|
What im talking about is when 2 people have an argument, things could be settle through out BNet system: loser got permanent ban from the forum and winner stay, result will be published.
Now how will this work on TL? well tbh we all know with all the effort putting on strategy forum right now (sc2 section ofc), the forum still completely full of shit (no offense to anyone). No pro would even bother reading the forum and trolls are every where. The highlight poster are gods and no one really ever consider correcting them even if they post something wrong(slightly incorrect would be a good term but w/e) (again, no offense to anyone).
suggestion: a special 'battle arena' forum with limited number of poster (suggestion 200). Only these 200 people could post in this forum and everyone else could read it.
Basic rules:
there will be qualifier to select 100 people (20 from each sever AM EU SEA KR CN), the other 100 will be community/mod suggestion and decided by voting(poll) Ratio of these 2 could be scale depend on the size of qualifier.
Poster who qualified are force to meet a quota of post per week in that forum, suggesting 50(non-1-liner) People who do not meet the quota will be out of the forum. Replacement will be mod/community suggestion.
Each week, each 'forum poster' will need to submit at least 1 replay of them winning on ladder. If any one who is not a 'forum poster' (challenger) could submit 3(or more) recent replays where you beat a 'forum poster' and the forum poster cant submit his own matching number recent replays of himself winning against the challenger, the 2 will swap place. Notice tide will favor the forum poster and nothing will happen. The definition of 'recent' could be changed by 'moderator' depends on patch/season on BNet.
Any posters could challenge to prove the other not worthy by defeating the enemy in a bo3. Loser will have to go through a trial by winning a 5 games in a row KOTH vs either other random forum posters or community pick people.
Moderating in this forum will also be different: since all of these members are quality posters, the mods will be judges for the matches that played between posters. Every official match should be obs by a judge or have it replay approved by at least 3 judges.
I know the idea is really really rough but the main purposes is creating a really really exclusive forum for pros/semi-pros who wish to contribute for the forum. I know that TL probably not gona install this feature but it would be a great idea if somebody want to create a new community to try and implement.
 
|
I think qxc at one point wanted to create something similar (though not as restrictive). This was before he went to Korea, so I suppose it never came to fruition.
|
So basically a difference between a "strategy" forum and a "help me" forum.
|
Have you checked the OLD TL threads? I meant like from 2005~2008?
Argument --> penis measurement --> 1 v 1 ICCUP Nowwwwww --> one person doesn't show up OR they proceed to have a brawl to test who is more manly
--> one guy loses his manhood for the next few months until people forget
see IdrA v Liquid'drone / tot)strafe? Or just read Rekrul v [media]
|
On November 16 2011 19:50 EtherealDeath wrote:
So basically a difference between a "strategy" forum and a "help me" forum.
This is actually a pretty good idea. Cecil or Blade55555 posting an intricate guide for a matchup doesn't really seem like it belongs in the same forum as Joe Bronzie wondering how you stop cloaked ghosts from being medivac'ed into his main and nuking his mineral line.
|
There were discussions about an elite strategy forums at a certain point a year or so ago.
see for example
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=174582
and links therein. It seems like they decided to not implement it in the end. 
Personally I would be very happy to have an active strategy forum with almost only very good players posting, but I guess the mods have their reasons for why it wouldn't work out.
edit: it seems like they work in that direction a bit by highlighting good posters with the blue background instead, and having purges and fairly hard moderating.
|
On November 16 2011 19:53 JesusOurSaviour wrote:
Have you checked the OLD TL threads? I meant like from 2005~2008?
Argument --> penis measurement --> 1 v 1 ICCUP Nowwwwww --> one person doesn't show up OR they proceed to have a brawl to test who is more manly
--> one guy loses his manhood for the next few months until people forget
see IdrA v Liquid'drone / tot)strafe? Or just read Rekrul v [media]
nope, i only know about TL in the late 2009(septemberish?) then join on Feb 2010. Never know about TL before that 
i think a system could be implement 'strikes' for no show. The maximum strikes should be 3 and modified base on the scale of the match. Like day9 vs artosis definitely deserved 3 strikes while JohnyBronze challenging GoldenPotato should never deserved more than 1 strike. Judge or community could decided if negotiation between 2 player did not succeed.
