ATTENTION: If you have an account that was recently deleted and are located in the European Economic Area (EEA), please see this announcement.

PvXwiki talk:Community Portal

From PvXwiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Builds in the user namespace

What's your stance on people adding builds to the user namespace as user subpages, meant to stay there and never be released in the build namespace? --Krschkr (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine and what pretty much every long-time user has done for random ideas they've had or things they wanted to save. You just can't add any of the vetting tags to them. Toraen (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll give it a try. --Krschkr (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


Search settings

Could the general search settings be altered? Right now a regular search seems to cover the main page only, so it will bring up just a single page or nothing. Most people using the search function will be looking for a build and perhaps be interested in a guide page aswell. So I'd suggest to change the general setting to search in the Build: and Guide: namespace. --Krschkr (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't find anything that lets me apply search preferences for all users. If you go to Special:Search and use the Advanced tab you can select namespaces to search (and save those preferences) but I can't change the default, which is just the (Main) namespace. Toraen (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Ahh, too bad. Would've been really beneficial for those who come here once in a while and casually try to find a build. --Krschkr (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
There is a server-side setting for this, but I just checked and don't have access to it. So I'll file a ticket to have those namespaces added to the default search. OOeyes (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for this taking so long. We ran into a problem saving it initially, and I think they forgot to save it after resolving the issue. It should be set now. OOeyes (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Works! Thanks a lot, this will be a great change for casual users. --Krschkr (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Mysticism

Not sure what's the right palce for this so I'll put it here. Expertise and Mysticism work in similar ways after the dervish rework, both reduce the energy costs of some skill types, and Expertise changes energy costs on PvX bars accordingly while Mysticism doesn't. It's a minor thing, but could Mysticism too receive this function? --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

This is already noted on the Curse Noticeboard. Curse will have to send me the current pvx extension files and then check my work once I make the changes and send them back, unless their coders have the time and motivation to learn the extension and change it on their own. I think this one should be a fairly simple fix but there might be a couple gottcha's in terms of making sure all relevant skills are affected. -Toraen (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Is there a chance to meet you ingame, Toraen? I'd like to show you something I wouldn't want to link here. --Krschkr (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I can get on GW today, pretty much anytime. -Toraen (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


Pre-made team piece pages

The discussion whether it makes sense to keep pages which don't constitute an entire team came up repeatedly, most recently here. There is a bunch of such builds which I'm aware of but there might be some more. I'd categorize them like this:
Category 1: Builds which work well together, but aren't dependant on each other or adjusted (beyond what's already suggested in the individual build pages) to give best results in this combination (or in other words, these seem to be copy&paste from the indivual build pages).

  • Build:Team - Dual Spirit Spam
  • Build:Team - Mesmer Hero Midline
  • Build:Team - GvG Triple Monk Backline
  • Build:Team - HA Two Monk Backline
  • Build:Team - Dual ER Backline

Category 2: Builds in which a player copies another one's or a hero's elite skill, but without any other dependance of these builds on each other.

  • Build:Team - 1 Hero EA/SF Mimicry
  • Build:Team - UA/HB Mimicry
  • Build:Team - UA/HBurst Mimicry

Category 3: Builds which are dependant on each other, more than just a case of a general support build which doesn't do much without any corresponding build to support (e.g. splinter weapon ritualist + any physical).

Maybe it would make sense to add a whole new category (if that's even feasible) of such pre-made team pieces to extrapolate which builds work well together with which other builds. That would mean to bloat an information which could be told in a few notes at the bottom of a build page to an entire team build page; whenever there's a change to one of the individual builds that effort would probably have to be doubled to perform the same change on the team piece page – or multiple of them. And would we really have more information than now, given we have complete teams in which these team pieces are already present? I don't really think so! Category 1 material is simply redundant. Category 2 material could be melted down to a note in which you inform readers that the combination with another build (give a link to one!) and arcane mimikry makes sense. Category 3 material would be the only thing where we actually lose builds. Right now that's just a single page, though, with just two synergizing midline builds. I tend to say that losing this page wouldn't hurt so much and the actual issue with it is that it's not embedded in an entire team. So: With the current categories of indiviual player builds, individual hero builds and full team builds I don't think we should keep such pages and the introduction of a new build category for team pieces doesn't appear to add information for readers, just extra labour for content creators and the admin who has to create the category and adjust the tag system and main page to work with it. But perhaps someone else has a great idea on how these pieces could be implemented? --Krschkr (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

overall agree with your 3-category analysis. If cat 1 and cat 2 are burdensome, I can’t come up with any good reason to keep them. Cat 3 however I view in a different way; it’s true this style of “team” build is not imbedded into a 7h combo, but imo 2+ bars shouldn’t be discouraged. if you agree a viable build is just a useful collection of 8 related skills, then a team of 2 heroes is just 16 useful and related skills, and so on. Whether we want to call it a team or an extra big special build is purely linguistics. Juniper real (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Added the dual ER backline article to category 1. --Krschkr (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
All builds from category 1 and 2 have now been archived. The only exception is the dual ER backline as there's an unresolved discussion about it. I'll wait some more time to allow the opposition to explain their reasons. --Krschkr (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Dual ER archived as the discussion didn't continue. Mini cleanup finished. --Krschkr (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Fluxed builds

