|
On November 18 2011 19:14 NrGmonk wrote:Ok why Bad_Habit's guide wasn't initially included: - Content: As stated in the OP, guides with more standard play are more likely to be included. Guides have to be over the top for them if they're not of standard play.
- Format: Probably the biggest reason it wasn't included. Everyone's already touched on this.
- Professionalism: There's posts of 2 people who rage at the end of his "guide". This seems like more worthy of a blog than anything.
Btw most of these criterion can be found in the OP. Now here's a list of things that did not further his cause after he asked: - He gave no reasons to convince me otherwise except "I worked hard on it", which everyone could claim about their guides.
- Claiming that I'm biased because he 6 pool'd me twice and any teammates numerous times when I've never heard of him in my life. Now, he just made it personal.
The guides people mention that are worse than his 6 pool thread are all from the original thread I copied. I was very lenient about the threads I cut and I will probably cut some more in the future. In addition, I can assure you that they are all better formatted than Bad_Habit's thread. Show nested quote +However, if I, or anyone, is able to create a "Recommended Strategy Guide" without it being closed, my concerns/argument may be dismissed No idea what that means.
I'll just be straight out frank because I think my first post about my concerns was perfectly polite, considerate, and humble. You might be a busy guy but that's no excuse for what seems to be a reoccuring cold or hostile attitude from your posts, let alone what seems to be an evasive personality. I just typed up a well written post, and you simply dismiss it. How can anyone possibly NOT understand what I meant? (If I find that many others also do not understand, then dismiss this).
You created this thread, it doesn't matter how much time you put into it. If this guide is made for the community, then you better be more open and listen to the community, even if you disagree with them and say why.
You're also being a bit hypocritical. Like someone else pointed out, you included some guides which were not standard at all and you say that you only want to include standard guides? This is not a criteria I agree with. A strategy is a strategy, it doesn't have to be a "solid", or "safe" strategy in order to be "recommended". Cheese, all-ins, etc., random build orders that might be good to throw out in a Bo5 match, as long as they are of good quality, should be included. Also you mentioned you don't have a minimum amount of guides per MU/race? Then why is one of your reasons for including the iEchoic TvT build because you didn't want to leave the TvT section blank?
That's why I said, "However, if I, or anyone, is able to create a "Recommended Strategy Guide" without it being closed, my concerns/argument may be dismissed"
Straight out what it means it this: I am quite against the policy/procedures of this thread, and I would rather make my own recommended strategy guide thread, because if everything comes down to your say in the end, then it'll just become a "these are the threads I recommend" game. For example, the spoilers in decaf's guide, that should not be something that holds a guide from being recommended, especially since a lot of people have stated in a previous thread that zatic (right?) opened regarding him being annoyed at threads with lots of spoilers, unless you were unaware of that.
Thing is, if I make my own, and then the mods close it and say there is already such a thread, then that would only support the fact that your thread is a community thread and you should, therefore, listen more to the opinions of others. And I'm pretty sure the mods don't want more than 1 such thread, but if they agree with the way you are handling things now, then I guess there's nothing for me to say to express my disgust besides what I have already stated.
If they don't close it, then I could, theoretically, make my own thread and do things the way I want, too.
Edit: I also don't understand why a cheese has to be standard. If a guide is good enough, it should be able to prove if it works or not, with good replays, timings, explanations, etc. The same goes for strategies that aren't cheesy -- sure it is harder to "prove" that they work, but there are so many factors in the game that, if you can't prove the strategy to not work, then it means it does work. It shouldn't have to work 100% of the time even when you're fully scouted. The game is about asymmetrical information.
Also, how will a guide that explains that it does work (and no one can "prove" that it doesn't work) receive more feedback if it's not recommended? Yes you can say it should be improved first because otherwise it's not a high quality guide, but like I said, unless someone proves it to not work, I think the benefit of improving these guides outweighs the small risk in the build "not working".
On November 19 2011 22:03 Vandroy wrote:How did he ignore you? I think he explained pretty clearly in this thread why your guide isn't in here. There's a reason why monk is a blue poster and that's because he know what he's doing so instead of being rude you should thank him for the work he's put into remaking this thread. Maybe if you ask in a nicer manner for some constructive criticism on how to improve your formating and organization of your guide you'd be able to fix the problems(and get added) instead of just arguing for the sake of it.
