Talk: Builds/Archive 4

Updates and Making sure I don't screw things up.

I think [Build:Team - 55/Famine] should get the NFUpdate tag, and have a pointer to [Build:Team_-_55/Famine_Redux] in it's discussion page, however, I don't feel comfortable changing "Tested" builds. I'd like the 55/Famine-Redux to change as well, but that is a seperate issue. Is there a policy on updating tested builds? I guess I want to get my boots on and go stomping, but I don't feel comfortable doing that yet. Any seasoned build folks have advice on this? Thanks. -- Oblio (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2006 (CST)

Builds on Wiki

Truthfully, I come here for three things 1: Hunting down skills 2: Checking builds 3: Mission Tips & Hints I check builds all over but the ones that I like most tend to come from this site. I like having them here even if its mismatched from a encyclopedic POV.

Builds on a Wiki? No Thanks

This'll get hit with lots of flak, but I can manage. My suggestion to improve this Wiki and its reputation; Remove the build section entirely.
It's foolish to have a build section period. Take a quick glance at GWGuru or team-iq.net; does *anyone* think the Wiki build section is worth using? No. So why are we wasting time working on a build section that nobody cares about or respects? Basically, if you get a PvP build off Wiki, you fail at PvP. Start a thread over at GWGuru if you disagree, see how many supporters you get. PvE is too easy to have a compendium of specific builds for it. As I'll talk about later, we should have only guides for each profession, telling them how not to be a retard (i.e. don't tank as a caster, don't attack through Empathy, etc.)
Most importantly, a build section does not fit on this wiki period. Fact: GuildWiki is a guide with elements of an encyclopedia. Don't believe me? Check out this page. Encyclopedias are a compendium of fact (for the most part), so the only builds justified by Encyclopedia would be ones pre-made by ArenaNet; seeing as those have been discontinued, no builds should be included in encyclopedic nature. That leaves the Guide part of the wiki.
I looked up "guide" at Dictionary.com and got about fifteen results. #4 is:

• a book, pamphlet, etc., giving information, instructions, or advice; handbook.

Simple as that. We already have guides to each profession (something to the effect of Effective Warrior Guide), and guides to profession combinations (Warrior Monk, Warrior Elementalist, etc), so our work is done. Keep the Wiki what it is meant to be; a comprehensive and easy-to-navigate Encyclopedia/guide. Remove the build section.

-Auron 19:03, 5 December 2006 (CST)

(P.S. To counter at least a bit of the fallical logic I'll be hit with, take a look at GW:NOT. It states "We are not an encyclopedia!" Plenty of people will take this out of context, and try to use it as a stand-alone statement. Don't. The policy is stating we are not *merely* an encyclopedia; we are a guide and a fansite. Wikipedia cannot have too many personal opinions/how-to's; we, on the other hand, can. Which is why we have the Effective Warrior Guide, etc) -Auron 19:03, 5 December 2006 (CST)

"does *anyone* think the Wiki build section is worth using" - I don't really have an argument for you, but I sure use the build section. I've used it to try new farming ideas and to grab PvP builds to try (I'm not good at PvP). -- Oblio (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2006 (CST)

Yeah, actually... by *anyone*, I mean *anyone else*. Of course Wiki users will use them; but the section still doesn't fit. Like you mention, as a starting PvP-er, we could have guides written for both (or maybe two sections to each profession guide); a PvE Warrior section which talks about staying alive, not aggroing poorly, etc. while the PvP Warrior section would talk about Pressure, DPS and bodyblocking opponents (among other things). Thanks for pointing that out. -Auron 19:11, 5 December 2006 (CST)

heh - I've been saying something close to this for quite some time now (pretty much sinse the build articles began). I can see partnering with another site for build content - but a wiki, by its very nature, is not a good forum for developing and presenting builds. We've put in place policies that are un-wiki-like in nature to try to force them to function - and to some extent it has been successful in creating a small community of GuildWiki Build users - but the overall GW community (check most other fan-site forums) still view the wiki as a joke when it comes to builds.

I could argue for keeping any "flavor of the month" builds that have come along, as those and their variants are just being documented. But developing builds and rating them is a very subjective task - best left to other tools outside of a wiki environment. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:14, 5 December 2006 (CST)

I see what you're saying. FotM builds can definitely be encyclopedically archived. And yeah, I agree; the build policies are seeming very un-wiki-like, on-the-fly dealies. That combined with the users seeking only personal glory, the build section brings more heartburn than anything else :/ -Auron 19:20, 5 December 2006 (CST)

Yes please. Its just a forum with more flaming atm — Skuld 02:08, 6 December 2006 (CST)

After thinking for awhile, I think even FotM builds are a little much to have. People will disagree on specifics ("d00d, I always used frenzy..." " yeah wel ur a n00b, the pros used tiger's fury" etc). In the style of a guide, but more focused on archiving, we might list the build name and the gist of the build (i.e. core skills, like Searing Flames+Glowing Gaze, but not every skill on the bar; as almost everyone's bar is different.) -Auron 05:57, 6 December 2006 (CST)

I am not a fan of the builds section, but I'm not in favour of them being removed.

