| abstract
| - This has been alluded to in the past, but I have not seen anyone suggest it as an implementation. Perhaps your opinions vary, but my belief is that for at least the 8v8 PvP formats, the only builds that deserve approval are those that are in the meta. With that being said, the classification of approved builds between good and great are misleading. As it stands, the vetting process results in well-designed builds that are unsuitable in the current meta being deemed "great" erroneously. Additionally, the rating system does not offer the flexibility of adjusting a build's category according to metagame variations. My proposal is that vetting for builds designed for 8v8 should be scrapped. The great categories for pvp game modes should be reserved for builds that are firmly established in the respective game type, while the good categories hold builds that are seen infrequently, either because they're inferior to what is currently being run (Rt/E Shackles flagger compared to Mo/E HB flagger) or because they're situational enough to be seen only rarely (WoH flagger versus HB flagger). If implemented, this would make obsolete the meta tag, which is currently not very useful - the metagame consists of more than the bars in the handful of basic team builds; variants that are situational counters should be tagged with it too. Retooling the great and good categories to reflect the relative prevalence of meta builds would serve to make both categories more reflective of what is going on in PvP. --Lemming 12:58, May 1, 2010 (UTC) We have the meta tag(s. We have one for PvP and one for PvE). This clearly shows what builds are (supposedly) in the current meta. From what i've read you have one of two issues with the tag: 1.
* The tag doesn't stand out enough so people don't always see it. If this is the case we can always change the tag slightly to make it stand out more (such as change colours or something) 2.
* Alternativly, you don't think the category(/ies) stand out much on the main page (at a quick glance i don't see any links actually, so I'll make a mock up on the edit copy). If this make a suggestion on the edit copy of the main page (i.e. edit it to how you think t should be) and we can disscuss what we think and implement a solution we're all happy with =p. As for the the "great builds not being meta" part, some builds don't get their votes changed when the meta shifts. If that's the case just bring it up on the build talk and ask what people think should be done, it might be an archive, or a vote wipe (and then see if it needs archiving). As for altering the system for PvP builds over all...I won't say i'm opposed to it, but I think some redundancy in the system is a good thing (in this case builds that aren't meta). As for the "meta tag not being useful" thing, can I ask why you feel that way, i've not seen any point where you've really explained that point, and if we can change that we can avoid changing they system (which is preferable). If I missed something I apologise =p ~ PheNaxKian talk 13:56, May 1, 2010 (UTC) I thought PvX only vetted team builds that were on obs first, anyway? ยทยทยท Danny So Cute 19:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC) That's what I get for writing at 2 AM - coherence suffers. There's no link to the meta category on the front page. All you can access from there are the good and great categories. Going into the great category tells you nothing about what is being run at the moment. Meta builds are lumped in the same category as fringe meta builds and nonmeta builds, with no ability to distinguish between them without actually opening them. Even when the tag is used, it's m there's nothing indicating that a shackles runner is seen about 10% as much as an hb runner, since the former has been relegated to a fringe meta build. I've tried the build talk process for revetting some builds (see my contribs). It does not seem like there's much response. @Danny: before I requested removal, there was a Shatterstorm ranger in GvG good. What does that tell you? --Lemming 20:12, May 1, 2010 (UTC) I'm with lemming on this one. As it is now, the wiki doesn't do a good job of reflecting which builds are currently in play. The vetting system for gvg needs to just be scrapped and the wiki needs to appoint 4-5 members of the gvg scene to maintain a list of build pages that document builds, how they're played, and their current prevalence in the meta. They should be responsible for maintaining the category so that it reflects current standards, and would be responsible for moving gvg builds into and out of the archives(which should happen much more frequently then it does now). Essentially we need build janitors for a gvg section, not a vetting system.--TahiriVeila 20:23, May 1, 2010 (UTC) I also agree, better than current system. p.s LEMLEMLEM ^O^ --Crow 20:50, May 1, 2010 (UTC) Having a meta tag essentially serves the same purpose, and Phen linked them on the main page now, so it should be fine. Otherwise, there's really no point in meta tags. Karate File:KJ for sig.png Jesus 21:05, 1 May 2010 just a quick note, I'm talking to Jake (Tahiri), and we're discussing some options, I'll make a sub page with the proposal when we settle on something a bit more solid, and link you all then =p. ~ PheNaxKian talk 21:13, May 1, 2010 (UTC) I think everyone knows that I support what Lemming is saying. I've been pushing to change effectiveness to metaness since, oh, forever. Also, part of the reason why old meta builds are in Great is because they were vetted in when they were meta, but now that they aren't no one goes back and bad votes them. Misery 21:28, May 1, 2010 (UTC) proposal here. The changes are summarised on the talk page ~ PheNaxKian talk 22:07, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)