Also, I don't mean disrespect to blue posters nor to say they aren't knowledgable about strategy, but this kind of post is just utterly ridiculous and is quite inaccurate. NrGMonk, on the other hand, provided a good explanation of the events between him and Bad_Habit, who keeps BM'ing him, so Monk's decision to stop discussing/arguing with Bad_Habit is justified.
|
Yeah, and also, seeing as NrGMonk is only top 80 of his master league and probably just got promoted from diamond, I don't know that we can trust him.
|
Ok for the people arguing for that 6 pool guide no lol. When new people are trying to learn to play they are not trying to learn how to do 6 pool the best. They want to learn to play... 6 pool is nice and all I guess but for the new person looking for strategies to learn (because be honest who would have fun only 6 pooling anyway? lol). A 6 pool guide is not a strategy I would recommend learning if you are just learning the game or trying to hit that next rank to compete with people of that skill level.
|
On November 22 2011 06:01 blade55555 wrote:
Ok for the people arguing for that 6 pool guide no lol. When new people are trying to learn to play they are not trying to learn how to do 6 pool the best. They want to learn to play... 6 pool is nice and all I guess but for the new person looking for strategies to learn (because be honest who would have fun only 6 pooling anyway? lol). A 6 pool guide is not a strategy I would recommend learning if you are just learning the game or trying to hit that next rank to compete with people of that skill level.
Perhaps there should be a separate category/label, like the "standard" builds like 1 rax expand that is done all the time, should be labeled with "standard" or etc., to show that noobs who want to play "the real way" should check those out.
He definitely should edit and fix up his guide (format especially), but there are some people who just wanna 6 pool time to time  . Anyways, he gives 3-5 different "6 pools" actually.
Cus for example, I don't think a noob should be learning something like synystyr's marine tank banshee anti-colossus build. It might work well for them sure, but something like 1 rax expand should be better right? and there are other such not so friendly noob strats, like iechoic which is hard to do
|
On November 22 2011 06:01 blade55555 wrote:
Ok for the people arguing for that 6 pool guide no lol. When new people are trying to learn to play they are not trying to learn how to do 6 pool the best. They want to learn to play... 6 pool is nice and all I guess but for the new person looking for strategies to learn (because be honest who would have fun only 6 pooling anyway? lol). A 6 pool guide is not a strategy I would recommend learning if you are just learning the game or trying to hit that next rank to compete with people of that skill level.
Are these recommended threads recommended if you want to get better or if you want to find the best guide on a certain strategy? According to my definition it's the latter and thus it should be included (after the format gets changed a little bit).
|
On November 22 2011 06:26 decaf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2011 06:01 blade55555 wrote:
Ok for the people arguing for that 6 pool guide no lol. When new people are trying to learn to play they are not trying to learn how to do 6 pool the best. They want to learn to play... 6 pool is nice and all I guess but for the new person looking for strategies to learn (because be honest who would have fun only 6 pooling anyway? lol). A 6 pool guide is not a strategy I would recommend learning if you are just learning the game or trying to hit that next rank to compete with people of that skill level. Are these recommended threads recommended if you want to get better or if you want to find the best guide on a certain strategy? According to my definition it's the latter and thus it should be included (after the format gets changed a little bit).
This might be the problem, and i was gonna mention that. I'm thinking the latter. With good organization you should be able to show all kinds of guides and express why they are recommended (like with labels, creative/standard/cheese/etc.)
And of course by "get better" you mean by get better in the long run, right? :D (which would be to improve macro etc.)
|
What better seal of approval do you need than Leenock doing an eco 7 pool vs Naniwa on Dual Sight in game 3 of the MLG final?
I realise it's the done thing to aspire towards 'standard play' but when you really break things down to their basics, these are just a set of openings like any other and Bad_Habit's thread does a good job of shedding light on all of the intricacies involved in such an aggressive early play. Not only in regards to how to successfully carry them out but also how to defend against them thanks to inclusions like White-Ra's little analysis session and some discussion of the unit control tricks you can employ.