At the moment the builds section is a place for people to put forward experimental builds for the community to test, and in my opinion this is the problem. Ideally I would like to see a system where only "tested" builds are hosted on the wiki.

But I can't see a way of altering the builds section so that we could do this. So while I would like to remove untested/unfavoured builds entirely, I'm not in favour of any action in this direction since I think it would be harmful to the builds section as a whole. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 06:15, 6 December 2006 (CST)

The builds section that shouldn't exist in the first place, you mean? I'm not arguing against the build section's policies or community or anything; I'm saying it shouldn't exist, because it's not wiki-like, it's not encyclopedic, and it sure as hell ain't a guide.

I read a book quite a while a go that changed my mind on organization and planning. It basically layed out what the top-earning companies (over the last fifteen years, up til '01 or something) did differently. One of the main points was not wasting energy doing something you will never be the best at. If you can't do it well, don't do it at all. This Wiki is better than GWGuru (and pretty much everywhere) at being a general source of information about *anything* in Guild Wars, from armor to weapons to quests to pop culture references. It's something the Wiki is geared to do. The Wiki is not geared toward builds (whether it be evaluation or just presentation). Therefore, we're wasting our time and energy trying to break the barrier of this Wiki's basic concept; trying to make a "builds section" that works. As Barek and you have admitted, it's an unnatural process; we're bending rules and changing the spirit of the Wiki by trying to make a build section work. Dump it entirely; there's no place for it in an encyclopedia. It damages not only the reputation of the Wiki, but the work others put into what the Wiki is supposed to be. -Auron 06:58, 6 December 2006 (CST)

No, I am not talking about the builds section that "shouldn't exist in the first place". Please don't put words in my mouth :P

What kind of process would you like to see happen then, Auron? I doubt very much that consensus will be reached on the removal of the builds section. Despite not liking the builds section I would vote against its removal. The most I would be willing to agree with is a system whereby we document common builds, and I doubt even that would reach consensus. Perhaps you could argue that the sysops should take action and remove the builds section, but I don't think that this is really our place.

As far as I'm concerned, aside from the dispute at the moment, the builds section does not affect my daily routine. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 07:51, 6 December 2006 (CST)

I respect your opinion on this Auron, but then again I really like the idea of coming to guildwiki to grab a build idea. I just go to the vetted section and there is a decent build idea selection right before me for almost any profession. I typically play one profession so when I do play other professions it's nice to not have to start learning how to play all over again or spending 2 hours reading through skill descriptions before assembling a build that may work. I, personally, have spent a lot of time trying to clean up, fix, re-work, etc. the builds section because I find it a viable and much better organized method than any other fansite out there. Sure it isn't 'Encyclopedia'-like but then again the wiki is a network of ever changing information and the builds section is just a bunch of ideas on how to better play Guild Wars. If anyone takes the builds on here as the law then they are mistaken but if they use them as a source of inspiration or a learning tool then they are doing it right. Vetted, Untested, Stub, Unfavored, Deleted, etc. there are lots of ideas and many not to everyone's taste but I feel they all have a place here, if anything, as an organized source of reference that isn't offered anywhere else (at least that I have found).-- Vallen Frostweaver 08:01, 6 December 2006 (CST)

I think the GWiki build section has honestly gotten to the point where it is counterproductive as a resource. It is so full of garbage and open to abuse, and there aren't enough clued-up people in Guild Wars to moderate and maintain it correctly as a useful section. JR 14:28, 05 December 2006 (GMT)

The only place where I think the GWiki build section serves a semi-useful resource is in the fact that it is nicely laid out and has a larger collection of even useful builds than Guru or team-iq or anywhere else that can be easily searched. I agree with JR that most of the builds here are so full of garbage that as a PvPer and a PvEer I tell guildmates, alliancemates, friends, and even people in public/local chat to avoid reading GuilWiki Builds unless they know what they're looking for, and just can't find it elsewhere easily enough. As a rather bad example, I point people to the Flareway page on Guildwiki. Why? Because they ask me what happened after they face it, and its a lot easier than digging through elsewhere (TGH, etc.) to find the barest sketches of a build that is really just a joke build. I stopped voting on builds because I felt that 90% of the voters really had an agenda to push their own build rather than actually filter out crap from builds, and honestly, I felt one long-standing member of the GuildWiki voters that I ran into had the ability to properly evaluate and vote on PvP builds (PvE builds I never understood - modify a PvP build or look at guru for just about anything you could imagine - since its so subjective as to "voting"). That's not to say that there aren't many other people who can add good input, just that only one consistent voter impressed me enough to believe they were someone I would trust with the voting process, and the rest either only occasionally did or didn't vote often. --Kryshnysh 11:49, 6 December 2006 (CST)

A vote on this issue would be no less than a vote on the (official) policy of what the Wiki is. Based on the policies that have been placed before me, and the policies of the Wiki standing as they are, a build section does not fit; I don't care how many people bitch and whine, it won't change the fact that this is a Wiki (and encyclopedia/guide, like I stated above) and nowhere in here exists a place to flame others about builds.

Voting would be an incredibly poor plan of action in this case; I'm playing the Devil's Advocate, speaking as a GWiki user, but from the perspective of someone on the outside. A vote would be utterly pointless and a waste of time. Who votes on GWiki matters? GuildWikians. A vote would solve nothing. Like I said, unless the policies are changed, there is no allowance for a build section - which makes sense, doesn't it, given that the Wiki isn't built to support it?

