This excited me. Sexually. With Love ♣ RąʂKɭɘş 15:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- don't tell your girlfriend that! ♟Fianchetto
21:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Rask? Girlfriend? lololololololololololololololololol --Jai. - 21:47, March 7 2012 (UTC)
I am not 100% sure my definition of mediocre is appropriate, but I couldn't think of any existing builds that should be vetted that fall under it. -- Toraen confer 23:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Onslaught is pretty mediocre, considering the alternatives. So is SFway. If you're rating based on what else is out there to choose from.Soi Sticker 23:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
So "Good" basically means Gimmick?--GWPirate关 23:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- @Pirate: That's most of the PvP builds that would be in there, yes. @Soi: I guess some people might vote mediocre on PvE Onslaught then (although it gets a maintainable adrenaline booster that improves other adrenaline boosters). SFway's a pretty fringe build and it's definitely been argued before (even after the ele buff) that it isn't worth storing. Both are cases for re-evaluation at any rate, even if we don't modify vetting. Basically, why haven't they been voted mediocre (2.0-3.75) before now? -- Toraen confer 00:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Wishful thinking and theorycraft, I suppose. Soi Sticker 01:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't consider SFway mediocre, biased author and all. I like the word subpar better than mediocre. And I have grown to hate the word Universality with vehemence.--Relyk 01:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Wishful thinking and theorycraft, I suppose. Soi Sticker 01:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't really see what you think this would change. You are basically suggesting turning a 6 points system (0-6) into a 4 point system with names instead of numbers and removing universality. If anything it will just make things even more granular. I'm also not entirely clear as to what a build would require to be vetted. Is it just a majority of great or good votes? There are plenty of builds in that category these days which are not vetted and I think that is a good thing as per the part of Real Vetting that is done right. A new misery 08:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's easier to justify a 0 or 5, a bit more difficult to explain why you think a build is "trash" or "great". As is, all people see are numbers and no logical discussion or debate happens. One person show's the math and either people agree or they say "I don't believe you". A new vetting system would remove the grey lines between what is proper reasoning and what isn't. PvP is dead, gurutards are invading and trying to circlejerk dumb shit and promoting old shit and the 0-5 system is overcomplicated and deters new editors. I don't think we need a "mediocre" rating, but if this actually saw daylight on the wiki we'd have to bolster the required votes to 6 in order to balance things out. With Love ♣ RąʂKɭɘş 09:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Why in your opinion is it easier to justify a "5" than a "great". They are the same thing... A new misery 09:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Because 5 doesn't mean great. With Love ♣ RąʂKɭɘş 11:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oh you are right, 4.75-5 does! We could just change the policy to explicitly state 5=great, 4 good, 2-3 mediocre, 0-1 junk and remove universality altogether if people think it is a problem. I mean every vote should be made based upon what you think the final score should be. Your vote should be equal to the ideal final score in your opinion. Anything else is vote balancing. A new misery 12:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- The main problem I have is that number differences in eff/uni aren't tied to an absolute difference in viability, so people "taking off a point" for specific issues doesn't make much sense. It would be clearer that you should vote to your desired final score if a list of final scores is the only option. Also, overall score would be determined by averaging the associated point value, as it is currently. I'd just downscale the current thresholds. Honestly, we could just use your Numbers=ratings idea though as long as we have a definition of each rating to point to like the ones on this page. That would also be easier coding because we'd just have to remove uni and scale effectiveness to 100% weight (and just rename it to rating or something similar since it covers everything). Existing votes might still need some sort of conversion in that case though. -- Toraen confer 15:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- If we could hide the average rating so people would focus more on the score they assign rather than the final score that is given... It's not really possible when votes can be edited and changed though. Effectiveness and universality are tied into each other, weighting them differently for the player instead of the player doing so themselves makes a single-dimensional rating advantageous in some ways.--Relyk 15:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- The main problem I have is that number differences in eff/uni aren't tied to an absolute difference in viability, so people "taking off a point" for specific issues doesn't make much sense. It would be clearer that you should vote to your desired final score if a list of final scores is the only option. Also, overall score would be determined by averaging the associated point value, as it is currently. I'd just downscale the current thresholds. Honestly, we could just use your Numbers=ratings idea though as long as we have a definition of each rating to point to like the ones on this page. That would also be easier coding because we'd just have to remove uni and scale effectiveness to 100% weight (and just rename it to rating or something similar since it covers everything). Existing votes might still need some sort of conversion in that case though. -- Toraen confer 15:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oh you are right, 4.75-5 does! We could just change the policy to explicitly state 5=great, 4 good, 2-3 mediocre, 0-1 junk and remove universality altogether if people think it is a problem. I mean every vote should be made based upon what you think the final score should be. Your vote should be equal to the ideal final score in your opinion. Anything else is vote balancing. A new misery 12:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Because 5 doesn't mean great. With Love ♣ RąʂKɭɘş 11:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Why in your opinion is it easier to justify a "5" than a "great". They are the same thing... A new misery 09:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Not to rain on your parade
Do we really need a new voting policy? Shouldn't we have "PvX:The one active user just decides"? A new misery 17:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)