Aside from the bm element I struggle to see how there is any real case for not including it...
|
United States8476 Posts
I'll just be straight out frank because I think my first post about my concerns was perfectly polite, considerate, and humble. You might be a busy guy but that's no excuse for what seems to be a reoccuring cold or hostile attitude from your posts, let alone what seems to be an evasive personality. I just typed up a well written post, and you simply dismiss it. How can anyone possibly NOT understand what I meant? (If I find that many others also do not understand, then dismiss this).
I was trying to be polite as well. I honestly don't know how I'm being cold and hostile from. Is it the bullet-points? Because I just find that organizes my thoughts better. And I don't know how I'm being evasive, as I've been trying to directly respond to everyone in this thread in a timely matter. The only part of your post that I didn't understand was that one line I quoted.
You created this thread, it doesn't matter how much time you put into it. If this guide is made for the community, then you better be more open and listen to the community, even if you disagree with them and say why.
I don't mind having a group of people decide what guides should be in here, but I'm not going to listen to 2-3 people saying "include this guide" without good reasons.
You're also being a bit hypocritical. Like someone else pointed out, you included some guides which were not standard at all and you say that you only want to include standard guides? This is not a criteria I agree with. A strategy is a strategy, it doesn't have to be a "solid", or "safe" strategy in order to be "recommended". Cheese, all-ins, etc., random build orders that might be good to throw out in a Bo5 match, as long as they are of good quality, should be included.
I never said I'd only include standard strategies. As I've said before, if guides aren't standard, I have a harder time judging if they're good or not, so standard strategies have an easier time getting in. There are some strategies in there that are way not standard and not of that high quality, because they're from the original thread. When I add a historical section, those are getting moved too.
Also you mentioned you don't have a minimum amount of guides per MU/race? Then why is one of your reasons for including the iEchoic TvT build because you didn't want to leave the TvT section blank?
Ok, I don't want to leave a whole section blank and iEchoic's guide is of very good quality. I'm not going to remove it, but will probably move it to the "historical section". I still think my policies aren't that hypocritical at all here.
That's why I said, "However, if I, or anyone, is able to create a "Recommended Strategy Guide" without it being closed, my concerns/argument may be dismissed"
Straight out what it means it this: I am quite against the policy/procedures of this thread, and I would rather make my own recommended strategy guide thread, because if everything comes down to your say in the end, then it'll just become a "these are the threads I recommend" game. For example, the spoilers in decaf's guide, that should not be something that holds a guide from being recommended, especially since a lot of people have stated in a previous thread that zatic (right?) opened regarding him being annoyed at threads with lots of spoilers, unless you were unaware of that.
I added his guide and was just giving him suggestions on how to improve it. I bet even decaf will admit that he way overused spoiler tags in his thread previous.
Edit: I also don't understand why a cheese has to be standard. If a guide is good enough, it should be able to prove if it works or not, with good replays, timings, explanations, etc. The same goes for strategies that aren't cheesy -- sure it is harder to "prove" that they work, but there are so many factors in the game that, if you can't prove the strategy to not work, then it means it does work. It shouldn't have to work 100% of the time even when you're fully scouted. The game is about asymmetrical information.
I actually agree with this.
Also, how will a guide that explains that it does work (and no one can "prove" that it doesn't work) receive more feedback if it's not recommended? Yes you can say it should be improved first because otherwise it's not a high quality guide, but like I said, unless someone proves it to not work, I think the benefit of improving these guides outweighs the small risk in the build "not working".
A "recommended" thread should be all high quality threads that don't need much work. A noob should be able to read it, confident that it contains valid information. The main purpose of this thread is mostly to have newer posters look at it. I doubt guides will receive anymore feedback just because it's "recommended" in this thread.
Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 22:03 Vandroy wrote:On November 19 2011 20:25 Bad_Habit wrote:
did u just ignore me? How did he ignore you? I think he explained pretty clearly in this thread why your guide isn't in here. There's a reason why monk is a blue poster and that's because he know what he's doing so instead of being rude you should thank him for the work he's put into remaking this thread. Maybe if you ask in a nicer manner for some constructive criticism on how to improve your formating and organization of your guide you'd be able to fix the problems(and get added) instead of just arguing for the sake of it. Also, I don't mean disrespect to blue posters nor to say they aren't knowledgable about strategy, but this kind of post is just utterly ridiculous and is quite inaccurate. NrGMonk, on the other hand, provided a good explanation of the events between him and Bad_Habit, who keeps BM'ing him, so Monk's decision to stop discussing/arguing with Bad_Habit is justified.
I pretty much fully agree with Vandroy here. Don't see why it's ridiculous or inaccurate.
|
If I hope on the bandwagon with you guys, will you also get my 3 rax guide up there while you're at it ? If I can chose a spot, I'd like it right over IEchoic's 2fact2port guide.
|
Im not sure if this is significant enough to warrant its own thread (because its kind of covered over some other threads) but i found Sheth's mineral saturation guide to be useful: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=219257
Also, Spanishwa/Icefisher build (32drones4queens b4 gas)?
+ Show Spoiler +I personally dont like the style because of some flaws, but its still usefull to certain types of playstyles
edit: couldnt find the link for spanishiwa
|
I was trying to be polite as well. I honestly don't know how I'm being cold and hostile from. Is it the bullet-points? Because I just find that organizes my thoughts better. And I don't know how I'm being evasive, as I've been trying to directly respond to everyone in this thread in a timely matter. The only part of your post that I didn't understand was that one line I quoted.
Ok, nevermind then. I understand "Concise" tone, where you leave out fluff and etc., I just got a bit frustrated and I couldn't tell if you were meaning to be cold or not. Since you didn't comment on any other part of the post, I guess I wrongly assumed you were trying to be "evasive"
I don't mind having a group of people decide what guides should be in here, but I'm not going to listen to 2-3 people saying "include this guide" without good reasons.
Agreed, this opinion of mine was based on bad information, I thought you didn't include decaf's guide.
I never said I'd only include standard strategies. As I've said before, if guides aren't standard, I have a harder time judging if they're good or not, so standard strategies have an easier time getting in. There are some strategies in there that are way not standard and not of that high quality, because they're from the original thread. When I add a historical section, those are getting moved too.
Sorry, another misunderstanding on my part. The criteria you listed are just basic, general guidelines that should occur in most threads.
Ok, I don't want to leave a whole section blank and iEchoic's guide is of very good quality. I'm not going to remove it, but will probably move it to the "historical section". I still think my policies aren't that hypocritical at all here.
Ok, that makes sense.
I added his guide and was just giving him suggestions on how to improve it. I bet even decaf will admit that he way overused spoiler tags in his thread previous.
Again, sorry for misunderstanding.
A "recommended" thread should be all high quality threads that don't need much work. A noob should be able to read it, confident that it contains valid information. The main purpose of this thread is mostly to have newer posters look at it. I doubt guides will receive anymore feedback just because it's "recommended" in this thread.
Hm, you're right, I was throwing out an idea that I had only just thought up. Seems like it was a pretty bad one xD
I pretty much fully agree with Vandroy here. Don't see why it's ridiculous or inaccurate.
My language was a bit extreme, but I mean he did ask for help and that he didn't quite know how to format it (whatever that might mean), and "did u just ignore me?" can come off and be interpreted as rude, but you never know if he's just using a neutral, concise syntax/tone/thing lol.
Anyways, thanks for responding.
On November 22 2011 06:57 Geiko wrote:
If I hope on the bandwagon with you guys, will you also get my 3 rax guide up there while you're at it ? If I can chose a spot, I'd like it right over IEchoic's 2fact2port guide.
