Curse

Mig Coconut · May 11, 2011, 05:45 AM // 05:45

This is in response to the numerous requests for a 7-hero team benchmark tool. Many people suggested screenshots of fast times for x and y areas as "proof" of a strong build. But, time by itself isn't necessarily the best measuring tool for a general hero build. Lots of people value reliability and ease of use. An alternate solution is for the poster to give the build ratings in a few categories on an scale of 1-5.

Offense. Pure killing power.
1. Takes a long time to kill mobs. A team full of henchmen would be here.
2. Takes a moderate time to kill mobs.
3. Kills enemies decently fast.
4. Kills enemies very fast.
5. Nukes things to oblivion.

Defense. Otherwise known as reliability.
1. Crumbles easily.
2. Crumbles if double aggro or prolonged fights.
3. Can last prolonged fights, survives double aggro in moderate areas.
4. Barely survives double aggro in the hardest of areas.
5. Can survive double aggro in the hardest of areas.

Micromanagement. How much you control your heroes.
1. Player needs no skills; can c-space through an area.
2. Simple flagging.
3. Flagging, plus control over a few skills.
4. Flagging, plus control over many skills.
5. Flagging, plus control over a majority of skills.

Additionally, a few notes should be made in:
Primary use. Vanqing? HM dungeons? Elite areas?
Profession of player. Better for melee or caster profession?
Weaknesses. Prolonged fights or heavy enchantment strips a problem? Mention that here.
Variations. The poster should propose alternatives for a few hero bars if no corpses, high number of enemies, hex or condition heavy areas, etc.
Proof. Should post at least one screenshot of a vanq or mission with a /age, with an obvious preference for the harder areas.

Using this system, people can find builds that suit their playstyle and needs. Want to c-space through a vanquish easily? Pick a build with good defense and little micromanagement. Want to try an advanced glass canon build? Try one with high offense, low defense, and moderate to high micromanagement.

For vetting, other people could try out the team build and post their own ratings of its usefulness. The overall rating would be an average of the scores, say the first 20 to make things simple. It will be up to the poster to calculate this community score. Through this method, people who post crappy builds but think they're awesome can be called on it.

The current flaw with this system is the ratings are still rather subjective. Maybe the community vetting approach is enough. Maybe a benchmark for each rating level would be better (more in line with the previous posters discussion on good times for certain missions/vqs/dungeons). I'm not sure.

Suggestions and criticisms are welcome.

Relyk · May 11, 2011, 08:14 AM // 08:14

That's pretty much how PvXwiki works and what it's for. The effectiveness of hero team builds is far too subjective as it depends more on player skill than the actual build used. You'd run into the exact same problems with a rating system as you do with the one at PvX. Just thought I'd get the comparison out there.

mugen · May 11, 2011, 09:06 AM // 09:06

i am just wondering :
who & how many ppl are rating pvx wiki ? How intense are "tests" before judgement ?

hunter · May 11, 2011, 10:05 AM // 10:05

I never bother using pvx, not even the new one. Most builds are outdated and/or common sense.

Other builds with some sense of originality on them get butchered and either downrated till deletion or changed more and more towards the current meta.

mugen · May 11, 2011, 10:43 AM // 10:43

good, you comfort my opinion

Gabs88 · May 11, 2011, 01:03 PM // 13:03

On pvc the majority of the testers either misuse or don't even test builds before voting. Not following the sheep herd and voting differently from the majority of testers is frowned upon. And the simple fact that a build works is more important then whether or not it actually works well. In other words. Go there only to find the most obvious possible builds. And adapt the team build you decide on to your own play style.

Dzjudz · May 11, 2011, 01:19 PM // 13:19

On pvx working builds are rated good, great working builds are rated great and suboptimal builds are trashed or archived if they used to be working but are outdated for example. Votes need reasoning and obviously unreasonable votes are removed.

It is a good place to find properly working builds, be it for farming, pvp or pve.

Pvp meta is actually well documented by knowledgeable people.

Pvx is not perfect, but it works.

Anyway, the OP pretty much describes pvx. But at least there indexing and finding builds is a lot easier than in one thread on guru.

Mig Coconut · May 13, 2011, 05:54 AM // 05:54

I am aware of pvx. Pvx has a voting system which basically is great to bad. The proposed systems on guru have been time tests in a few areas which will rate builds...wait for it.... great to bad.

My beef is that the differences between builds (specifically the non-dual mes, dual rit and nec builds) are much more heavily influenced by playstyle. Neither of the current rating systems captures this well.