Board Thread:Wiki discussions and announcements/@comment-1990160-20140521040036/@comment-4091261-20140523235217

BlackSmith wrote: Weak method is indeed better than none but not when it is rubbed against readers face as a fact. Back in the days before young editors and moderators got all exited from the templates and how every page needs to fit certain style, the articles contained information about items. Like 'This synergies well with champions that do most damage with auto attacks' or 'this is great for champions the longer they stay in the fight' and so on. I value the numbers and basic information and so on but all that I already get from official sources. To me, wiki(a)'s are the place to fill the gaps.

You can do how much math you want but you can't get around the fact that the GE method does not reflect a) how much impact/value it has to certain champions and b) if not all the items abilities are valued, the GE rate is misguiding. Best bang for the buck estimate would be given by saying 'Vayne benefits more from SS than PD as her Tumble synergies with the Static Charge, even more if he is equipped with Runaan's Hurricane'. Or how you plan to say that in math without including four dimensional graph and suspecting the reader to understand the graph also?

Riot does not calculate any values for the items. They use statistics and follow the games. If some item seems to be getting too much of wins, it gets from the tunepole. E.g. Feral Flare.

Having one bloated article about GE seems fine. The mods like bloated ones anyway, even though readers hate them. What does it give to the reader to show her/him basic math? i.o. Why the GE section in every article eats so much space by teaching basic math? 'Trinity Force is at least gold efficient.' should more than enough. If the reader is more interested about GE, he can read it from the GE article. If he is more interested about the math, he can double check it her/himself from the reference. Rubbing both of them to every reader is plain rude.

OT: I haven't voted any of the moderators or admins and it indeed is more like pals voting for each others. I don't see why I would give more power for persons that revert or nullify other peoples work instead of finding place for it or persons that like to keep bloated/god articles. Not how I roll as a admin. Is it rubbed in readers' faces? This is not a rhetorical question btw. I do believe the great divide between our ideas as opposition and support boil down to how the gold efficiency system is actively hurting our guests and members of the wikia. Not some silly excuses like "The Gold Efficency system is flawed" or "Removing it from public eyes shows promotes censorship which destroys our reputation." No, the wikia is not so selfish as to focus on those petty little things, the main point that needs to be clear is how bad is gold efficiency being where it is shown having a negative impact on the community.

This is honestly something, I can humbly say, that I can not grasp. I haven't seen any comments on items bashing gold efficency. They are just talking about their champions, how OP it is and making funny little suggestions. This isn't going to change for the better if gold efficiency is removed, because it isn't really bad as it is right now. Everyone really is going on their merry little lives building what they want, and doing as they please, playing the game how they want to play it. This is how I see it.

Now, I am sure that your hardened hearts of opposition towards gold efficency has surely seen the folly of gold efficency effects and how it affected people's perception of scale of power on the items. I would like you to enlighten us with examples of just how bad it is where it was at. Cause I haven't seen any problems at the low end of the spectrum. Literally all I've seen so far was only a notice on how gold efficency isn't 100% reliable. I'm not asking this to be a douche who is trying to satirically state that it's not that bad. I'm asking this because I don't want to be an ignoramus who hasn't seen the bad things that were caused from something I'm trying to support.