can you link so we can see? =D
|
United States8476 Posts
+ Show Spoiler +On November 22 2011 07:22 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +I was trying to be polite as well. I honestly don't know how I'm being cold and hostile from. Is it the bullet-points? Because I just find that organizes my thoughts better. And I don't know how I'm being evasive, as I've been trying to directly respond to everyone in this thread in a timely matter. The only part of your post that I didn't understand was that one line I quoted. Ok, nevermind then. I understand "Concise" tone, where you leave out fluff and etc., I just got a bit frustrated and I couldn't tell if you were meaning to be cold or not. Since you didn't comment on any other part of the post, I guess I wrongly assumed you were trying to be "evasive" Show nested quote +I don't mind having a group of people decide what guides should be in here, but I'm not going to listen to 2-3 people saying "include this guide" without good reasons. Agreed, this opinion of mine was based on bad information, I thought you didn't include decaf's guide. Show nested quote +I never said I'd only include standard strategies. As I've said before, if guides aren't standard, I have a harder time judging if they're good or not, so standard strategies have an easier time getting in. There are some strategies in there that are way not standard and not of that high quality, because they're from the original thread. When I add a historical section, those are getting moved too. Sorry, another misunderstanding on my part. The criteria you listed are just basic, general guidelines that should occur in most threads. Show nested quote +Ok, I don't want to leave a whole section blank and iEchoic's guide is of very good quality. I'm not going to remove it, but will probably move it to the "historical section". I still think my policies aren't that hypocritical at all here. Ok, that makes sense. Show nested quote +I added his guide and was just giving him suggestions on how to improve it. I bet even decaf will admit that he way overused spoiler tags in his thread previous. Again, sorry for misunderstanding. Show nested quote +A "recommended" thread should be all high quality threads that don't need much work. A noob should be able to read it, confident that it contains valid information. The main purpose of this thread is mostly to have newer posters look at it. I doubt guides will receive anymore feedback just because it's "recommended" in this thread.
Hm, you're right, I was throwing out an idea that I had only just thought up. Seems like it was a pretty bad one xD Show nested quote +I pretty much fully agree with Vandroy here. Don't see why it's ridiculous or inaccurate. My language was a bit extreme, but I mean he did ask for help and that he didn't quite know how to format it (whatever that might mean), and "did u just ignore me?" can come off and be interpreted as rude, but you never know if he's just using a neutral, concise syntax/tone/thing lol. Anyways, thanks for responding. Show nested quote +On November 22 2011 06:57 Geiko wrote:
If I hope on the bandwagon with you guys, will you also get my 3 rax guide up there while you're at it ? If I can chose a spot, I'd like it right over IEchoic's 2fact2port guide. can you link so we can see? =D
<.<, -_-
Everyone good now?
|
On November 22 2011 07:22 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2011 06:57 Geiko wrote:
If I hope on the bandwagon with you guys, will you also get my 3 rax guide up there while you're at it ? If I can chose a spot, I'd like it right over IEchoic's 2fact2port guide. can you link so we can see? =D
Sure can ! I dun diddly don't need for no one to be askin' me twice to show my cheese guides :http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=223517
|
oh LOL this strategy!
I haven't seen the replays but I think it looks good, I can't see much to improve on though other opinion will most likely differ of course.
|
On November 22 2011 07:34 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
oh LOL this strategy!
I haven't seen the replays but I think it looks good, I can't see much to improve on though other opinion will most likely differ of course.
Other opinion *wink wink* I read you loud and clear. Let's not name any colors here, but I think we all know who we're talking about.
|
On November 22 2011 07:38 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2011 07:34 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
oh LOL this strategy!
I haven't seen the replays but I think it looks good, I can't see much to improve on though other opinion will most likely differ of course. Other opinion *wink wink* I read you loud and clear. Let's not name any colors here, but I think we all know who we're talking about.
other opinions*
and no i don't mean it like that ;_;
i have not actually practiced that well so i never did it right
|
I for one would like to thank you for doing this.
|
On November 22 2011 06:56 NrGmonk wrote:
And I don't know how I'm being evasive, as I've been trying to directly respond to everyone in this thread in a timely matter.
Well sort of. You seem to have completely ignored my request to have some sort of mention, seeing as pretty much the entire thing was written by me, but there you go.........
|
United States8476 Posts
On November 23 2011 00:02 Mofisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2011 06:56 NrGmonk wrote:
And I don't know how I'm being evasive, as I've been trying to directly respond to everyone in this thread in a timely matter. Well sort of. You seem to have completely ignored my request to have some sort of mention, seeing as pretty much the entire thing was written by me, but there you go.........
I'll get to that eventually when I add the "historic" section.
|
Please include kcdcs updated 1 Gate FE guide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