"Perhaps you could argue that the sysops should take action and remove the builds section, but I don't think that this is really our place." Yes, I am basically asking the sysops to remove it; like I said, it's a matter of policy, not personal preference. If you want the build section to stay, you'd need to include it somewhere in the policy that this "encyclopedia" and "guide" needs a build section. Apart from GW:NOT, I read through the duties of the Admins, and it pretty much states they have free reign; they can ban/block/delete/restore etc, and that's fine. What the Admin page says nothing about is how much the Admins need to stick to/reinforce official policy on the Wiki. So, in the end, all I can do is point to the "widely accepted" policy and point out how builds don't fit in there. The rest is up to admins; whether they decide to re-write policy and keep the build section, or stick with the already-"widely-accepted" policy and remove it. -Auron 10:58, 6 December 2006 (CST)

P.S. Please don't reply and say "oh but auron I use GWiki's build section." Yeah... and? That's irrelevent. Start using GWGuru's - they have threads with a plethora of different builds. Look over at gwshack - that has plenty of great (and not-so-great) ideas for builds, and complete team builds themselves. If it's too inconvenient for you to use proper build compendiums when it comes to builds, I'm sorry; it doesn't change my stance on the Build section of the wiki, nor is it in any way relevant to the topic. -Auron 10:58, 6 December 2006 (CST)

So you are saying that, based on our current policies (excluding build policies), we should not have a builds section? Could you please tell me which policies you are referring to? Quoting any sections would be helpful. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 12:02, 6 December 2006 (CST)

I have one more comment WRT Auron's general issues about the build area, which is that I _LOVE_ the formatting template of our builds. I often take builds off forums and type them up in my user-section just so I can point my guildmate's to them (rather than the nasty forum formatting of other places). My only positive contribution to the argument is that perhaps we should split "builds" and "the great gwiki build scrum" into two seperate area's (probably hiding the scrum page somewhere deeper than the main page), with only documentation/fotm builds going into the builds section. It really is nice to have a resource where I can find out what someone is talking about when they refer to (for example) "VIMWay". I do agree though that what we currently have as "tested" includes a number of great builds and a number of questionable ones. -- Oblio (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2006 (CST)

Yeh. Like I said, guides (a written *article* describing vimway, as I'd bet not 100% of the ViM teams used the exact same bars) fit the wiki, and are easily manageable. Er... because we are a guide. I took that, in combination with "fansite" and "encyclopedia" to decude the point and goals of this Wiki. Up top, I broke each down, and none of them contained mention that we should have a build section (*especially* not when it's so unnatural for the wiki-based community; we try to reduce "ownership" on articles, and yet, every build has an "author," and that "author" has specific things he can/cannot do. Sounds pretty hypocritical; if a basic disagreement of the wiki's aims and the build section's aims comes about, the wiki's wins. Which means that all those on-the-fly Build Policies lose, throwing the Build section back into chaos. Go figure, as the wiki isn't built for a build section). -Auron 12:38, 6 December 2006 (CST)

I like the builds section. I find it a useful resource and if some people look down on it then, IMHO, that's their loss. Yes it courses issues but I feel that the build section is among the best out there. Yes some of the builds are a bit naff, but there is more to the builds area than just the builds it contains, which can be changed. It's a place for people to learn what works, and what doesn't. To see new ways of using skills that they may not have thought of. Because it's on the wiki the skills and items are easy to cross reference and, with a bit of know how, you can find all the builds that use a specific skill with a couple of mouse clicks. If the builds section was removed from the internet or lost it's connections with the wiki I would mourn its departure. --JP 12:47, 6 December 2006 (CST)

The build section doesn't harm GuildWiki; if anything it helps it. Sure, you could say that including a free issue of The Onion in Webster's English dictionary doesn't hurt anything either, but GuildWiki isn't JUST an encyclopedia. GuildWiki is a general knowledge repository, and we shouldn't confine ourselves to a certain range of topics just because others fall outside the "definition" of the site. The builds section gives people another reason to come to the site and register.

The reasons for not listing guilds and (proposed) reasons for not listing builds are different. We don't list guilds beause it doesn't serve much practical purpose. It won't make the game easier for anyone just to know what War Machine has done, but it does help to provide effective skillsets. GWiki has more builds and is better organized than both GWGuru and GWShack. Sure, we could make a whole new site, BuildWiki or whatever, and link it with GuildWiki, but that's inefficient when a build section accomplishes the same thing. --Chris with Lime 13:05, December 6 2006 (CST)

It's not a question of what falls outsite of the definition; but what falls outside of the available infrastructure and framework. The entire builds procedure is kludged together in an attempt to force it to work as best it can; but in the end, it's not an optimal environment in which to develop builds. Unlike Auron, I do not support the wholesale elimination of the builds section - at least not yet. I agree that a builds area provides value, I simply do not believe that a wiki, by its very nature, is suited to provide that section. Before the builds section could be removed, I would first want to see GuildWiki partner with another site that itself could provide a more suitable builds vetting forum. Several sites have builds forums such as GuildWarsGuru. Alternatives to forums are sites such as GWShack. Any of these formats are more suitable than a Wiki environment, and with a little work a partnership could be designed between GuildWiki and one of these sites - allowing links between the two for the betterment of both. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:14, 6 December 2006 (CST)

