GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.

GuildWiki talk:Advertise your build

From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This will make a huge mess rather quickly. -Auron My Talk 06:15, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

I also oppose this policy extra hugely strongly humongously. —BlastThatT.jpgBlastedt 06:36, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
I don't think I could disagree with this policy any more fervently. --Hrothgarsig.jpg (talk) 06:51, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
I do not want to see the same Mending Wammo build advertised on every explorable article because "it really does work for me." --Rainith 11:59, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
This is: The. Worst. Suggestion. Ever. It would spread the build problems to all other articles which is definitely not what we want! --Gem-icon-sm.png (gem / talk) 12:11, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

I will personally club 3 extra truckfulls of baby seals if this comes into practise. And I will name them and make a website detailing the process from start to finish. And sell merchandise. — Skuld 12:15, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

Bad-- 19:01, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

Zomg, I don't think the creator of this proposed policy understood the problems with Builds section at all. Even if this was implemented I would be proud to break it! Builds and actual mainspace articles should almost never be mixed together, except in very rare cases such as linking Protective Spirit or Spirit Bond to a 55 monk guide. But still, that is not linking to a build, but rather a historical reference! This policy would create soo many problems and confrontations :( Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 19:10, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

I *am* the author of the proposal and I *do* understand the problem. I posted it to illustrate a point. There is no room in the currently proposed build policies for any system whereby PvE-primary players can search intelligently for interesting PvE builds. Do I think this is the only possible answer? No, I don't. But since no one has offered anything ELSE, much less anything BETTER ... Auntmousie 03:49, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
I doubt that you do understand the problem. If you posted it to illustrate a point, then yes, you succeeded there - you managed to remind us all of why the Builds section got deleted in the first place. Too many irrelevant fights, too many complaints to Admins, breaking Wiki policy, bans and vandals, Recent Changes full of nothing but Build chatter, neglect of real GuildWiki articles...there were many users who logged on often, made many edits, and were avid contributors, but only to Builds section. GuildWiki was never intended to be BuildWiki and the Builds wipe was designed to steer away from that once again. Your proposed "solution" to the problem would just make things worse, perhaps even worse than it was at the height of Builds section adding irrelevant and distracting links to "Builds" (which may be pure crap), so many more potential problems arise. Like Blastedt's example (bluntly) shows below, this proposed solution would be as problematic or even worse than the old vetting one.
You say this: "There is no room in the currently proposed build policies for any system whereby PvE-primary players can search intelligently for interesting PvE builds."
Again, I'll repeat: GuildWiki is not and never should try to be a BuildWiki. We're here to document the game, provide guidance and information, keep records of chest drops and other stuff. That is what Wiki excells at more than any other Guild Wars site. But it has been shown, time and again, that GuildWiki simply fails when it comes to a good system for Builds of any kind. Even if we stuck to just PvP there would still be huge problems. Ignorance...opinions..."elitists"...etc.
Fact: In 95% of PvE situations, any minorly coherent build with 8 skills, max attributes, and full armor will work just fine. Further fact: There are many, many places on the Internet other than GuildWiki for a "PvE-primary player" to "search intelligently for interesting PvE builds". If you were truly homesick you could even go to the new PvX Wiki. But regardless - PvP, PvE, I don't care what - the build system was broken, people dithered for months and ultimately dropped the ball by failing to reach any sort of real consensus, and the Builds Wipe happened. The biggest issue was with the corrupt and fallible Vetting system. The fact that it let complete idiots as well as hardcore gamer geniuses vote with the same amount of clout led not only to rampant Wiki-wide disruption, but also created a warped Builds section, where "Voting is a Joke" came to be the accepted standard when things like a Cupido could get vetted due to a damn guild of Wiki-vandals voting as a bloc. These sorts of stupidities led to the Builds Wipe and the current paucity of answers or solutions.
So, let's consider your system. Rather than posting builds all to a namespace and voting on them as we used to do, you would prefer if builds were kept in the namespace, and "Advertisements" were placed among the mainspace articles. Well, here's your first problem: Builds, and links to them, should not exist in the Mainspace, ever. Even back in the Vetting days, it was rare indeed to see links to builds on a mainspace article, except for a few wildly popular or successful builds (e.g. Solo Green Farmer) which actually made the link relevant. However, with no vetting system (which also did weed out some bad builds) to determine the worth and merit of an "Advertised Build", what will end up happening is exactly what Blastedt has shown below...someone will post a link to "Their" build, someone else will disagree, the link gets removed, reinserted, GW:1RV gets broken, namecalling ensues, etc etc. And remember this won't even be about a build anymore: it will be about a link to a build! In the old Vetting system, the worst you could do was mis-tag a build, for example a PvE build going to HA. But that was easily fixed. With this new system, there is nothing to prevent a Mending Wammo link from being posted to the PvP guide, for example. And no one will have a truly valid grounds to remove such a stupid link: According to GW:AYB, a link only has to be "relevant". But that is so vague and subjective a concept that it cripples the entire policy as a whole. Who is to decide what builds can be linked where and what is "Relevant"? The build's poster? They are biased and have an inflated opinion of "Their" build's worth. The admins? They don't want to get involved in Build dilemmas again, and as LordBiro once said, being an Admin doesn't mean you know more about the game than anyone else, so you aren't qualified at all. The "Community"? Well, that was how the Vetting system was supposed to work. But, it failed because of corruption, ignorance, and petty opinion disputes. The thing is, Builds are a dynamic thing. Effective builds change almost on a weekly basis for PvP, what with how the Metagame works. And even in PvE, every new round of Skill Balances throws things into chaos. The game never stays settled for long, and so except for some timeless Builds such as a 55, any sort of system that relies on people's personal opinions and honor system to determine the worth of builds fails as a whole. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 21:00, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
*blinks* -Auron My Talk 21:04, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
If your reasoning is correct, then GW:PNB is the only reasonable solution to the build problem... which means my point will be adequately proven. My point is, was, and remains that NOB+PYB, as written, exclude PvE players from having anything in the way of builds on the site. That is not in itself unreasonable - but it seems to me that PvE players are the only constitutency who are served better by GuildWiki than other sites in the first place. If the Builds section can't serve our needs, then let's just plain not have one.
If there is to be a builds section, then it *HAS* to somehow accomodate the needs of PvE players. Do I think this is the best way to do that? No. But in the context of NOB+PYB, I have yet to see any other proposal, let alone anything better.
There are many other, better places for people to search for builds, period. That's a sound argument for GW:PNB. It is NOT a sound argument from excluding only a specific subclass of builds, which is the inevitable result of NOB+PYB.
If builds don't belong in the mainspace, then why do they belong on the Wiki at all? Auntmousie 04:53, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
Addendum: It now appears that Profession Guides is being adopted as a subset of the GW:NOB... which constitutes a better idea than this one. You may consider the proposal withdrawn. Auntmousie 05:09, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, I do think GW:PNB is the only reasonable solution to the build problem. It needed to be axed, and that axe has been hanging over its head ever since its creation. Builds don't belong in the mainspace, and that has been the argument from the very beginning. Builds section was only ever created just so admins could easily delete the whole mess if it got out of hand. Which it did. This is not about "PvE vs. PvP players", it is about builds as a whole. And in that regard, if you knew the history behind the Builds section, then you would understand why this proposed solution is not going to work. Heck, I honestly don't think any of the other proposed solutions, or new ones for the future, are viable either. GuildWiki is poorly designed to handle builds (PvP or PvE). The Wiki system is best geared towards its first and foremost purpose: straight documentation of facts and research. Nearly any sort of build system is going to run counter to that...Unless we start requiring build authors to provide hard mathematical formulae that prove their build's effectiveness or something silly like that, Wiki and builds just don't mesh. And even then, the science (or art) of build-making is never, and never will be, a process based solely on facts and figures. No matter if you play PvP or PvE, you know that no matter how good something looks on paper, it can be utterly horrible in practice...That is why nearly all practical systems of builds fail on a Wiki. Guild Wars is ultimately a subjective experience, and while it does base many things on plain old math, figures, and laws (which Wiki excells at documenting), in the end it all boils down to experience and personal taste. How can Wiki document that sort of thing, which cannot be proven conclusively? At best Wiki can only explain in general terms or rationalize based on mathematics, such as "DPS". But once again, it's the problem between what you see on paper and what actually happens. The closest Wiki can get to a "Builds" section would be just documentation on known and time-tested concepts...55, Toucher, SF, etc. Get any closer to "personal" builds, things that are new and haven't been proven time and time again, and that's where you get all your problems.
Finally, Wiki does not discriminate content based on "PvE vs. PvP". We're all Guild Wars players, no matter which aspect of gaming we enjoy most. You say that GuildWiki "*HAS* to somehow accomodate the needs of PvE players." But, I ask you, do we devote whole, entire special sections of the Wiki to...runners? Farmers? PvP players? No, we do not. We have general guides which (try to) cover every aspect of the game, though the emphasis will always remain on facts and definitions rather than straight-up How-To's. We'd never have a Farming 101 article for instance...It is because PvE players are not any more or less important than any other type of player. It is true that the vast majority of Wiki's information only relates to the PvE players. But does that mean they should be accorded special treatment or preference? No! GuildWiki already provides more than almost any other resource in terms of complete lists, maps, quest and mission info, details on game mechanics, boss locations, cetera. There is just already so much out there which a player, any player, can make use of. PvE in Guild Wars is not even particularly difficult, and so the "necessity" of a Builds section for PvE players is lost on me. PvP has such an exponentially higher level of difficulty that it makes sense to direct more resources that way - we do not have much PvP material on Wiki as it is. And in PvP, simple documentable things like Battlefield tactics for Monks are often essential to success. Not so in PvE...and even when it is, mission articles will usually say so. So really I am seeing neither (A) a need to specifically cater to PvE players, nor (B) a need for a Builds section at all, to be honest. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 05:30, 4 May 2007 (CDT)

