| abstract
| - Three criteria suggested in this policy is just an example. It is possible to make 3-4-5 or 10. It is very adjustable. I really don't want to see us promote a build just because it is innovative. There are plenty of good builds out there that are pretty cut-and-paste; that doesn't make them bad. For example, a good war build will have an IAS, speed buff, ~3 attacks and a rez. There's nothing innovative about this, but a build featuring those skills would be effective. There's no need for that build's score to suffer. The potential of build is also a poor quality to judge a build by. Some people can design a good build, designated to fulfill a certain purpose (let's say, e-denial). It may perform excellently at e-denial, but may not be effective at something else (say, spiking). Under these criteria, the build would rate much lower than it deserves. Just because it only does what it was designed to do doesn't mean a build's score should suffer either. The categorization system of this policy looks great, however. It would certainly be beneficial to any policy we end up implementing. As far as the voting side, it looks good too, though I think it would be inappropriate to call this an easy voting process. It is complicated, especially when compared to some of the other policies. Most of this polciy looks really good, but it has a glaring Achilles heel, if you will: criteria. Having a static set of criteria to evaluate a build upon will be harmful to the wiki. It will misrepresent builds that are really good, as well as those that aren't (like the 'best use of a bad elite' builds. They may be good to have, for players who don't have any useful elites yet, but they should never be ranked above those common, uninnovative builds that really work). Evaluation is better left in the abstract; rigid criteria will not be beneficial to maintaining a useful Builds section. - Image:Kowal.jpg Krowman (talk • contribs) 00:52, 15 May 2007 (CEST) I think this policy has a lot of potential, but needs some cleanup. To me, it depends on how the vetting result would be displayed. If the three criteris (Idea, potential, and strength) are averaged together for a signle score, then I agree that it would artifically help the score of poor builds, while dropping the score of effective but non-innovative builds. On the other hand, if the scores are not averaged, and each build is displayed based on each score individually, then this seems a very effective method. Scripts can easilly reduce the complexity, so no issues from that. If you're looking for a powerfule build, search for all builds with a high "strength" score, ignoring the other two scores. If you want innovative, search for high "Idea" scores while ignoring the other two. This gives it a lot of flexibility. I would also suggest writing the scripts to be easilly expandable - if a fourth or fifth criteria are wanted in the future, write the scripts from the beginning to support that possiblity. The main thing that I would suggest changing is to make the vetted results based on 5 categories of 20% (0-20, 20-40, 40-60, 60-80, and 80-100), instead of the currently proposed 25% segments.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.88.255.140 (contribs) . People come to the wiki looking for help with builds, i.e. they are looking for good builds to either mimic or be inspired by. They aren't looking for builds that other people were very creative in making. The strength category is the only one that will actually be useful to someone who needs help with their builds. The other categories are geared more towards pleasing build authors than those who want to use the wiki as a resource. - Image:Kowal.jpg Krowman (talk • contribs) 02:44, 15 May 2007 (CEST) However, if all we saw were the same old builds then the game qould start to get rather dull. Especially since EotN has only 150 new skills, and 50 or 100 (I forget which) are PvE only, someone has to be creative if the metagame is going to change at all and if old players are to stay interested. Another possiblity would be to organize the builds into sub-categories, having a category for most creative, best overall, best potential, best overall strength, best damage(spike and pressure) best defence, best healing, best E-denial and whatever other categories you decided to include.--Foozdood 21:23, 17 May 2007 (CEST) Why not just bring over the Overall Category sugested by my proposal an place it into this one. May give a 4th definitive build 'rating' that is still abstract enough for some, and detailed for others. May cynch this into place for those who want simplicity over detail. Shireen 18:10, 18 May 2007 (CEST) Could work just as well to rename it to Design Performance, rather than 'overall'. Shireen 00:44, 19 May 2007 (CEST) Could you provide a link to the proposal you are referring to, so that readers may understand what you are talking about? I can't find it on your user page or in the PvXwiki:Community Portal. If I remember correctly, it was something like "True Build Ratings?" - Image:Kowal.jpg Krowman {{sysop}} 02:35, 26 May 2007 (CEST) My first impression of this new policy is good, but there's one thing i would like to add to the discussion: HEROES! everybody wants to have good builds for their heroes, but it seems to me that there will not be a category for hero-builds (maybe i misunderstood something though). heroes often suck at using perfectly great builds (i.e. they don't know which skill to echo) and sometimes they perform very well with builds that a human player couldn't use nearly as efficient (i.e. nobody or few people can use the jagged nova bomber build as efficiently as a hero). that's why i would like to suggest to add another vetting criteria: how well do heroes use the build? it might also be a good idea in my opinion to expand the build categories accordingly: great, good AND hero friendly builds (= a category only for builds vetted to be hero friendly) --213.47.135.190 01:43, 26 May 2007 (CEST) Well, the criteria here would be applied to all builds; what you want would be hard to apply to builds that are not intended for use on heroes. It would negatively affect the ratings of builds that are not hero builds. The separate category for hero builds would be better, and you could still apply this policy's criteria to a hero build (i.e. how effective it is). - Image:Kowal.jpg Krowman {{sysop}} 02:35, 26 May 2007 (CEST)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)