Proposal for simplifying how archetypes scores are currently assigned
Currently, archetype scores for each character are assigned by creating a ranklist for characters across all axes defined in the archetype poll. This is fairly cumbersome to prepare and check for accuracy, since there are bound to be endless arguments over very, very specific details when close character placements have to be decided. Moreover, contributors with adequate knowledge to make these assessments will be difficult to find.
I propose that the usage of a completely ordered ranklist be replaced by a "tierlist" system which simply slots characters into a limited number of tiers based on the axis. A greater number of contributors will be able to make informative assessments in this scheme, and the resulting radar graph on the character overview page will be more or less unaltered. I also propose that these slots be editable by users (as a list of values in the character page, perhaps). A talk page linked to the page for scores will serve for debate.
Key to all this is a page similar to the archetype poll which documents what the axes mean and what the extreme examples of each axis are (i.e. who is in D-tier, who is in S-tier etc.). This is to ensure that contributors have a clear set of guidelines on how to allocate characters to tiers for various axes.
- This would be more work, lower fidelity, and not contextually normalized. I'm not seeing the upside. More work because the devil is in the details, and you're asking not to bother with those here but instead on each individual character page. Lower fidelity because instead of a linear ranking they're put into bins. Not contextually normalized because we could end up with editors putting 40+ characters all in the same tier. Whether the current setup is cumbersome is sort of beside the point when it's already done. RogerDodger (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've used your suggestion for a criteria-based system instead of a ranking for difficulty. Live example is at Lee. It feels a lot better than the difficulty radar charts, since it allows clarifying which technique is making the character easy/hard. RogerDodger (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
How to contribute to these lists
These lists were made via a collaboration between me and many other players in my scene. It took a long time of exploring all the characters' options in detail, and I didn't exactly document why this or that char is in this or that place. If I did, you'd be looking at 10-hour long videos per list.
However, that doesn't mean they're perfect. I could have missed something or be valuing something too much or too little, so more input is always welcome. The lists are not and never will be final.
But if you haven't put a similar amount of time in, your comments or questions in the vein of "Why is my character so low/high or X list?" are just annoying. Go into practice mode and have a look for yourself first. Understand the definition of the category in question (see User:RogerDodger/Archetypes_poll or maybe archetype in future). Look at the 5 characters above or below yours. Look at what options they have for that category. Think about it a bit. Then if you still think the list looks weird, come back here and write your reasons out in detail for why the chars below/above are better/worse.
There's so much more valuable work that could be done on this wiki than bikeshedding over these lists. RogerDodger (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)