Curse

Arrogant Bastard · Apr 23, 2010, 08:57 PM // 20:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Life Bringing

How can someone revert three times before a revert happens?

@Arrogant - Maybe that's what you interpreted from the argument, but I seriously doubt that's the actual, word for word, conversation.

@Polar, whoru?

WTB sarcasm

(But sadly the actual arguments weren't far from that)

HigherMinion · Apr 23, 2010, 09:15 PM // 21:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Life Bringing

How can someone revert three times before a revert happens?

Arrogant adds bars.
Admin reverts. (1)
Mike reverts Admin.
Admin reverts once more. (2)
I revert her and make a sarcastic comment that she's violating revert laws made by PvX people.
Admin bans me; and reverts back once more. (3)

gg.

maxxfury · Apr 24, 2010, 01:45 AM // 01:45

Never argue in someone elses house, they bring their friends round...then their mom bans you from going round anymore..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Life Bringing

@Maxx, I thought we were comparing mop vs splinter, not mop+splinter

ok fair enough, ill edit my post a little to make it easier to read.....

Quote:

after 5/6 procs your splinter is exhausted and needs to be recast, whereas if you was using mop it would still proccing on everyhit from you, your melee, ranged phys, spears...
Splinter provides a nice spike, but mop better dps, conclusion? run 1 copy of each

Athrun Feya · Apr 24, 2010, 06:50 PM // 18:50

technically something like splinter weapon+crude swing has a slightly larger range than MoP. Crude swing hits adjacent so therefore splinter weapon hits adjacent to adjacent foes whereas MoP is just adjacent to whatever it was cast on.

Anyway, for the people QQing about pvx;
PvX has similar problems to GWW in that you need to read a manual of policies before trying to contribute, there's also a lot of unwritten build 'standards' that more regular users are used to. We deal with a lot of new users posting unique builds every day (eg, Healer's Covenat PvE monks). If it is inferior or a variant of what already exists on PvX (likely) then we have to say, look, here's our policies, this will be deleted soon. Unlike guru, we don't have archives to link to to explain why certain builds are bad and unlike guru, just leaving an inferior build (or thread to a Healer's Con monk) won't make it disappear after a time, unfortunately there's always a need to confront the builds author. A lot of new members become understandably hostile when their creations are tagged as unsuitable/trash/dupe, especially since everyone thinks their build is the best thing since sliced bread. You can imagine after doing this for a year and a half it gets pretty tiring.

The main issue we had with this build was it was pretty much a compilation of builds already on pvx and what we call an 'optionals nightmare'. Also that it appeared to be a build for general PvE (vanqs, dungeons, etc) which required 8 players which is a quite unrealistic situation for many players. I offered early on that a guide might be more suitable but that offer understood/wasn't taken up.

What you have to remember that your/gurus opinions of what builds are optimal are not necessarily the optimal ones (and I'd say the same for PvX, we don't necessarily have the optimal builds hosted). The main reason for this is an absolute optimum doesn't actually exist; yet despite this people argue and argue about over which builds are "better", often making very one sided arguments which neglect several factors. Guru posters tend to quote maintainable dps/heals per second with screens of master of damage which really couldn't be further from the overall story.

Also minion, having been warned 2 days previously for revert wars then proceeding to revert something which had to twice be reverted by an admin definitely qualifies you for a ban (whether it was different people who reverted before you is irrelevant, you still re-reverted it when it was somewhat clear that you shouldn't have).

Arrogant Bastard · Apr 24, 2010, 08:37 PM // 20:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athrun Feya

technically something like splinter weapon+crude swing has a slightly larger range than MoP. Crude swing hits adjacent so therefore splinter weapon hits adjacent to adjacent foes whereas MoP is just adjacent to whatever it was cast on.

Anyway, for the people QQing about pvx;
PvX has similar problems to GWW in that you need to read a manual of policies before trying to contribute, there's also a lot of unwritten build 'standards' that more regular users are used to. We deal with a lot of new users posting unique builds every day (eg, Healer's Covenat PvE monks). If it is inferior or a variant of what already exists on PvX (likely) then we have to say, look, here's our policies, this will be deleted soon. Unlike guru, we don't have archives to link to to explain why certain builds are bad and unlike guru, just leaving an inferior build (or thread to a Healer's Con monk) won't make it disappear after a time, unfortunately there's always a need to confront the builds author. A lot of new members become understandably hostile when their creations are tagged as unsuitable/trash/dupe, especially since everyone thinks their build is the best thing since sliced bread. You can imagine after doing this for a year and a half it gets pretty tiring.

