvE) stance-tank warrior that is excellent at what it does would get high Survivability and Purpose but very low Utility, because all it does is sop up damage. A monk would get the same rating, due to its heals and lack of interrupts/Blind. They would both only rate a 66% in Effectiveness. On the other hand, a Heal/Expertise specced R/Mo running Glimmer of Light, Dismiss Condition, and Throw Dirt would rate poorly in all three categories because it's fucking stupid, but because it was rated in all three categories it would have a much higher rating compared to the monk or stance tank than it should. --71.229.204.25 23:56, 9 November 2007 (CET) Okay, that was a separate argument altogether. Feel free to disregard it. --71.229.204.25 23:57, 9 November 2007 (CET) (2xEC)I wanted to make it Utility, Survivability and Damage, but then we would end up unfavoring all of the tanking builds. Lord Belar 00:00, 10 November 2007 (CET) (EC)Yeah, I know. I'm not sure how to get around it, short of having diferent rating criteria for every catagory, i.e. for "tanking" you vote in Survivability, Purpose and Damage resistance(?). Lord Belar 00:00, 10 November 2007 (CET) I think we should just leave it as Effectiveness, described as "does it do what it's intended to do, and does it do it well?", with these three as criteria to consider. If we try to split it up like this it's gonna end up as complicated as Brockian Ultra-Cricket or the D&D Grapple system or something. --71.229.204.25 00:03, 10 November 2007 (CET) Good idea. I can handle complicated, and tend to assume everyone else can too. :/ Lord Belar 00:04, 10 November 2007 (CET) Considering how many people bork up Universality in our current system, I'd say it's safe to assume anything beyond GOOD BUILD Y/N AMIRITE is a little too advanced. :) --71.229.204.25 00:06, 10 November 2007 (CET) Hey, let's do that! First person to it gets to decide its fate! :P Lord Belar 01:34, 10 November 2007 (CET) Bad idea for 2 reasons. 1) You will unfavor some of the greatest builds ever, such as Build:A/W Shadow Prison Assassin which has no survivability and no utility, so it will get unfavored. 2) The switch form 5 to 10 (however good it may be) will totally screrw over the voting appearance. It will become wider than the screen and will just be bad, so its impractical. --- Image:Monk-icon-Ressmonkey.JPG Ressmonkey (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2007 (CET) Horrible example. SP sin deserves to die. -- Armond WarbladeImage:Armond sig image.png{{sysop}} 00:32, 10 November 2007 (CET) Perfect example. SP sin is the greatest build ever, right under 600/smite. --- Image:Monk-icon-Ressmonkey.JPG Ressmonkey (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2007 (CET) We own TA with SP sin. — Skakid9090 01:07, 10 November 2007 (CET) TA ez way ftw? - Rawrawr 01:15, 10 November 2007 (CET) Of course. --- Image:Monk-icon-Ressmonkey.JPG Ressmonkey (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2007 (CET) Read the above conversation, I didn't say it had to be those categories. So make the numbers/spaces smaller. Wow, that was hard. Lord Belar 01:34, 10 November 2007 (CET) Well, thanks for the input, and for organizing it nicely. Your ideas on the Innovation score in particular resonate with many users here (including myself). It is something the server admins simply haven't changed yet, though that likely will be implemented at the same time as the build search engine. However, note that your suggestions relate to Real Vetting and not this currently-proposed policy. One thing that you wrote made me laugh for a bit: "Self-explanatory. Might need a more detailed definition" Lawl. Anyways, more criteria doesn't make us any more reputable; accuracy does. As presented, these criteria would misrepresent some of the most effective/popular builds in GW, and that's bad. Criteria themselves are pretty lacking. Utility? Builds are created for utility purposes, like the BSurge example. Survivability? Many PvP toons don't roll self-heals, especially with 3-monk backlines, off-monk healing/prot, and utility. Splitters would get much higher ratings, even though people these days don't split like they used to. Your 'other adjustments' sound nice, but are based on misinformation. People don't submit bad builds because we permit them to. Acknowledging that, your two 'other adjustments' don't address the cause of the site's problems. No matter how detailed we make beginner's guides, people still won't read them. List of bad skills also wouldn't do much of anything, because of updates/new skills, and because people don't properly acknowledge a skill's value immediately. Ex: Warrior's Endurance. It has taken 1.5 years for people to make an actually good build using that skill. (If you don't know the build, you run a fairly standard PvP Hammer War with WE and a bunch of fast-activating attacks.) 71 makes the most important point of the discussions above: people don't follow the rules. They "bork up" our current criteria all the time. If people followed the letter of the criteria to a 'T,' then there's a slim chance that we could improve the site in general through changing our vetting criteria. Because of all the reasons stated here and above, it's unlikely that we will be implementing these changes (which, again, pertain to Real Vetting and not this policy.) - Image:Kowal.jpg Krowman {{sysop}} 07:43, 10 November 2007 (CET) Ok, new ideas.