Damn those edit conflicts. Barek said pretty much exactly what I was going to say. I typed out my three main reasons against a BuildWiki:

1. a Wiki is a horrible place for build-management, especially working on builds for improvement. This leads into...
2. The normal rules/policies that apply to the entire rest of the Wiki stop working in the Build section (that should be a clue to some that the build section is, indeed, a different horse of a very different color). We're forced to ghetto-rig rules and policies in place to solve each individual problem, and we still don't have an effective counter to most of 'em.
3. Too many users seek personal fame and glory by getting "their builds" vetted by "the community." This leads to problems like users reverting to Sockpuppetry, cheating on votes, deleting votes period and ignoring the entire voting process, and the list goes on. Every time I see someone's userpage with "their build" and especially the ones that split em into "tested" and "unfavored," I'm reminded of the mistake we made by having a build section from the beginning.

I went on to explain about saving the work we've already done onto a partner site, pretty much exactly like Barek described, so no work would be lost. Then everyone would be able to continue improving builds, but the work would go by much faster, and the quality of the improvements would be noticable. I don't want the work that we've thrown into a Build section to be wasted; I just don't feel it fits on the Wiki. If it was... well, mirrored onto a partner site with better build support, Build testing/voting/vetting etc would run smoother, and there'd be no conflict of ownership/authorship problems like in a Wiki. -Auron 13:22, 6 December 2006 (CST)

Edit: To tie that in with my original argument... :p We'd be able to keep the GuildWiki contributors focused on the aspect of "guides" to explain things; not specific builds. We'd explain how to manage aggro/rez safely/bodyblock/snare etc in a Warrior article, and link to builds that are good examples of the point of the guide. "Snare enemies so they don't run away" might link to a build with Crippling Slash (I don't really recommend that skill, I'm just using it off the top of my head). Be sure to include killer combos like Warrior Elementalists using Hamstring to cripple opponents, and Firestorm to unleash the damage upon lame foes as they struggle to get away :) -Auron 13:30, 6 December 2006 (CST)

I love the wiki keeping the Fotm builds, but as auron as said, not the "original" builds which are just glory seekers for the most part. — Skuld 13:38, 6 December 2006 (CST)

*waits for GWGuru auctions to load* Yeah, but good luck finding concensus on exact skill bars :) -Auron 13:43, 6 December 2006 (CST)

Yeh, I dunno how to get round that. — Skuld 13:44, 6 December 2006 (CST)

To some degree, that doesn't matter. In many of the 55 builds, it is sufficient to just link to the "invincimonk guide" which talks exetensively about different combo's, and indicate that any of those builds would be fine that meet X criteria. I would think that model would satisfactorily handle most situations. -- Oblio (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2006 (CST)

Agreed. The Invincimonk guide was actually the one I had in mind throughout most of this (aside from my constant references to a Warrior guide), listing possible skills to use, the pros/cons of each, and letting the user decide. -Auron

The existing format is still nice. I see Invincible Monk links to example builds (again that could be trouble). For ease of following, Invincible Monk vs [Build:R/W Rampaging Axeman] for instance — Skuld 13:53, 6 December 2006 (CST)

I have to say, you've struck a nerve with me there. I've felt for a long time that the concept of a "build author" is un-wiki. I am still cautious, as I hope you can understand. A lot of people (Xeeron specificall) have invested a lot of time in the build section, and so I have very mixed feelings on the state of this section.

I'm sure some of you will think that this is not a concern; that the builds section is "wrong" and should be removed. For me it is not as clear cut. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 14:06, 6 December 2006 (CST)

I don't think that it's "wrong," as much as it doesn't belong. I don't like it being part of the Wiki, but that's just personal preference. I strongly support what Barek was saying about putting the work we've done here onto a real build-supporting format. That would improve both sections; The serious build testers would get a reasonable format to submit/review/test builds, and the Wiki would stay a little more encyclopedic. The same people that are deeply involved with the Builds on this Wiki will, undoubtedly, jump on the opportunity to have a better and easier way to view builds... so we wouldn't lose support either way. If the partner site has outstanding build support, the improved quality of our builds might shake off that negative connotation that "wiki builds" have, and make it a well-known and oft-referenced site. -Auron 14:22, 6 December 2006 (CST)

I'm not sure why people keep saying that the Wiki format is a bad one for builds. The protocol, maybe, but the Wiki format itself is very conducive to an open discussion of ideas. The presentation of builds, first of all, is much more crisp and detailed than other build hosting sites. The wiki has a whole page devoted to each build, with large visual skillbars. The linked equipment, usage, counters, variants etc. sections provide a depth unmatched by other build hosting sites. Build talk is also presented clealy, with organized discussion not bogged down by signatures, avatars, post divisions, or other clutter from normal message boards.

As to the fact that some people just don't like the Build section, like Auron said that's simply personal preference, and not a particularly good reason. Also, I agree that the Build section and vetting process could use some work, but that is also not a good reason to kick it out of the Wiki. If there's a city with a bad neighborhood, you don't just expel all the residents and demolish the building, you work to make it better.