The main issue we had with this build was it was pretty much a compilation of builds already on pvx and what we call an 'optionals nightmare'. Also that it appeared to be a build for general PvE (vanqs, dungeons, etc) which required 8 players which is a quite unrealistic situation for many players. I offered early on that a guide might be more suitable but that offer understood/wasn't taken up.

What you have to remember that your/gurus opinions of what builds are optimal are not necessarily the optimal ones (and I'd say the same for PvX, we don't necessarily have the optimal builds hosted). The main reason for this is an absolute optimum doesn't actually exist; yet despite this people argue and argue about over which builds are "better", often making very one sided arguments which neglect several factors. Guru posters tend to quote maintainable dps/heals per second with screens of master of damage which really couldn't be further from the overall story.

Also minion, having been warned 2 days previously for revert wars then proceeding to revert something which had to twice be reverted by an admin definitely qualifies you for a ban (whether it was different people who reverted before you is irrelevant, you still re-reverted it when it was somewhat clear that you shouldn't have).

I don't know how many times this needs to be said, so I'll put this in bold for you.
This build isn't for vanquishing.

If forming 8-player teams for elite/hard areas is difficult for many players, then they need to find a guild and add people to friends list. This is a multiplayer online game, I don't see how this is even an argument. (again, just in case you didn't notice the bold text above, this isn't for vanquishing).

So basically it comes down to this. You don't like Physway because:
1) it's not an H/H team
2) it's not a Speed Clear

Since you won't even consider that some people don't like to play Speed Clears and don't like to play with heroes all the time (I think the word is "balanced team"), you selectively apply the policies of PvX (see: ratings).

Chthon · Apr 24, 2010, 09:27 PM // 21:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athrun Feya

Anyway, for the people QQing about pvx;
PvX has similar problems to GWW in that you need to read a manual of policies before trying to contribute, there's also a lot of unwritten build 'standards' that more regular users are used to. We deal with a lot of new users posting unique builds every day (eg, Healer's Covenat PvE monks). If it is inferior or a variant of what already exists on PvX (likely) then we have to say, look, here's our policies, this will be deleted soon. Unlike guru, we don't have archives to link to to explain why certain builds are bad and unlike guru, just leaving an inferior build (or thread to a Healer's Con monk) won't make it disappear after a time, unfortunately there's always a need to confront the builds author. A lot of new members become understandably hostile when their creations are tagged as unsuitable/trash/dupe, especially since everyone thinks their build is the best thing since sliced bread. You can imagine after doing this for a year and a half it gets pretty tiring.

I haven't even set foot on PvX, and I've mostly stayed away from this conversation, but I feel I do need to step in now.

I call "bullshit!" Sorry, but this build is provably better than just about anything on PvX. With the arguable exception of SC builds (which are area-specific-optimized, fragile, rigid, and very non-robust) this build is head and shoulders above anything else posted there. Period. PvX has long suffered from the problem that the carefully, scientifically, and democratically determined consensus viewpoint of a bunch of idiots remains, after all that effort, an idiotic viewpoint. (Does anyone remember when Moloch had to call in ringers from Guru to vote for AP-MoP to save it from a "fail" rating at the hands of the PvX regulars? Yeah, I don't see anyone calling AP-MoP fail these days...) But to see mods stepping into the fray in this manner is a whole different level of problematic. When mods use their mod powers to "win" a debate, that completely undermines the integrity of the process.

At the end of the day, regardless of whether it's a matter of bad policies or mods abusing good policies to bad ends, the final result is that PvX failed to do in this instance the one thing that justifies PvX's existence, preserving the best builds so that PvX visitors can learn them.

maxxfury · Apr 25, 2010, 02:24 AM // 02:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athrun Feya

I offered early on that a guide might be more suitable but that offer understood/wasn't taken up.

Yah i suggested that, as i knew the outcome when the roasting began on the talk page.

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone on pvx

generally, we know what works around here. PvX has been in business for about 4 years, I think? The fact is that there is heavy bias towards builds that we know work. Theorycrafts are generally frowned upon, but if you can prove us wrong, as Athrun Feya did with Manlyspike, we're more than happy to work with you

Maths didnt prove it, screenies didnt prove it, common sense didnt prove it.hell even letting regulars rudely call people someone with a disorder of neural development characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, and by restricted and repetitive behavior and dark skin, in an offensive way (sadly that part is all too common...) didnt prove it..or barely even got anything in the way of "working with you"..

Quote:

At the end of the day, regardless of whether it's a matter of bad policies or mods abusing good policies to bad ends, the final result is that PvX failed to do in this instance the one thing that justifies PvX's existence, preserving the best builds so that PvX visitors can learn them.

