This HTML5 document contains 4 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Subject Item

n2:

rdfs:label

PvXwiki talk:Real Vetting/Archive 5

rdfs:comment

So this is my list of what I feel needs to be still be discussed/resolved or merely implemented. Anything I've excluded is something that's insignificant or has been satisfactorily resolved but not preserved, because it's insignificant. Add anything you want. -Shen 19:48, 25 February 2008 (EST)

n3:wikiPageUsesTemplate

n4:

n6:abstract

So this is my list of what I feel needs to be still be discussed/resolved or merely implemented. Anything I've excluded is something that's insignificant or has been satisfactorily resolved but not preserved, because it's insignificant. Add anything you want. * The creation of PvE Team builds should be restricted to certain areas (DoA, Slaver's). This ties into the practicality of assembling a team for certain areas of the game. It could generally be encompassed by a short clause, as it's somewhat conflicting with the idea that builds shouldn't be rated on availability. And that's true to a degree, but here, common sense says otherwise. * Discussion on "other" builds has not reached a consensus. Big issue here. We store builds that clearly perform worse in all aspects but are innovative, and "workable", at least. I've tried to reinforce this line between trashy innovative and workable innovative since my promotion, so now it just comes down to whether or not these builds have a place on PvXwiki. In reality, no one is going to use them, so do they serve some purpose on this site? Innovative builds, even in the Good category, rarely see use. What do we do with them? Do they even deserve discussion for a possible name change? Naming them isn't going to change the content. * A 5-day minimum trial period for builds in testing. I've been personally opposed to this, but I see now the merits are pretty obvious. It would introduce "some form of standardization to the way we are handling new builds", as Scottie puts it. Also, a featured Trial build section on the main page would greatly promote a more standard process for build vetting. A solid investment for discussion. * DE suggested a Checkbox for particularly innovative builds "shouldn't be too difficult to implement" according to Hhhippo. This would dissolve a lot of the controversy revolving around innovation. * DE also suggested we rename Universality to Flexibility. Consensus for this, or nearly so, has been achieved. * Zuranthium suggested we, rather than increase the scale from 5 to 10 for effectiveness, introduce half-point intervals so that we may more accurately judge a build. This would disallow opposition based on the impracticality of re-evaluating builds on a 10-point-scale, as user votes would still remain valid under a 5 point system, but one splintered to allow for finer distinction. -Shen 19:48, 25 February 2008 (EST) Having not discussed any of the archive, I'll give my opinion a go: * Restricting PvE Team builds to certain areas certainly makes sense, but not all builds would find uses for specific areas. Saying that, PvE Team builds should be assigned places where they work effectively, such as specific areas, Vanquishing, etc. This should probably done in the Trial phase, since rewrites would be annoying. If the build is inferior when compared to other builds, the ratings should be reflective of such. Team builds suffer from the factor of *usability* in PvE, and ratings should also be reflective of such, much to the chagrin of players, but it would sadly be necessary as it is a factor in the quality of a build. * Other builds act much like deleted builds from Guildwiki's time, which act as sources of inspiration. Which means, as Shen said, they won't receive much attention. Unless people preferred we keep those builds for inspiration, they should be deleted. Also to note, PvXWiki did not implement Guildwiki's policy of deleted builds, which the Other category acted as such a policy in the end. Therefore, PvXWiki chose not store Other builds, and, by which, they should be deleted. * The 5-day trial period allows fairness and as Shen quoted. A featured Trial build section is fully plausible, as it will give builds the attention they need for people to rate them fairly. * The Checkbox is a great idea, because Innovation has a very personal definition which voters go by. A Checkbox would neutralize this factor. It should be implemented as soon as possible. * I also agree about changing Universality to Flexibility. Universality is a poorly chosen word in place a Flexibility, which many people have misinterpreted. * Increasing the 5 point scale to a 10 point is a bad idea, it becomes too much of a stretch when rating builds. Half points are much more agreeable in this view, as they are easier for voters to decide on and voters are use to the 5 point system anyways, giving them more choice within this system is much more effective and as Shen put it "splintered to allow for finer distinction".--Relyk 23:05, 28 March 2008 (EDT) I'll try and reply to these..... * Perhaps creating a couple of more specific tags for PvE (e.g. vanquishing or elite area tags) this way it would be similar to the RA TA HB etc. tags for PvP. * Personally i look at other builds now and then, sometimes they o give inspiration to some good builds (not for me personaly but w/e.) they can make you think "huh i never would have though of those 2 skills together" or something like that. And if you look in he archive anyway GC is pretty adamant in keeping the other section. * The trial thing has been suggest many times, and i think it really should be implemented (featured trial this is) there is also talk on GC talk page i belive about changing the polivy to say that builds must be in each phase for x amount of days, and must be in testing for x day before you can vote on it. (i think that's what it said, too lay to check) * The checkbox is a genius idea (it came from DE so of course it is), this way we get rid of the weighting from innovation which everyone wants (see archive and disscussion below) and i belive hippo said it'd be easy enough to implement if needed. * Universilarity to flexibility is kind of iffy. I agree with changing the name but not to flexibility, it's still somewhat obscure (though it's better than universilarity admitidly). * Wethere you put the scale from 1-10 or from 1-5 with half increments it's all the same really, it's jsut as difficult for a user to deiced what to vote for, personaly i'd say 1-10 because then instead of everyone having to vote again, we can just double there old vote (and they can revote again if wanted) I think that about sums it all up =D PheNaxKian (T/c) Image:Phenaxkian sig phoenix.jpg 19:26, 29 March 2008 (EDT)