I don't necessarily object to transfering the builds section to some sort of sister site, but a Wiki would still be an optimal medium. Of course, we already have the builds hosted on this Wiki, so that seems a little unnecessary. --Chris with Lime 19:02, 6 December 2006

While I like many others am sometimes infuriated (and stupefied) by some of the truly bad builds posted on this site and I often think that something might work better than what exists or even that a tested build doesn't deserve to be tested, I fail to see how having such a section actually detracts from the wiki. Sometimes it's helpful, sometimes it's not, but when has it actually hurt anybody? Some individuals may not like the build section, how is that a reason to just get rid of it? And why would we move them when they are already there? Essentially the main points I have seen from people in favor of removing it are: it doesn't fit with a wiki and the process doesn't work. As to the first argument, you are arguing semantics. You say that a wiki is an encyclopedia so let's get rid of its build section. By the same token I could argue that the definition is really a compendium of information so we need a builds section. A definition is no reason because it is entirely arbitrary. As to the second argument, if there are problems with the build section, work to fix those, don't just dismiss them. Or, if you dislike it so much, why don't you just stop looking at it. You are in no way inconvenienced by having it because you don't have to look at it, but, for a person who uses it, they are certainly inconvenienced if you get rid of it. Don't like it, deal with it or help fix it, but don't condemn it because of some abstract dislike or semantic debate. Defiant Elements 00:17, 7 December 2006 (CST)

Sadly, you missed the points being made. Like others before you above, and which has been explained repeatedly, definition/semantics are not the issue. Neither is personal taste of liking/disliking the builds section, that was thrown out as an understood at the start, and hasn't been relevant to the actual issues. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:29, 7 December 2006 (CST)

This whole issue about having Builds or not here is a bit silly IMO. If you remove the builds section, then you will have to remove the guides and skill comments as well, otherwise the builds and usage discussions (and their relative flamewars) will informally end up there.Also on the issue of a better site, forums and newsgroups are more appropriate for /discussing/ a build, but are fundamentally flawed for looking up builds: search features just don't measure up to categories and hyperlinks. The best build in the world is useless if you can't find it.That said, there is no law fordbidding another site to be started, once it gets universal recognition, the wiki can link there, but 'till then, it's just so much hot air :) Caths 13:53, 11 December 2006 (CST)

Like others before you, you have ignored the actual comments and based your reply solely on the title of the section. As has been repeated too many times to count, if builds were removed from the wiki, it would only be done if an alternate site were found/created with which the wiki could partner - links between sites are an easy thing to implement, so your comments re: guildes and skill comments needing removed is flawed - they would need redirecting, but that could possibly be done via a bot. As for the type of site needed, see "Partner site?" below where this has already been discussed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:58, 11 December 2006 (CST)

Partner site, sounds fine. Removing builds from this wiki, sounds fine. I still think a part of them should be left here on the wiki though but in another form to comply with the idea of a wiki as an encyclopedia. For example, there may be a few basic roles a profession typically will be expected to perform (Monk - heal, Necro - Minions, and so-on...) and perhaps a few basic compilation example builds may help provide a general feel for the role - rovided they are general in nature. For example, it's often conceived that a ranger may play as an interrupter. Through the recent compilation of builds and such I helped create [Build:R/any General Interrupter] which is just an example of several methods used accross different campaigns to accomplish the same result in a broad sense and can be easily used for an example of this role. Attribute stats could be removed entirely or just a suggested range (like "high Marksmanship is typically used" instead of "Marksmanship 12+1+3" for example). This build could actually have a few more details removed and just typically used skills included on a master list (thinking of the trapping guide but much shorter and simpler). Perhaps a few general builds can be used/kept/modified/created for each profession in a similar fashion but with more specific and flavor builds being directed to a 'partner site' as suggested below. This should then still keep the original theme of Guildwiki being an encyclopedia I would think. If you would like me to come up with a draft of a generic 'role' build let me know and I'll type one up on my user page for you guys to review. I'm specifically thinking of having the link from somewhere like Effective ranger guide in the descriptive paragraphs. Of course this idea may not be well received so I leave it here for discussion before I put any work into it.-- Vallen Frostweaver 14:47, 11 December 2006 (CST)

Actually I have read, and the debate did not revolve around creating a new site and its functionality like you pretend, but about dropping the builds section, in an attempt (I assume) to drive traffic to this hypothetical new site. IMO if you want a new site, start one, make a forum there, debate its features there, implement it, flesh it out. And when it'll have been proven that it works better, it'll be time enough to have wiki links. The argumentation so far has only consisted in "burn the house" comments, in the hope that a better house would somehow rise upon its ashes. This just kinda stalls work on the builds sections, without adding anything useful to the debate IMO. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Caths 01:54, 13 December 2006 (CST)

Partner site?