That ^

Essence Snow · Apr 25, 2010, 04:04 AM // 04:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athrun Feya

technically something like splinter weapon+crude swing has a slightly larger range than MoP. Crude swing hits adjacent so therefore splinter weapon hits adjacent to adjacent foes whereas MoP is just adjacent to whatever it was cast on.

Anyway, for the people QQing about pvx;
PvX has similar problems to GWW in that you need to read a manual of policies before trying to contribute, there's also a lot of unwritten build 'standards' that more regular users are used to. We deal with a lot of new users posting unique builds every day (eg, Healer's Covenat PvE monks). 1) If it is inferior or a variant of what already exists on PvX (likely) then we have to say, look, here's our policies, this will be deleted soon. Unlike guru, we don't have archives to link to to explain why certain builds are bad and unlike guru, just leaving an inferior build (or thread to a Healer's Con monk) won't make it disappear after a time, unfortunately there's always a need to confront the builds author. A lot of new members become understandably hostile when their creations are tagged as unsuitable/trash/dupe, especially since everyone thinks their build is the best thing since sliced bread. You can imagine after doing this for a year and a half it gets pretty tiring.

2) The main issue we had with this build was it was pretty much a compilation of builds already on pvx and what we call an 'optionals nightmare' . 3)Also that it appeared to be a build for general PvE (vanqs, dungeons, etc) which required 8 players which is a quite unrealistic situation for many players. I offered early on that a guide might be more suitable but that offer understood/wasn't taken up.

What you have to remember that your/gurus opinions of what builds are optimal are not necessarily the optimal ones (and I'd say the same for PvX, we don't necessarily have the optimal builds hosted). The main reason for this is an absolute optimum doesn't actually exist; yet despite this people argue and argue about over which builds are "better", often making very one sided arguments which neglect several factors. Guru posters tend to quote maintainable dps/heals per second with screens of master of damage which really couldn't be further from the overall story.

Also minion, having been warned 2 days previously for revert wars then proceeding to revert something which had to twice be reverted by an admin definitely qualifies you for a ban (whether it was different people who reverted before you is irrelevant, you still re-reverted it when it was somewhat clear that you shouldn't have).

1) Just curious...why are there variants then? ex)DoA Caster Spike/Manly Spike/Glaiveway/Heroway...

2) Sounds like Manlyway/Caster Spikes fall into this catagory as well, actually any tank and spank tbh.

3) If I am understasnding this requiring 8 players would apply to all SCs and team builds that don't have "heroway" in the name (pretty much).

I don't really care any way what happens to any of this.....just looks/sounds like some fishy stuff.

Athrun Feya · Apr 25, 2010, 03:08 PM // 15:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Essence Snow

1) Just curious...why are there variants then? ex)DoA Caster Spike/Manly Spike/Glaiveway/Heroway...

2) Sounds like Manlyway/Caster Spikes fall into this catagory as well, actually any tank and spank tbh.

3) If I am understasnding this requiring 8 players would apply to all SCs and team builds that don't have "heroway" in the name (pretty much).

I don't really care any way what happens to any of this.....just looks/sounds like some fishy stuff.

1) There exists variants for different areas simply because those builds are on par. What we tend to like for high end content is specific builds and usages for specific areas (people like to read these things so they know whats going on mainly). Instead of keeping a "manly spike" build with an essay of usages and optionals nightmare for different areas we section it into different pages (easier for searching too). this is true for any good theorycraft (caster spikes, manly spike, sinway, etc). Potentially physway could have gone down the same route if it was just more tailored for each area (because, for example, it's alright saying "for areas with lots of enchant removal" but someone who's only been doa a few times [i.e., the kind of person that comes to PvX looking for a build] may not know if the area -does- have lots of enchant removal or not). However, it was posted as an incoherent optionals nightmare (much in the style of the first post of this thread), you'll see that that style is very different from the one common on pvx.

2) both sets of teams have similar builds on pvx, but looking at the usage of both teams give a very different story. In physway you just well... use the builds as they were originally intended on the individual build pages - anyone really could look at pvx and throw together 8 player builds and get physway. If everyone acted the same way when doing manly spike, then "spike" would certainly no longer be an accurate way to describe the build.

3) again it's a question of storing builds that are on par with each other (what heroway loses in speed is made up for by the fact you dont need 8 players). Physway was seen as a slower, 8 player build that still requires cons (for high end content at least), therefore not really on par (you could argue it is better on the basis of "safety" but I think optionals nightmare put everyone off from the start).

Chthon, reread what I said about "best" and "optimum" being subjective. We already have each build posted on PvX in individual build space (apart from the signet mes/monk variant) so we're already providing the service to deliver the "best" builds to players.

