| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Perscienter
957 Posts
I think such forums shouldn't exclude people, who are not very talented. Everyone should get a chance, if he is willing to execute the openings well, understands his match-ups and doesn't have inferior mechanics. | ||
|
AT_Tack
Germany435 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Oriatis
Austria57 Posts
to see some really good players discuss would be very interesting to watch! hope something like that gets implemented! | ||
Firebolt145
Lalalaland34501 Posts
I'm not saying I should definitely have access, but the fact is that last week, while I was free, I rose up to Diamond from Silver in 2 days. This week, while I've been at uni from 7am to 7pm on some days, I haven't played a single 1v1 game and have only played a few team games with friends. Does this mean I don't qualify? I would hope not. | ||
|
LagT_T
Argentina535 Posts
| ||
|
dhe95
United States1213 Posts
| ||
|
brocoli
Brazil264 Posts
IMHO, we don't need to segregate the good users from the bad users, we need to make the good posts and threads visible and the bad posts and threads invisible. This just screams a rating/karma system, not a separate subforum. Why? Because: Subforum advantages: - Easy to implement and moderate. - Guarantees quality. - Less flood means more organized infos. Subforum disadvantages: - The rigid structure means it can't be tweaked easily. - If the structure does break down, it takes much more work to clean it up and causes an incident. - While it assures quality, it also wastes good posts. - Segregation by user means that when a bad user does a good post, it will not be seen... - ...and it is much worse when the opposite happens. - Reading interesting ideas, but being denied to help since you can't post means you get no incentive to contribute with quality either. - This last line means that while the subforum can safeguard one "good" part of the forums, it will -not- help the forum in general. On the contrary, the rest of the forum will become a meaningless trash can that can never become a better place. In a nutshell: easy solution, non-optimal. Fitting for your common, small SC community. Rating/Karma system pros: - Doesn't segregate users, only the infos (which is the part that really matters in a forum). This means that the problems from "users =/= posts" are minimized - Can be easily tweaked and improved for optimal results even while it is working. - Is a smaller step towards elitism than the other solution. (While the philosophy here is that there's no reason to deny elitism if it is necessary, there's no reason to make a huge step towards it if unnecessary either). - Incentivates quality posting from Everyone. This means the community as a whole will become more skilled at doing quality posts as time goes by. - Awards better users by giving them more tools to influence the community as a whole through more points. - No changes to the actual forums structure means it is easy to restart if it ever goes wrong. Rating/Karma system cons: - More refined solution means it is much harder to implement initially, both in work spent and hardware requirements, as in technical knowledge and creativity. (in other words - Giving power to the community means it can be abused or have the opposite results if not implemented/moderated correctly. - While incidents concerning this kind of system wouldn't be nearly as problematic than ones caused by the other solution, the system needs to be complex enough that some accidents are to be expected. - If badly implemented, it won't achieve its goal. In a nutshell: complicated, but better solution. Fitting for the best SC community in the web. Of course, all this is just my own, personal opinion. I strongly believe that this place will inevitably become outright boring in a few years if a subforum is created and maintained. The quality community won't grow enough, and the forum's quality level will reach a ceiling. Also, you can't really work around the conceptual disadvantages of the subforum solution, while the rating/karma system can always be fixed through better work. | ||
|
Autofire2
Pakistan290 Posts
People get defensive these days when called elitist. They shouldn't. Elitist means to accept that professionals and experts in their fields know whats up way better than laymen, and that's just common sense. If people are really offended at the idea how about a compromise: set every non elite post to hidden by default, like you do with spoilers. Someone reading the thread can choose to turn them on if they really think it'll add to the discussion. Pros/great players can choose to read and respond IF they want to. | ||
|
Cedstick
Canada3336 Posts
| ||
|
FoxSpirit
Austria160 Posts
On September 23 2010 06:46 brocoli wrote: Rating/Karma system pros: - Doesn't segregate users, only the infos (which is the part that really matters in a forum). This means that the problems from "users =/= posts" are minimized - Can be easily tweaked and improved for optimal results even while it is working. - