EPTAn Appeal To The Community - Page 4
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
Mindspider
91 Posts
| ||
|
SlyinZ
France199 Posts
http://www.arenajunkies.com/showthread.php?t=230932 you can see the ratings of the user, and his title of the seasons that he got. If the same system is applied to TL.net, it will be good, because when you read something that seem good on a forum, you try it ou 100 games on ladder, then you realise its pure bullshit, it wont happen if you can see the "skill" of the member who told you that( if boby28 tell me something and i see that he's bronze, i wont follow his advice). sorry for my engrish | ||
|
michaelhasanalias
Korea (South)1231 Posts
On January 19 2011 10:38 SlyinZ wrote: This forum is good, the problem is that you can't judge who give you an advice, on other site of the "elite" in gaming, when you post into a section of forum, you can see the achievement and the ratings like in this website about wow pvp http://www.arenajunkies.com/showthread.php?t=230932 you can see the ratings of the user, and his title of the seasons that he got. If the same system is applied to TL.net, it will be good, because when you read something that seem good on a forum, you try it ou 100 games on ladder, then you realise its pure bullshit, it wont happen if you can see the "skill" of the member who told you that( if boby28 tell me something and i see that he's bronze, i wont follow his advice). sorry for my engrish I think you should propose this officially for sure. | ||
|
Archduke
United States119 Posts
| ||
|
imBLIND
United States2626 Posts
| ||
|
BRO101
Australia24 Posts
I have been following tl for about 2 years now but I hardly post as u can tell because I feel that my advice want be that great and that there are other players who r more qulified to post,hell I have never made a thread. My point is please before any one makes a thread please check if its been disscued before, watch replays practice partner ect... then if all else fails make a thread. By the way 2500 dimand brotoss player here. Edit: typos not my first language. | ||
|
Firearm
New Zealand22 Posts
I would guarantee that within 12 months these people will subside and the quality will rise as all players who remain have improved. Just an over time/stablizating matter imo. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
A low-effort, anonymous ratings system like youtube's thumbs-up metric might actually achieve something. You could obviously improve on youtube, but the general thrust of it is there. As you read, you get in the habit of clicking +/- for good or bad advice, and that translates immediately into a visible post and/or user ranking. You could then allow people to set an individual threshold for visible posts (ie. I don't want to see anything below +5). Adding even more complexity, posters could then get a kind of rolling community rating if enough of their posts are highly starred, so replies from people with a good history would automatically start at like +6. You could even tie it to people's real rank similar to mlbrandow's suggestion, so a top masters would get +10 etc. Jinro etc would clearly be over 9000. If people got in the habit of rating on the go, it might be a partial solution. | ||
|
michaelhasanalias
Korea (South)1231 Posts
On January 19 2011 15:59 imBLIND wrote: I agree. Threads get totally shitted on and I spend days looking for arguments under a pile of crap posts. There doesn't need to be segregation of posters, forums, or posts because that will just make this site an elitist clique. All we need is a system where the good posts stick out from the bad posts. That's what this forum should be. The most knowledgeable players should be the ones discussing most of the time. One of the best forums from WoW strategizing and theorycrafting is elitistjerks.com's forum, and it's even in the name. No one will argue though that that forum is home to the most knowledgeable and enlightening discussion related to WoW strategy. | ||
|
Robo-boogey
Australia110 Posts
a. If any gun players make a contribution, then it can be made once, and then recorded in the Liquipedia for all future noobs. b. Next time someone makes that thread, then point them here: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/6_Pool#Countering_the_6_Pool | ||
|
moegrave
Bulgaria3 Posts
The truth is elsewhere in my opinion. There are a lot of ways to improve.. but the statement I liked the best was: If you seek improvement, look no further but yourself. The next truth is: 1) There always will be bad post. 2) There always will be trolls. 3) It's hard to find the good information when you need it. BUT it's not impossible. But dividing a the forum for nubs and pros is an idea lacking reasoning whatsoever. That would only make the good players better and the bad players worse. The best idea I have read so far was thread and post rating on the go. Each post could have a rating based system used from -5 to +5, but you should not be ably to rate if you don't make a shorty statement why in a small area. (ipmart-forum.com has just that system you can check it out) ex: I like a post. I rate it +4, state: good idea, solid reasoning ex: I don't like a post, consider it as trolling. I rate it -5, state: TROLL Thus solid posts will lead to high rating and trolls will get spotted by very easily. Cheers to all players/ people thinking out of the box and in ways to improve. You all have my respect. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
As soon as you start requiring people to type something to do it, a lot of folks won't bother, and those that do are just as likely to make an actual reply going " ^^ TROLL " instead, so you're left with as much dross as you would have had otherwise, and a very small rating sample. | ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
 ) because this has been thoroughly discussed millions of times and that he should post a replay if he wants specific help. Now I get 151971530 thumbs down just because I disagreed with a QQ. No way to see how "knowledgable" the posters really are just from something like that... | ||
|
DarKFoRcE
Germany1215 Posts
