Messagebox info.png This user is an admin. If you have any problems, please let me know.
Ranger-icon.png This user is a Ranger by nature.
Faction (Kurzick).jpg This user is a member of the Kurzick alliance.
North America 70x40.png This user plays for the territory of North America.
Svn coat.jpg This user is Vietnamese.
MSN-icon.png This user's MSN screenname is scottie_thenerd[at]hotmail.com.
Guildwiki-Small.JPG This user is on Guildwiki as Scottie_theNerd
1 This user plays Campaign One, Guild Wars Prophecies.
2 This user plays Campaign Two, Guild Wars Factions.
3 This user plays Campaign Three, Guild Wars Nightfall.

A short treatise on what makes builds good

Far too often on PvXWiki, we witness build creators who claim their build is good, substantiating their claims with dubious evidence. More distressing is the fact that these editors will often swear by their evidence and readily dismiss criticism, ignorant of the fact that their "evidence" undermines their claim. I have therefore assembled -- through painstaking research -- a summary of points to consider when judging a build.

  • All builds, fundamentally, work. This is most commonly achieved by selecting a target and pressing the spacebar. Following this basic usage, it is possible for any combination of skills to function.
    • An exception to the above usage involves standing and not selecting a target. In this scenario, the build can be considered to function if the character does not die.
  • The purpose of the vetting process on PvXWiki is to determine how well a build works. There is a fundamental difference between whether a build can function, and how well it functions. A Monk can wand a target to death, but that does not necessarily mean that a wanding monk is a good build.
    • A build can be considered dysfunctional if it fails at this simple task. For example, a Monk attempting to wand Shiro Tagachi to death will be countered by Meditation of the Reaper, thereby resulting in epic failure.
  • When scoping the effectiveness of the build, it is essential to consider reasonable and objective criteria. For example:
    • Bad opponents do not necessarily make a build good.
    • Good allies do not necessarily make a build good.
      • Therefore, using criteria that involves relying on bad opponents and good allies, such as Gladiator points, is an inaccurate representation of the build's capabilities.
  • An accurate judgement on a build should therefore consider that the build will be used against good opponents, and probably bad allies.

On testing and judging

It doesnt require a whole lot of skill to rate a build without testing it. The funny thing about computers and machines is, everything does what it says it's going to do. So you look at atts, skills, etc. and you can pretty much judge a build. It's not like judging an athlete or student, where a weak or dumb looking person can suprise you. Weak skills with weak synergy are, well, weak. Bog fregman 02:35, 4 December 2007 (CET)

See also