But clearly i think a model like this is clearly needed in strategy forum: very exclusive and posts should be weighted base on skill and contribution. Simply it will remove the 'help me' section and become a 'wiki of pros references' for lower league players to look up to in their game play. The fact that arguments being solved by games mean that there will be more replays generated and published onto a strategy forum FROM quality posters.
On November 16 2011 19:57 Cascade wrote:There were discussions about an elite strategy forums at a certain point a year or so ago. see for example http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=174582and links therein. It seems like they decided to not implement it in the end. Personally I would be very happy to have an active strategy forum with almost only very good players posting, but I guess the mods have their reasons for why it wouldn't work out. edit: it seems like they work in that direction a bit by highlighting good posters with the blue background instead, and having purges and fairly hard moderating.
yes i knew about that. There were a slight few problems with that thread that i didnt mention:
1/This system mostly wont work with the current TL setup. Mods and admins right now are being overflowed with press stuff, as you see they almost completely abandon the strategy forum to 'quality posters'. The man power needed for the judge system would be too huge for them to handle.
2/ Players with sponsored team would never reveal their main strategy in forum like this. Clearly axlav wouldnt post his 15 nex PvT guide on a public forum so QXC could learn about it and snipe him later in MLG. I thought of anonymous section to hide the information of the poster but then you will have to find different sources of replays to prove that your strategy work. Given the current BNet name change system and sever complication, this wont work. Thats why i included 'semi-pros' in the OP post as implying we wont have all the top players participating in the forum and giving high-mid master level some slot to ask questions.
3/ There should be a point system for user (poster/non-poster) to judge the post in the forum. Similar to reddit up/down vote but not quite. These 'points' will later implemented a ranking between posters which will give them more room to wiggle around. Point system will start based on TL avatar system for the first 'Season' of the forum and start caculating based on 'karma' from '2nd season'.
4/ I dont know, personally i think a forum like this is definitely needed in order to improve our community 'skills' in sc2 and a major website(wellplayed, r/starcraft, CSL...etc) should implemented this soon.
|
Would be really really hilarious, actually. However, I don't think this should be forced upon everyone as it would likely discourage people from disagreeing with anyone who claims/seems to be better.
But more grudgematches would indeed liven up our days!
|
On November 16 2011 21:12 Mobius_1 wrote:
Would be really really hilarious, actually. However, I don't think this should be forced upon everyone as it would likely discourage people from disagreeing with anyone who claims/seems to be better.
But more grudgematches would indeed liven up our days!
no, if there is any imbalance winy bitchy, 2 players should either swap race and play a bo3 OR do a hybrid between normal race bo3 and swap race bo3 (generally the old grude match format). This way you can still argue with idra without fearing that he will crush you in the grude match.
More over, its not like you will be kicked out of the forum if you lose to a grude match. You simply just go down to the trial KOTH style and win 5 games in a row to maintain your 'poster' status. I find this a really good way to convince people that you still qualified. I have won(also seen people won) 5 to 10 games in a row in an obs map on ladder with half the players are master and its not an easy job if you dont have the skill for it.
Also i think a strict system is needed since strategy forum is really 'close' to 'balance discussion' forum and we need to make sure our posters know what they are talking about. If this system works with a 50% consistency in poster (100 people remain stay for more than 2 months), i think we would find ourselves the future for strategy discussion model.
|
While there's obviously a big difference between questions from Bronze league players and someone from GM introducing a new build order, playing 'skill' does not directly correlate with how good someone is at analysing strategies. I could wager there are hundreds of very smart players in Masters, maybe even Platinum / Diamond who could have some very good and true thoughts / opinions, and being a 'good' player doesn't necessarily mean you aren't biased or don't have a flawed approach towards certain things. It would also encourage people to be douchebags, for sure.
|
On November 16 2011 21:47 Zombie_Velociraptor wrote:
While there's obviously a big difference between questions from Bronze league players and someone from GM introducing a new build order, playing 'skill' does not directly correlate with how good someone is at analysing strategies. I could wager there are hundreds of very smart players in Masters, maybe even Platinum / Diamond who could have some very good and true thoughts / opinions, and being a 'good' player doesn't necessarily mean you aren't biased or don't have a flawed approach towards certain things. It would also encourage people to be douchebags, for sure.
i dont see your point. If there are 'smart' players in Platnium/Diamond, why cant they make it into Master? more over, this is not only master player only, this is the VERY BEST of master and above decided by bo3 format. If you think listening to these players is wrong, i dont really want to be right.
