Allow similar build threads?

So we have come across a little hiccup in how things are presented here during the course of our merging threads. One of the things we have come across is; A topic can have many builds posted in it but only the FIRST post (and thus the first build) gets a star rating that displayed on the message index.

Sometimes this is fine as the OP is the best build in the series....

Example: JR7-D Helmers Founder (4x MLas, 2x SSRM2, AMS)

However, sometimes the OP is NOT the best build in the thread

example: Mugatu's Cannons (2x AC20, 2x MLas)

The rating system only takes into account the top post (the first build) in a topic but if it is a crap build, and is rated as a crap build (which it should be), then perhaps people won't scroll through the thread to find the golden nugget builds that are posted there.

When we merge all the threads (like I did with the Jenner ones today) we tidy up the forums nice and neat and put everything in it's own little place however we kind of throw all the similar builds into one topic and even if they had amazing ratings, because they are better than the OP build, they won't display.

Should we allow similar builds to be posted in their own threads so that their rating is reflective of that build itself or just keep on merging?

 

The problem with that method is that it isn't averages things out across shit builds and good builds and doesn't represent the actual quality of a single build until they visit the thread and see the ratings on different builds.

For instance: http://www.mechspecs.com/forum/index.php?topic=2221.0

The TOPIC Original Post has a 1 star rating
The Second post in the thread has a 5 star rating

It does NOT average out the ratings currently. I am sure it could be set to do this but again it doesn't represent the actual GOOD rating of the posts within because it averages them all out?

More crap builds in a thread means a lower star rating even if the Holy Grail of Builds is located in that thread with a 5 star rating.

 

I would think that the most useful thing to do in a case where there is a thread started with a bad (or average) build, would be for the thread to remain intact, so that we can all see the progression, which helps us see WHY later builds in the thread are better. (Especially helpful for newbies.) And then if there is an especially outstanding build WITHIN that thread, that build also gets its own thread.

Perhaps, once a certain post itself gets so many "likes", it's eligible for its own thread.

This of course, is a lot of work for Moderators, but I think it'd be more helpful to newbies than either of the two "all or nothing" options.

But, if we are restricted to the two options, I say that similar builds should be allowed to have their own threads. That way, at least the best Mechs will get their own ratings, and the "cream can rise to the top", so to speak.

 

Ok well I've added your thoughts into the poll but you are right that would be a lot of work for mods. I would say keeping it simple is the best idea as long as everyone sticks to the naming convention.

This poll will run for a week so we can see what is what.

 

Most forum software orders posts (for us it is builds) in the date they were posted. Oldest first. So when I merge topics the oldest topic takes the "parent" role.

 

Vorus got it right!

Maybe there should be a tag showing number of "Other Builds" in each topic at the end.

 

well, i like both possibilities, but id have to say to keep things nice and clean and keep similar builds in the same thread.
Main reason is thus: a LOT of builds that are posted have no rating at all. What good is it to have masses of threads if people just view and not vote anyways? Now you just have a giant mess that didnt accomplish what it was supposed to do. When it's clean as it is, i can easily find exactly what my mood is looking for and given that this site is made for people to tweak and make mechs better, i expect there to be different versions of what im looking at. I would be disappointed if there wasnt.

 

I voted for merging to keep the forums clean.


I think it is really about voting on a base build the rest is tweaking for slight improvement, ammo distribution or personal choice i.e. ams. It also gives credit to the person that originally came up with that type of build.

Its also about voting on the thread so if there are better builds that are very similar in the thread then people should vote to like it in the first post.

If the builds diverge too much from the OP then it should be time to start a new one. As has already been stated there are already plenty of builds that have not been rated though the new version of the site hasn't been up that long.

However, I really like this site and am happy to go with whatever is decided

 

I would say each build, whether similar or not, gets its own thread and then, if possible, have things set to auto delete if they don't get any activity on them for say 120 days or 180 days or whatever number you pick. Can you make it do that?

This will keep dead builds from cluttering up the forums and allow the cream to rise to the top? Maybe? I don't know how this stuff runs but it is my suggestion.

 

Jacob that is called "pruning" and unfortunately no forum software, at least that I know of, allows this type of thing to happen. Some people have communities that are 10 years old with posts from 10 years ago lol

 

Personally, unless a build is identical, I think each opinion should be voiced. Same weapon loadout with additional support modules or different engine or swapping SPLs for Mediums... It all changes the play-style, even if the build is very similar. I appreciate keeping the forums condensed and clean, however, the individual threads get messy when merged. Even if they are similar, as you said, it's a pain to go through so many similar builds in one thread just to find one gem.

 

But some older builds are still great without any changes needed. And there is not much else to talk about. You take them out then we will have to keep on recreating them, giving them different names everytime, adding to the confusion.

That, and the n00bs would want to read those too.

But deleting builds that are no longer viable would be nice, even though that would mean people having to flag the build and mods having to work on deleting them.

 

I'm all for merging thread about very similar build (ie variants).
The idea being: I want an AC/10 based K2, there's a thread about it, where is discussed the different variants, do I trade one ML for more ammo, that kind of tweaking.

What would be great is that the op update his first post with variant he think interesting.

Please don't.
Mechspec is supposed to be a resource, thus being conserved, not a chat lobby.
(and if a build is obsolete because of metagame change, just update the post - who knows, maybe someday it will be useful to look at it)

 

It's a good idea.
But we need some strictness, we can't allow everyone to decide on them self that their build is the best (of course it is! it's their build!). What we can do is, when the discussion has been a while and several variants have been proposed, take a vote, which variant is the best (and why!).

Then:
option 1: the op update his first post;
option 2: the "creator" of the variant start a new thread with a proper introduction (why not gameplay video and such), highlight of few variants if necessary and a link to the former thread (locked and archived).

edit: and maybe a special tag for these threads [approved build] of something.

 

Some of the build titles already come close to hitting the maximum number of letters/numbers allowed in a post subject/title. Adding a PREFIX like that probably wouldn't work.

Keep voting fellas. I see more names in here posting than I do votes on the top.

 

i think we may also be forgetting the fact that, unless im missing something, we vote on the mechs ability to perform in the current meta. And as such, a PPC boat a year down the road may just end up being a really crappy mech, we'll never know until we get there. So what happens to the mechs that are "excellent" builds now but will be "crap" builds later?

By keeping things clean and organized we can handle what happens and the changes in the future much easier. Thats why i dont agree with how we vote on em as it is now, but thats for a different thread....