Maybe we should reconsider this whole auto-archiving of fluxed builds or make them still show up in the current build namespace when browsing categories. If we rename all fluxed builds to make it obvious from the page name that they're intended for a certain flux it should be ok to have them show up in the current build categories, i.e. Category:Meta working PvP team builds. At least I am looking for certain fluxed builds every now and then and having to dig through the archives or look up the category of fluxed builds is a bit annoying. Opinions? --Krschkr (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind this. The auto-archiving just doesn't work well enough with updating the categories (wiki software probably wasn't made expecting such a usage). I'm sure there's an extension out there that would fix the issue but it's not really worth the extra maintenance burden. -Toraen (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Alright. The flux templates should show up no matter the month imo now that we drop auto-archiving. --Krschkr (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Activity

Most issues we currently have in PvX seem to stem from having a too low activity: Policy revisions don't get much feedback, builds don't receive enough votes (3) even for provisional rating tags (that's a policy which is stuck in the proposal state), discussions tend to dim out before a generally accepted result is found, builds don't receive updates or miss entirely for years. I carefully crafted a cunning two points plan to procure the escape out of this calamity.

  1. Find out what keeps people from participating in the PvX project and solve potential issues to allow interested people to contribute.
  2. Invite people with chat advertisements and internet propaganda (i.e. on reddit, facebook, discord) to join.

I need feedback on how we can actually find some more people for PvX and I need some people who would actually execute the plan; I'm a content contributor and not a motivation specialist. Maybe someone around here could help out with this, although I fear that we might have not enough people to recruit more to solve the issue of having too few. --Krschkr (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my own activity here has dropped considerably and that won't be improving for the next two months at the very least. I've gone ahead and moved provisional vetting to active policy (we can work out making the template pretty later) so we can see if it helps any. In the end, it may be that we end up having to shelve Real Vetting entirely and make this site less formal about build submission. We could probably have some success if we just tagged builds that are Meta appropriately and have everything else be essentially a userspace build (but formatted and organized in the build namespace for easier searching - dupes would still be removed to help with this) with no promise of quality. Only Meta Caretakers would be allowed to use the meta tags then (you clearly qualify but I would like at least a couple more experienced GW'ers to start with such a drastic change). -Toraen (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it would be good to drop the standard of only suggesting builds which have proven to be good and tagged as such. Provisional rating tags might help, as the builds should then show up in the good/great categories which people are likely to consult when looking for builds. --Krschkr (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Aaaaaalright, I'll set up the reddit thread and hope that one or two people get motivated to contribute by that silly meme. Few people can already make a difference. --Krschkr (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


PvX for mobile users

Reddit user issdar said: One thing I would suggest is working on the mobile formatting for mobile users. Everything feels like it is scaled way to big. I don't have a mobile device which could access PvX, so I don't know anything about the scaling. What's everyone else's opinion on this? Perhaps some of the oversized content, maybe the pvxcode templates, could be scaled smaller for mobile users? --Krschkr (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

As a user who frequently splits free time for PvX fairly evenly between mobile and desktop, I can echo the frustration for mobile use. The search function behaves differently. Pages generally view fine only because I’m already familiar with layout and so know where to scroll and look. On Apple devices, switching between mobile view and desktop view via the links on PvX is a massive headache as website feature overlays obstruct the view to go desktop -> mobile after you’ve done mobile -> desktop already. The only fix I’ve found is deleting local app data to reset mobile view preferences to default. Other issues with site layout that I have are not limited to mobile-only, so I’ll stop there Juniper real (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't know myself how to change the mobile formatting unfortunately (and really no idea why mobile search works differently). PvXbig is a really old custom extension (though if someone is good with css I think a stylesheet for mobile shouldn't be too hard to implement - Mediawiki:Common.css is how PvXbig is currently formatted). -Toraen (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Beginner builds

There seems to be a demand for builds directed towards new players given the surge of new players in the last few months. I know that normal mode isn't what PvX is meant to provide builds for, but I think that having some builds directed towards starters and marked with an according template wouldn't hurt. There's currently a WIP team for new characters and I plan to add more stuff like that in the near future. Of course we can't drop our quality standards for this, so vigorous testing will still be required. If we feature noob builds, we have to feature the best noob builds! --Krschkr (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Do people agree with Template:Beginner-Build? --Krschkr (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I can only endorse if Koss’s dismembered head remains the template emblem Juniper real (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
PvX of the past was against this, but I say we give it a shot. This will require us to rethink the PvX:WELL policy a bit, and we'll need to outline what we expect from leveling builds (ex: what limitations are considered reasonable). -Toraen (talk) 06:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Alright, we'll have the full discussion on how we want to do this over at the new policy proposal page. -Toraen (talk) 06:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's tidy up Testing first

Noticed that there are dozens of build in testing across the different categories, with new ones being added almost daily. I think we should gather a few people and start digging through them to sort them out before any new ones are posted, because this is getting a bit too cluttered in places like Farming.