Yes there will be troll/balance winy problem due to differences in personality. But there will be a point system for non-poster to vote and stat of each poster will be released and summarised monthly. For example, Idra always think that Zerg is imbalance/under power. He will go on forum and make a thread name 'Zerg imba' and poster/non-poster can decided to give him point or not (the point system im thinking of right now wont go down but up only) in addition to poster can comment on the thread. Noticed how poster vote and non-poster vote will be separated and weighted differently into idra stat. Based on these stat, a monthly stat report of 200 forum poster will be released and let say we can trust anyone who have score above the average mark. Now back to Idra example here, obviously his fans and the fellow zerg users will somewhat agree with him but statically he should not receive a lot of point from poster for people to actually 'trust' his posts. However people still should listen to his point of view since he is a respectable(if not fearsome) opponent and there should be some valid ideas which cause such view.
To summaries: there will be a 'simple' user-vote ladder system for all the poster so people could decided who to listen to on balance discussion in addition to the Battle-elimination-debate-system. The ladder for now will be constructed similar to reddit karma system but there will be no down vote. The ladder will somewhat give the readers an idea on how to weight posts on the forum, similar to the current color poster system in sc2 strategy
|
Just split it into a Help forum and a Strategy forum, like someone already mentioned.
|
On November 16 2011 19:17 NB wrote:
I know the idea is really really rough but the main purposes is creating a really really exclusive forum for pros/semi-pros who wish to contribute for the forum. I know that TL probably not gona install this feature but it would be a great idea if somebody want to create a new community to try and implement.
The only thing that they would be contributing is themselves playing each other and I don't see how this would help the strategy forum at all.
"Hey I think you can win every game by massing marines only and if you disagree I'm going to show you a replay where I beat you with 2port banshee and show you that you are wrong"
It would be a overcomplicated tournament in a way and the only reward would be the increasing of your e-pen.
|
United Kingdom12847 Posts
Posts should be weighted on how accurate they are, and whether the poster is known to be good (blue posts). Anything else is just an e peen measure, besides, forums aren't really fit for purpose if only select people can post on them.
|
On November 16 2011 23:10 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 19:17 NB wrote:
I know the idea is really really rough but the main purposes is creating a really really exclusive forum for pros/semi-pros who wish to contribute for the forum. I know that TL probably not gona install this feature but it would be a great idea if somebody want to create a new community to try and implement. The only thing that they would be contributing is themselves playing each other and I don't see how this would help the strategy forum at all. "Hey I think you can win every game by massing marines only and if you disagree I'm going to show you a replay where I beat you with 2port banshee and show you that you are wrong" It would be a overcomplicated tournament in a way and the only reward would be the increasing of your e-pen.
well thats where the point system kick in if you read my later post. I dont really see the point of 'increasing of your e-pen' if you are already belong the most exclusive forum on the market. 200 people for all severs is a really small amount and beside we always have the moderation method to remove stuff that is too ridiculous.
On November 16 2011 23:27 MCDayC wrote:
Posts should be weighted on how accurate they are, and whether the poster is known to be good (blue posts). Anything else is just an e peen measure, besides, forums aren't really fit for purpose if only select people can post on them.
what purpose? Its a discussion forum only for pros and semi-pros, I dont see whats wrong with it. Its like Im creating a club where only mature people can join because we are smoking and drinking in here and kids wont understand why. Its there so the better players could have a filtered space to discuss strategy and the lesser players will have a filtered source of references to learn from.
|
Well the point of a forum is to promote civil discussion. This literally limits that. But if you wanted to do such a thing, I would mend one thing, and thats letting low level players be able to see all the content, but not post.
|
On November 17 2011 00:44 TBone- wrote:
Well the point of a forum is to promote civil discussion. This literally limits that. But if you wanted to do such a thing, I would mend one thing, and thats letting low level players be able to see all the content, but not post.
You need to read my post again bc that what i said, 'posters' can post, 'non-poster' can read-only. We have already seen how civil discussion turn out in the last 1.5 years (counting the beta yeah). And if you cant admit that the current system doesnt work, it clearly means that you have not used the strategy forum enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
WCS