While I support partnering with another site that is better designed for builds, there is much work yet to be done before we can even consider making that jump. For one, what site? Many exist, and I'm not certain that any of those are even optimal. To me, the ideal format would be more like a true database - if you want, you can search for builds by skills used, by profession, attribute(s) used etc - pretty much any variable used in the build. Authors could edit their build articles, but no one else could - although others could post comments to it. The ratings would be similar to a Slashdot style forum, where users are semi-randomly selected to help moderate the builds - the more frequently you contribute, the more frequently you're granted a limited number of moderator points to spread around. The problem, of course, is that no such system currently exists as far as I know - so who would be the partner? That's the sticky question in all of this. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:40, 6 December 2006 (CST)

My issue with the Builds section is that it's currently to easy to bury good builds with pessimism rather than allowing for improvement. Unfavoured votes can be a stain on a build's reputation after it's been revised, unless the author reopens voting.

Wikis do *not* have to be used to create encyclopedias, and should not be treated as "encylopedia tools", they are far more versatile than that. I used a wiki with a group I worked with on a degree project. We created a wiki so we could easily edit and update our lab reports as they progressed. This is exactly why i like the idea of a "build wiki". Bear in mind that it's a popular part of the site, so why not make it more prominent on the mian page, but give it a status that is obviously separated from the "encyclopedia" section.Labmonkey 18:43, 6 December 2006 (CST)

One of the great features of the wiki build section is the possibility to easily link to wiki articles, allowing easy surfing of skills, monsters, locations and other usefull stuff. This should be taken into account. -- (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2006 (CST)

Wikis do *not* have a good format for builds, period. If you want to link, you can easily do so from pretty much any other format on the net (in HTML, if nothing else. It's not *as* easy as linking from in-wiki, but that's hardly a trade-off for the lack of build support). Keep in mind that if you run across a skill you're unfamiliar with reading a build, you can copy-paste the name of said skill into GWiki (yea, 4 or so seconds of work for exactly the same results).

Yes, burying "good builds" with pessimism might be a problem, and that's another reason to get a real build site rather than forcing it to work (or trying to, anyway) on a Wiki. Keep in mind that not all builds are good, and many builds will be met with "pessimism," even if you think they're good. And Labmonkey... we are trying to make it more prominent, by removing it from the wiki (as I've stated, it doesn't mesh with the wiki; read above, plenty of people agree) and moving it all to a site on its own. I'm not trying to hide the build section; I'm trying to move it off the Wiki. Once the information has been moved, I imagine there'd be a blurb on the front page of GWiki talking about the move, so nobody would miss a beat. -Auron 00:28, 7 December 2006 (CST)

I disagree that copy/paste should be a solution. Any design with a potential partner site (which I do support), would require that the alternate site has developed easy to insert links to bring the user back to GuildWiki. This requirement alone makes it a very long-term project to find a partner site with the structure and willingness to resolve this. Unfortuneately, while I support this idea, I acknowledge that the likelihood is extremely small. The alternate site would also require a more structured voting/vetting system (personally, I like the Slashdot model I mentioned above, but other viable alternatives exist) this is simply not supportable in a wiki environment. Lastly, ideally the site would contain a more robust build search capability that should be possible by using a more structured build-making relational database rather than the entire build existing in a large text file as is done on a wiki format. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:37, 7 December 2006 (CST)

Copy-paste would be a last resort, if we can't find something that links easily. The linking will probably be the easiest part of our problem to solve. Getting a steady voting system (I like slashdot's too) and a good search mechanism will be much harder. -Auron 00:51, 7 December 2006 (CST)

I understand that some people think the Wiki format is a poor one for builds, but I don't get exactly why. Build authorship issues/glory seeking? Wiki encourages a communal attitude towards articles; glory-seeking seems more likely on regular forums. Organization? As I've said before, Wiki's organization (and aesthetics, though that's a little subjective) is better than that of many other build hosting sites. Arguments and flaming? Unfortunately, this is an issue in any forum for open exchange of ideas, not just Wikis. --Chris with Lime 8:49, 7 December 2006

"The normal rules/policies that apply to the entire rest of the Wiki stop working in the Build section (that should be a clue to some that the build section is, indeed, a different horse of a very different color). We're forced to ghetto-rig rules and policies in place to solve each individual problem, and we still don't have an effective counter to most of 'em." Also, authorship in articles wouldn't be a problem in a build site (because there would be no Wiki rules stating otherwise; basically, each build would indeed have an owner, and that would make changing it fast and easy). Also, on a Wiki, any user can alter the build at any time; while it might actually improve the build, the build might change past what the author had in mind for it. Like you say, arguments and flaming are a problem anywhere, but they *especially don't fit* into a Wiki community. The build section consists mostly of crappy builds made by people who are willing to flame over them; the rest of the Wiki isn't. While flaming can still happen, it's really rare ("LIEK OMG I HAET YUO FOR CHANGING MY DESCRIPTION OF A BOSS!!1!1" <--- that never happens). -Auron 11:38, 7 December 2006 (CST)

What do you mean by "that would make changing it fast and easy"? Changing the build? You make two semi-conflicting points... A Wiki allows for anyone to edit a build, which you admit allows for more improvements, but also complain that the build section is full of bad builds. A build site where the original author the only person allowed to edit a build would create even more bad builds, as more experienced users wouldn't be able to directly help out newbies fix their builds. Yes, the reverse is true that the inexperienced might mess with a build that is already good, but, speaking empirically, that happens relatively rarely.

I admit that the Wiki protocol isn't optimally crafted in regards to builds, but this seems like improving Wiki policy would be a more pragmatic alternative to uprooting the build section. --Chris with Lime 18:46, 7 December 2006

By "improving Wiki policy" do you mean ignoring half of what the Wiki says about general editing (including no ownership of articles), and implementing an unnatural, forced method of voting/vetting/deleting/pruning old builds/etc? Aside from an ownership clash with the "wiki community" concept... the layout is horrible. Take a look at gwbb or something (gwshack uses that) - mouse over the skill to see everything about it. It'll show you how much you heal for at the build's level of Healing Prayers, it'll show you how much additional HP will be healed with your level of Divine Favor, it'll show the actual cost of skills under Expertise... the list goes on. The Wiki cannot display builds well; that is fact.

The majority of the builds on the Wiki suck. That's not the fault of the wiki; that's because we have a huge number of, as BrianG describes them, "tinkerers." By moving to another site, we'd attract more people to give feedback on builds, and with that, we'd get more experienced people aiding the newbies on builds. Also, it'd be easier to choose which builds are truely Vetted; imo, three people voting for any particular build doesn't say a damn thing about the build. The fact that the W/Mo Life Sheath build got vetted gives away how little control we have over crappy builds getting "vetted." I like Barek's Slashdot ranking system idea, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there. -Auron 20:38, 7 December 2006 (CST)

Auron, while I agree with the majority of what you say, you are mistaken about gwBBcode. There is a version of that code specifically modified to work on MediaWiki software. If I recall correctly, the reason we have not implemented it here is due to bandwidth demands of the current version, plus some other technical issues. They are reportedly working on a version to address these issues, and its use would be re-evaluated at that time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:19, 7 December 2006 (CST)

That works :) -Auron 22:07, 7 December 2006 (CST)

In response to Auron's question (though he didn't answer mine), GuildWiki already has special policies for builds. Of all the established policies listed on the GuildWiki:Policy page, I can't find any that conflict with the build section and the retention of builds. Removing the build section would conflict more with current policy than keeping it. There are some situations that arise in the Builds section that are not covered specifically by Wiki policy, but that's true for the whole site. As it stands now, those who say the Builds section does not belong conflict more with Wiki policy than the Builds section itself.

Also, you talk about communal ownership of build articles like it's a bad thing. Single ownership is impractical in some areas, such as in popular, widely used builds like Bunny Thumper or 55 Monk. It's fine for someone to be proud of a build s/he invented independently and posted on the Wiki, but it's hard (and a little pointless) to claim complete "ownership" of a build even if the Builds section did have a policy supporting it.

I won't dispute that the majority of the builds posted on GuildWiki are not particularly good. However, in a site that grants the original author of a build article exclusive rights to edit that article (besides Admins), the site could become bogged down with even more bad builds. Someone might come up with a build that uses an interesting skill combo but it otherwise bad. If that person doesn't accept criticism and suggestions to improve the build, the article would simply stagnate. True, that bad build could simply be deleted, but that risks encountering the same basic bad builds over and over again without an already-deemed-bad build one may use to quickly demonstrate that an unvetted similar build is bad. To be fair, this (the reposting of bad builds with minor alterations) happens on GuildWiki anyway despite the existence of the Unfavored section.

All that said, I do not specifically oppose moving the build section to a linked Wiki or Wiki-like site. Attracting more experienced build, uh, builders and improving overall build quality are both good things, but I am not yet sure these things cannot be accomplished on GuildWiki. --Chris with Lime 18:55, 8 December 2006 (CST)

If people want to search builds, how about just letting them post their build ideas on their own userpages, and allow for some sort of method to search for people that post their builds in their userspace? This gets it off of the wiki proper, and allows people to have more freedom to post their own builds. If someone likes it they will watch that page for updates. If they don't then they will likely not come back. That, or dispose of build posting entirely - it's not worth it to make Skuld or the other admins the "build portal" police when they could better serve the project in other ways. --Myrrinth 12:29, 26 December 2006 (CST)

Left Justify FTW=) I say to just seperate user builds and prominent builds altogether... prominent builds should only be FotM and Staples... while tested "userbuilds" should be in their own section. Placing my [Build:A/any Impaler|Impaler] in the same light as the tried and true [Build:N/Me_SS_Nuker|SS Nuker] is just WRONG =)... The impaler might be good... but the SS is a staple and unless there is a massive nerf will always be a prominent build (even after the ai updates=P). Builds are the reason i like the wiki as much as i do and will only help the wiki's funding (as theyre pretty darn popular)... but people coming here to find the perfect build to copy paste can get lost in the mess... Basically, changing Miscellaneous builds to "User Created Builds" and moving "tested Builds" there, and then cataloging all the general FotM and Staple builds into their own section in prominent builds SHOULD help to ease the headache a bit... --Midnight08 12:42, 26 December 2006 (CST)

Btw, i love a partner site idea, but also love the wiki format... maybe use the partner site to handle the vetting process, then transfer tested builds to the wiki afterward... Either way,if someone can tell me the monthly cost of a site this popular (and the system requirements and such) I'd consider helping to start one... (which i've stated in the past)--Midnight08 12:47, 26 December 2006 (CST)

I'm for a partner site, hwoever it should be a new site not BuildGuru or Team-IQ. I think there are people here who would love to take up the task. A link to this site shoul simply be provided on the build page in the wiki.--TheDrifter 10:56, 28 December 2006 (CST)

"hit and run" votes

A trend I've noticed is that a lot of unfavoured votes tend to be overly brief, limiting their discussion and rebuttal, whereas favoured votes tend to have more on what they liked about the build. These "hit and run" votes are typically cast and then forgotten, leaving a barrier to build acceptence even if the build is adapted or their concerns proven false.