On January 19 2011 03:24 plagiarisedwords wrote: Maybe they should restrict strategy discussions to Masters league AND have some new rule regarding posts. What do people think of the following: 1. All posts must be positive - e.g. saying what works rather than what doesn't. e.g. Someone that posts "Phoenix are crap" cannot possibly know that since no one has yet tested out all the possible phoenix related plays. However, someone that says "Here is a build that works at the 2200 Diamond level and here are the replays to prove it" is making a good contribution even if the same build completely fails when you get to Masters. 2.All posts must be evidence based - Posts must say objective things that can be supported with facts. e.g. "I play in bronze and I find that build X works really well vs zerg when they go build Y and here are the replays to prove it" is a better post than "I play in Diamond and I think phoenix are crap" The two rules are overlapping since the reason you cannot do 1 is that it is impossible for a strategy to be dismissed since noone has yet tested all strategies of one race vs all possible strats of the other races. Maybe in 10 years time we can relax rule 1 since most builds are understood but until then it will get rid of a load of rubbish posts. The mods do a good job of weeding out the REALLY bad posts already but they should just be more liberal in banning for this new strat forum. Thats a terrible idea. It is much easier to make statements about what doesnt work and basically noone can prove that something works, because there might just be a variation that has not been found yet. Also your example for your second point is terrible. I personally would still rate the opinion of the diamond player higher (even though diamond is already beyond terrible) because the bronze player juts has ABSOLUTELY no clue at all. and bronze replays prove nothing. | ||
|
gakkgakk
Norway902 Posts
I do however think it would be a nice idea to have your bnet account in your profile or something. So people will know if this is a gold player or a top master league player that post. So you can see if the advice actually comes from someone with a bit of experience playing at the upper level. | ||
|
Harmonious
179 Posts
On January 17 2011 02:32 Azzur wrote: I was going to make a similar post as well, but was too lazy. The OP is asking for people to provide proof as to their actions rather than give anecdotal evidence. As for the OP's example, saying, "Ret believes that hatch first is stronger than 2-rax" is a lot better than "I'm a XXXX pt Zerg and I'm right and you're wrong". I agree with what I think the intention behind this is, but I do not agree with this as written. Quoting Ret (or any generally recognized authority) might lend some credence to a given statement. But that is the point, it is just a statement and not an argument. What is important to say is the hatch first is better for these reasons. Or Ret says hatch first is better for the following reasons. It is the reasons given that are important and can be argued for or against. They enhance everyones understanding of the game and generates useful debate, whether you agree or disagree. Saying Ret is right because he is Ret does not lead the discussion anywhere. | ||
|
strongandbig
United States4858 Posts
OT: Having been involved in fora previously with a youtube-esque poster rating system, I don't believe it would serve the desired purpose. People are generally more likely to rate someone highly for saying something they already agree with or something funny than for something insightful. | ||
|
BigBossX
United Kingdom357 Posts
When you compare this to the way TL used to be, low level players (D/D+) getting help from high level players(C/C+), and even high level players getting help from higher level players (B- and up), this made almost every thread accurate, informative and just fun to read, I used to be able to spend hours reading the SC1 strategy forum, now I can barely stand to stay on the site for longer than 30 minutes and don't even bother with half of the threads anyway. I guess there's only 1 way you can look at it, SC1 had been around for a loooong time and almost everyone who played had a decent understanding of the game and played quite well since the game was all but completely figured out. And given the high level of play it made it difficult for new comers to really get into the game without making a massive commitment. Then along came SC2 and attracted a whole new fan base consisting of people who have little to no RTS experience, no SC1 experience, no understanding of the game, or the resources that are available to help them with the game and no idea of how TL used to be, how fun, interesting, entertaining, informative, and educational it once was. IMO I don't think TL will ever be the same again TT | ||
The_A_Drain
United Kingdom36 Posts
On January 20 2011 01:33 DarKFoRcE wrote: I personally would still rate the opinion of the diamond player higher (even though diamond is already beyond terrible) because the bronze player juts has ABSOLUTELY no clue at all. and bronze replays prove nothing. I think that, while this would generally be true in most situations, simply disregarding somebodies opinion/idea/suggestion/analysis because of their league success is incredibly narrow minded. It is entirely plausible that somebody does not have much time to play, or is simply happy with their current ability, or whatever their situation. Which is fine, but it does not also imply that that very same person is not tactically minded, analytical or strategically minded and able to give a relevant and measured contribution. Sometimes it is the case, sure, but correlation does not equal causation. As an example, I see a huge amount of people, usually new players and elitists totally disregard the opinions and analyses of David Sirlin in regards to Street Fighter. But technically and theoretically, nobody knows that game (specifically Super SF 2 Turbo) better than he does. Nobody. Just because you do not see him winning Evo every year doesn't make his opinion less valid on it's own. I am not implying that every random newbie is David Sirlin, but there is always potential for things to be looked at in a different perspective by a new player. If somebody gives bad advice, illogical advice, or etc then absolutely call them out on it but I think that listening to one person over another because of league positioning is a bad thing overall. Newer players sometimes have fresh insight which can breathe new life into a strategy or even an entire game when combined with the knowledge and skill of veteran players. I think the key to solving the issue a lot of people here clearly believe exists is through (as has been proposed already by a good number of people) some kind of community moderation functionality. Perhaps even a simple reputation system where people are rewarded for their contributions in a way that lets others know their contributions are generally good quality. While I hate to sound negative, especially when I am such a new face on as large and successful a forum as this, I think perhaps the issue is not quite as bad as it seems. So far I have found these forums a million times more helpful, accepting, patient and kind than when the new players invaded Shoryuken's forums just before the release of Street Fighter IV, which really was a disaster. Here though people seem to be able to distinguish between well meaning posts, and dumb posts rather than just hating on anybody with a post count below 50 which has been a really nice and welcome change from other forums I have used  | ||
|
HighQuality
United States56 Posts
| ||
| ||