EDIT: also, feels like a lot of older ratings have gone missing, and staple builds are back to testing, which is weird --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The provisional rating policy and some build tests already allowed to get rid off the builds from 2014/2015 and some from 2016. Finding some contributors, even if they're just build testers, would be great. But I don't know where to find them. The thread in reddit brought us two interested people in a total of 2000 hits and the three people which told me ingame they'd come and rate some builds they have experience with didn't show up either so far. It would be great if we found 1-2 people which are interested in farming and would test and rate all of them so I don't have to be one of them. I didn't farm in the last 10 years and I don't intend to start doing it now if a different solution can be found. --Krschkr (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I removed some ratings because those builds had no votes, but that might get reverted when Toraen shows up again and says that the old, intransparent pre-curse rating tags with 0-1 votes should come back. --Krschkr (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Don't worry, not going to bother reverting to those rating at this point. Either the builds get some new votes or we can chuck them into archive at their old rating (if they end up sitting for a month I guess). If someone really wants one of them to come back then we can pull it back out. -Toraen (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

gw -> gww

There are a lot of external links that still use the old guild wiki instead of the official one. No need to go over each build at once, but whenever someone is editing a page and comes across a [[gw: please switch it to [[gww: --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 10:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

There's an old policy which advices to respect the original author's linking choice, but I don't know in which context that policy had been agreed on. If the Beginner Build policy is successful there will have to be changes to it anyway, so changing that part aswell is another point to add to the list. It's just a fact that the official wiki covers more content, usually features more information and is still actively being contributed to, in stark contrast to the gamepedia wiki. Therefore I think that going for gww links instead of gw links in future edits makes sense. --Krschkr (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, the old decision was based on Guildwiki still being active, which it is very much not today. I don't particularly mind the gw: links being replaced at this point, if gww's equivalent articles are better. -Toraen (talk) 05:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Farming question

What can we consider "farmable"? I mean, there are mobs listed on some pages that in theory can be farmed, but they have interrupts which can mess up the run instantly. Should we remove the ones where rupts are too much of a problem? In short, how consistent must the farm spot be? 50%+ success rate for example? --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't have more experience with farming than from the few build tests I did recently, but 50% sounds extremely low to me. If a farming build fails 50% of the time I'd have the impression that it doesn't work properly and should receive a trash rating accordingly. I'd rather say that a build which fails one run in five already is at the lowest end of acceptable builds, but maybe I'm a bit too idealistic about farming? --Krschkr (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
my impression is if a build rated good/great for farming the main mob, then secondary mobs could also be included if the build would rate good/great for them as well. Even if the vetted build performs at trash level for a secondary mob, mentioning it’s possible but hardly viable would be appropriate imo. It’s all relative and subjective anyway, I wouldn’t worry too much about benchmark metrics. Juniper real (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The question is more about "should we remove farming spots with way too many interrupts", basically. Like the stone wolves north of EotN. --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
if it’s a stone wolves farming build but it does that poorly, I’d recommend rating it to trash. If it’s purpose is farming something else that it’s approved and vetted for but has been tested on wolves as well, then you have a choice based on how well it does farming the wolves. If it does it well, keep the secondary farming spot. If it does poorly, consider 1) removing the listed secondary mob vs. 2) make mention that wolves is possible but more difficult / less reliable than for the primary purpose of the build Juniper real (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Unprofitable secondary farming spots (to name a few possible causes: no desirable drops, too long a timeframe, low reliability) shouldn't be included, as we shouldn't be recommending something that doesn't work for the goals of the build (farming = make money). As for voting based on such things being included in a build, this falls under the "easily amenable premises" clause. Remove the poor farming spot (ideally leave a comment explaining why) rather than vote the build down when it is great/good at its primary farm. If removal is too contested for whatever reason, then mentioning that the spot is notably less reliable (and the reasons for it) in its usage section is fine.
We can't really make a definitive benchmark metric and expect builds to be rigorously tested against it to eliminate confounding variables. Varying skill levels, choice of variants, latency or other outside factors may make runs more/less reliable for different people. Some rare drops may be worth a lower reliability run than the main farm if it can pay off (especially if there isn't a more reliable method available). It's going to be a case-by-case judgment call. -Toraen (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Farm build idea/request

Just outside Unwaking Waters (kurzick), there's a rit boss. It can be pulled away from its group right into aggro range of the rez shrine guards who will attack him. Could we come up with some meme bar that buffs the kurzick NPCs to farm the boss in HM? --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Buffing NPCs so they kill the boss wouldn't result in the player getting loot, afaik. --Krschkr (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Could be true, but I think only if the player doesn't tag it. --DefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


Equipment Guide

I'm currently translating my old equipment guide and adding some additional information. It's over here. I guess that when I'm done with the caster weapon and collectors sections I'm mostly done with it. Some more polishing perhaps. What I'd like to know is whether or not this guide would be "PvX approved". Does anyone here disagree with the guide content so strongly that he'd not want it to be released in the guide namespace ("Guide:PvE Equipment")? --Krschkr (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Imo the guide is now finished. Any opinions on its potential release? --Krschkr (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)