Hatchet Child · Apr 25, 2010, 07:52 PM // 19:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

(Does anyone remember when Moloch had to call in ringers from Guru to vote for AP-MoP to save it from a "fail" rating at the hands of the PvX regulars? Yeah, I don't see anyone calling AP-MoP fail these days...)

That was a very sad day. People are stupid.

From everyone's Judgment on that build was "lolwutfail" i even have some comments on the talk page from nearly a year ago.

If you want someone's opinion on PvXwiki, Don't F**king bother. If it's not using hero friendly builds or they can't use X skill for X reason. Your Team build sucks.

From a neutral point of View The talk page for This physical build is littered to shit and foiled the build for what it truly is, But still this build is not 'Perfected' but it's no reason for it to be called or rated bad like the pvx community do.

Don't lower yourself anymore arguing with them You won't win and they love it when you try to make sense (and it makes perfect sense) they will troll your face off.

¬Justified Soul.

Essence Snow · Apr 25, 2010, 08:26 PM // 20:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athrun Feya

1) There exists variants for different areas simply because those builds are 1)on par. What we tend to like for high end content is specific builds and usages for specific areas (people like to read these things so they know whats going on mainly). Instead of keeping a "manly spike" build with an essay of usages and optionals nightmare for different areas we section it into different pages (easier for searching too). this is true for any good theorycraft (caster spikes, manly spike, sinway, etc). Potentially physway could have gone down the same route if it was just more tailored for each area (because, for example, it's alright saying "for areas with lots of enchant removal" but someone who's only been doa a few times [i.e., the kind of person that comes to PvX looking for a build] may not know if the area -does- have lots of enchant removal or not). However, it was posted as an incoherent optionals nightmare (much in the style of the first post of this thread), you'll see that that style is very different from the one common on pvx.

2) 2)both sets of teams have similar builds on pvx, but looking at the usage of both teams give a very different story. In physway you just well... use the builds as they were originally intended on the individual build pages - anyone really could look at pvx and throw together 8 player builds and get physway. If everyone acted the same way when doing manly spike, then "spike" would certainly no longer be an accurate way to describe the build.

3) 3)again it's a question of storing builds that are on par with each other (what heroway loses in speed is made up for by the fact you dont need 8 players). Physway was seen as a slower, 8 player build that still requires cons (for high end content at least), therefore not really on par (you could argue it is better on the basis of "safety" but I think optionals nightmare put everyone off from the start).

1) What qualifies as "on par"?

2) I was referring more toward manly Rragars, manly Bogroots, manly Kath, manly FoW...etc having basically the same builds....and caster spike for varying areas...basically all having the same set up. ex) Manly: perma tank, hb wars, channel rit...etc...pretty much same builds across different areas

3) This would have to have the "on par" question answered, but I don't see how this and those compare. This is focused on ease of use...i.e. get PuG throw on the builds and go. Almost like an Easy Button team build. While some SC builds require lots of experience and more to pull off this does not, hence it's advantage. One can simply load build and almost blindly spam skills their way through the games high end content. Thus allowing inexperienced players to complete HM high end with ease. It's speed trade off is ease of use. So yes SCs have speed advantage but this has an ease advantage. It's a different catagory...much like Heroways and SCs..they both have their advantages and disadvantages. The use of cons ?..is simply BUs...no other cons are used/required.....kind of a non issue as most inexperienced players will glady chip in 1-4k to complete some high end content.

Side Note* My only conclusion I can derive from this is that the set up is not liked on wiki b/c it does not require different builds for different areas. It is not a SC so should not be compared to them, it requires little to no experience hence is PuGable, some parts can be performed by heros, it can complete mutiple HM high-end content with the same builds, and as far as a guide goes..here it is...bond up, now go spam skills and kill everything. Balls to the wall no extra thought required to win. It's trade off is ease over time. Most SC's are not easy to use but are fast. They both have their advatages yet both have their drawbacks. ex) Some SCs pretty much require a SC guild and extensive practice and thus are not very good for the avg pvx user, yet they are fast.

Chthon · Apr 25, 2010, 10:00 PM // 22:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athrun Feya

Chthon, reread what I said about "best" and "optimum" being subjective. We already have each build posted on PvX in individual build space (apart from the signet mes/monk variant) so we're already providing the service to deliver the "best" builds to players.

Don't play semantics with me. The bottom line is this: 1. This team build is a lot better than most of the crap available on PvX. 2. This team build is not available on PvX. It's ridiculous to claim that having (inferior variants of) most of the individual builds posted separately is the equivalent of having the team build posted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Essence Snow

I don't see how this and those compare. This is focused on...
It is not a SC so should not be compared to them...