* Add a to the new build template.
* Allow the proposed innovation score to be struck separately from the main vote. "Self-explanatory. Might need a more detailed definition" Hey, I wrote this around midnight. :P And yes, I realize that this has more to do with real vetting than this particular policy, but since the intent of this policy appears to be to improve build quality, it might be better to improve upon the vetting system before doing anything rash like giving more people vote removal privileges, because as well intentioned as it may be, the potential for abuse is still there, and this is getting to be quite a run on sentence. Also, no one has commented on the increasing the threshold for acceptable builds. :(Lord Belar 19:35, 10 November 2007 (CET) Fine, increasing acceptable thing = bad. --- Image:Monk-icon-Ressmonkey.JPG Ressmonkey (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2007 (CET) Care to explain? Lord Belar 20:03, 10 November 2007 (CET) No =) --- Image:Monk-icon-Ressmonkey.JPG Ressmonkey (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2007 (CET) Oh, ok. :P Lord Belar 20:05, 10 November 2007 (CET) How about these 3 categories on a 10 rating scale. Effectiveness: Synergy: Universality: --Image:Victoryisyours Sig Image.jpgVictoryisyours 21:27, 10 November 2007 (CET) Synergy = no. There is absolutely no viable way to rate a single slot's synergistic value with other team members. Synergy could only apply to a team build, and how that team works together. Synergy as a criteria would also misrepresent farming builds, who usually roll all by themselves. - Image:Kowal.jpg Krowman {{sysop}} 21:49, 10 November 2007 (CET) Synergy=no, I agree. Effect+Universe is all we need. ~~ Image:User Frvwfr2 signature.jpg frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 23:13, 10 November 2007 (CET) The problem is that with only two criteria, having 5 votes on a build won't be enough to see a major affect on the build's rating. That was a problem back on the old wiki, where voting was essentially based on Effectiveness and a out-of-one rating system. I doubt moving closer to that style of vetting system would be something we want. This does not mean I'm taking a stance against the removal of Innovation, nor am I pushing for its retirement from the current system. To make the vetting system mathematically sound, at least, there should be three categories. — Rapta Image:Rapta Icon1.gif (talk|contribs) 00:53, 11 November 2007 (CET) Good point... However, innovation is a bad category... A build should not be based on how creative it is... ~~ Image:User Frvwfr2 signature.jpg frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 01:06, 11 November 2007 (CET) I meant synergy as in between the skills. A nuker with a bunch of random AoE skills isnt very synergetic, but Headbutt with Plague Touch is somewhat synergetic as they work together to apply dazed.--Image:Victoryisyours Sig Image.jpgVictoryisyours 01:41, 11 November 2007 (CET) BUt that is part of effectiveness. ~~ Image:User Frvwfr2 signature.jpg frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 01:44, 11 November 2007 (CET) Yea I guess, just freeballing ideas to replace innovation.--Image:Victoryisyours Sig Image.jpgVictoryisyours 01:46, 11 November 2007 (CET) Effectiveness: 75%. It's how well it does its INTENTED job, so it deserves to be the most Universality: 25%. Innovation: 0% Ease of Use: 0% (A monkey could run SF, but not everyone could run a GvG blinding surge) Hows that?--Image:Assassin-icon.png The Gates Assassin 22:07, 10 December 2007 (CET)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)