I'd like to suggest that any vote can be challenged by the author, and subsequently removed if the voter does not provide a reasonable reply within a week. This would promote reasonable discussion over instant dismissal of builds, as well as enabling authors to realise the more serious flaws of their builds.Labmonkey 18:55, 6 December 2006 (CST)

No. There's a few reasons why "No." Firstly, you're assigning even *more* ownership to the author than he already had. I think there's *too much* ownership already. That goes against the basic concept of the Wiki (damn, isn't that another reason to move it to a build site?). Secondly, it's horribly imbalanced (would an author challenge a favored vote? no) and not incredibly realistic. Given that the majority of builds currently on the Wiki are crap, the majority of votes would, naturally, be unfavored. The suggestion you want implemented would not only make voting unfavored a pain in the ass, but would also make it take a loooong time. Which means we'd *never* get through the crappy builds. So aside from bending Wiki rules further to force a build section to work, it wouldn't actually solve anything. -Auron 00:47, 7 December 2006 (CST)

Ppl use builds different then the one who made it. Example: you are very good with it, kill enough etc...then someone else uses the same build as yours, he can't work with it and then...bam...unfavoured. User:InfestedHydralisk==

A good example of this is here. Two unfavored votes that have been made without actually taking the time to read that two enemies are targeted. This is pretty annoying, since there's two negative votes made for no reason, and the posters are unlikely to return there. Also, a favored vote disappeared, I'm going to look into that. --Getalifebud 18:36, 10 December 2006 (CST)

Also would like to note both votes were made without so much as rolling a character with this build --Getalifebud 09:13, 11 December 2006 (CST)

Another example: [Build_talk:A/D_Disciple_of_Death] people have tested this build in PvP to see if it's any good in PvE. Rules about voting need to be made. 1) No voting until you have tested it in at least 2 places in which the build is categorised. 2)Voting is void if reason contradicts the abilities/usage of the build. (rule 2 needs refining) Sir On The Edge 18:43, 10 December 2006 (CST)

Rule 2 doesn't exist, for good reason. (Good) Players can tell what general improvements need to be made on a build without ever wasting faction on it. For specifics, a user must play the role; for split-second differences in timing, the differences runes make on the build, etc. I'd like to bring to light the fact that NightAngel hasn't ever tested the build personally, and you aren't challenging his/her vote at all (even though s/he breaks your Rule #1). Thanks for the bias, Sir, but cut it out. Quit bitching about your build. -Auron 17:42, 11 December 2006 (CST)

People would just lie, I'm afraid. I do find it silly when someone puts up a PvE build and people criticize it because it would never fly in PvP. Does it need a "rule"? I don't know. In some ways it doesn't matter. Put your builds in your user space, and if people don't like them, well, you still have the nice writeup there for yourself and friends (that is what I do). But then I personally never vote on build unless I use it and like it- I let others be the nay sayers. I think it matters much more for PvP, where efficaciousness is paramount (me talk goodee). -- Oblio (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2006 (CST)

I'm not "bitching about the build" the fact what happened happened brought the matter to my attention. Sir On The Edge 18:34, 11 December 2006 (CST)

I agree with you, Oblio, and I generally don't waste my time with PvE builds; if anyone seriously can't beat PvE and comes looking for a better build (for PvE), they need to be slapped. GW is a game made for 13-year-olds (hence the T rating); it isn't complicated, and PvE is too straightforward to get stuck because of build inefficiency. (P.S. If you use the build section as "inspiration," go ahead; I wasn't talking about you in the first place). I still haven't heard your take on NightAngel breaking your first rule, but since it's a favored vote, I guess you don't care, eh? -Auron 19:26, 11 December 2006 (CST)

If there rules were in place you could not have even made that suggestion about me being bias. NO! I fully believe that the rules should be implemented for ether side. Sir On The Edge 19:31, 11 December 2006 (CST)

55 builds

Please... someone remove them. >.< — Rapta (talk|contribs) 16:47, 7 December 2006 (CST)

One generic 55 build (any/any anyone?) with variants for all professions? --NieA7 17:11, 7 December 2006 (CST)

Invincimonk. That's all we need. -Auron 20:40, 7 December 2006 (CST)

Problem with that is it assumes a monk primary. Many Invincimonk builds are better with monk as secondary. If the Invincimonk guide is reflected to show that then i would agree (and if links were made in teh category section for each variation so people looking for something like that could find it) For things like this to work they need to be easy for the end user... a large invincimonk guide, while extensive and better for the upper end community is almost worthless alone to the general "casual" community (hard to read and people looking for a boss farming necro wouldnt exactly look in a guide titled "invincimonk"). --Midnight08 09:48, 26 December 2006 (CST)