This goes to the heart of the unspoken value judgment that's the driving force behind this mess. There's a handful of legitimate criteria for judging team builds on. Obviously, the ability to actually complete a zone is the biggest one, followed by the ability to do it quickly. You point out ease of use. There's also robustness to handle multiple zones (or changes to zones), tolerance for imperfect execution, tolerance for bad spawns, tolerance for having a few heroes (or inexperienced players) on the team, the cost of required cons, and the sense of "honor" of not using SF on your team. There's probably a few more that I haven't thought of. The honest way to approach the issue would be to have an open discussion about how much weight to give each criterion. Unfortunately, the PvX way of approaching the issue is to focus on completion speed or hero-friendly-ness to the exclusion of everything else, and then pretend that the value judgment you just made is the only one that was ever possible.

Karate Jesus · Apr 26, 2010, 01:56 AM // 01:56

This thread is very cute. I can honestly say that I have never seen more bandwaggoning in my life (on both sides).

If there's one post with honest feedback in this entire thread, I'd be shocked.

HigherMinion · Apr 26, 2010, 02:23 AM // 02:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karate Jesus

This thread is very cute. I can honestly say that I have never seen more bandwaggoning in my life (on both sides).

If there's one post with honest feedback in this entire thread, I'd be shocked.

Funny; in your attempts to appear slightly partial you simply dismiss everyone. And what are these "both sides"? The side the understand the concept and are open-minded and the closed-minded side; who don't understand why people would want to play together in PvE?

Before someone posts honest feedback they have to understand the purpose, usage and basic general concept. Constructive criticism/feedback does not include "get a tank" "ball more lal"; because this means they did not understand the purpose.

Arrogant Bastard · Apr 26, 2010, 02:29 AM // 02:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karate Jesus

This thread is very cute. I can honestly say that I have never seen more bandwaggoning in my life (on both sides).

If there's one post with honest feedback in this entire thread, I'd be shocked.

Here's some honest feedback then.

If a moderator is actively involved in the editing process of a build, they should not be able to use their "mod powers" concerning that build.

It's like having a boxing match and letting one of the fighters also be the referee.

Karate Jesus · Apr 26, 2010, 02:59 AM // 02:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arrogant Bastard

Here's some honest feedback then.

If a moderator is actively involved in the editing process of a build, they should not be able to use their "mod powers" concerning that build.

It's like having a boxing match and letting one of the fighters also be the referee.

You're technically right. Admins on PvX are supposed to stay out of issues that they're involved in, but....you know.....shit happens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HigherMinion

Funny; in your attempts to appear slightly partial you simply dismiss everyone. And what are these "both sides"? The side the understand the concept and are open-minded and the closed-minded side; who don't understand why people would want to play together in PvE?

That is one of the most biased things I have ever read, and I've recently read a Republican review of the health care bill (it was bad).

"Both sides" = those for the build (bandwaggoning a non-meta, purposeless PvE build) vs. those against the build (bandwaggoning before testing based on PvE norms).

Again, it's pretty cute. Especially how quickly you guys respond

Essence Snow · Apr 26, 2010, 03:13 AM // 03:13

I'll admit I'm on the bandwagon for this. I didn't create and or help create nor did I have any input on it. I actually doubted it.....then I was asked to join a group using it. I have to say after using it, I am more than happy to jump on the bandwagon. Simply put it works and it works well.

Note* afking 9 rings allows for thread watching....lol

HigherMinion · Apr 26, 2010, 03:05 PM // 15:05

Could have done better if I wasn't the only one bonding and had a OoV/SoH buffer instead of a fifth physical.

It was a fun run anyway. Only reason I used a grail was due to having to bond everyone alone (sadface). No nabs died in the making of this screenshot.

Reformed · Apr 26, 2010, 03:53 PM // 15:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karate Jesus

If there's one post with honest feedback in this entire thread, I'd be shocked.

"PvX: Because only idiots actually test builds" GG?

Karate Jesus · Apr 26, 2010, 04:00 PM // 16:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reformed

"PvX: Because only idiots actually test builds" GG?

Derps. I'll answer your....statement by quoting myself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karate Jesus

"Both sides" = those for the build (bandwaggoning a non-meta, purposeless PvE build) vs. those against the build (bandwaggoning before testing based on PvE norms).

I'm suggesting that both sides of this issue are dumb. It could have gone through the normal procedures of PvX and possibly even done well, but there was just too much bandwaggoning on either side.

Tbh, if there weren't so much drama around it, I could see it vetted right now.