Detailed explanation of why this policy is a piece of crap[edit source]

Yes.png Hey, look! I can advertise my builds! -Posts Mending build on Echo, Warrior, Monk, Guide to defeating doppelganger, etc.-
BlastThatT.jpg Oh no you don't! -removes-
Yes.png Hey! Don't b a vandl d00d! -reposts-
Elit Druin.jpg -removes-
Yes.png WTF?! GW:AGF, GW:1RV
Gem-icon.png No policy was violated. Besides, that build was bad anyways.
Yes.png :( every1 h8s me and neways gem did u c GW:NPA
BlastThatT.jpg We don't hate you. Besides, he was attacking the build, not you, which is allowed.
Yes.png -reposts builds continuously and flames involved users. Eventually banned.-
BlastThatT.jpg -mutters- I hate GW:AYB

Besides, the abbreviation would be AYB, which isn't serious enough for a policy. —BlastThatT.jpgBlastedt 15:09, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

I concur with all of that. Lord of all tyria 15:12, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
Why is this really needed, ive never seen a build get a lack of attetnion--Blade Smallscout.png (talk|contribs) 15:15, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
You've never seen how build publishing will work. None of us have, to be fair. But supposing I come up with a build idea tomorrow, and publish it on my namespace as directed ... how is anyone ever going to find it? Auntmousie 03:49, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
Have you seen GW:PYB? It is a method of advertising your builds without the need to make a mess in the main name space articles. --Gem-icon-sm.png (gem / talk) 03:52, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
I did and do make it a point to read articles relevant to what I'm arguing about. I grant that it's *possible* that a manageable (read: small) number of good and well-intentioned editors will emerge, at least one or two of which give a rat's kidney about PvE. But the likelihood of it happening by the time GW2 makes the whole point more or less moot? Let's just say I'm not optimistic.
In fairness, I grant that my lack of optimism isn't, in and of itself, a rationale for continued opposition. I would appear at this point to be the only person who sees any light at all in this idea, or any need for the underlying point it makes. I'd rather see it dropped than continue discussion. Auntmousie 05:26, 4 May 2007 (CDT)

I'm hearing this too much... "YOUR" build... — Skuld 06:31, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Well I can understand the "your" build thinking a bit, considering I make jewelery, and hypothetically, if I made a design myself and sold it to a big corporation that mass-produced it (Or if I wrote a build and saw everyone else use it..) then it would feel like an accomplishment. I think it's pretty normal to feel ownership over something you author, some people just tend to get rather (to put it nicely) over-defensive about it if it DOESN'T get favored. Continuing the analogy, if I made a piece of jewelery that I thought looked absolutely awesome, but everyone else said it's awful, then I would say it's awful, but it would still be hurtful. It's just some people seem to go into denial mode...Shas'o Kauyon 20:02, 3 May 2007 (CDT)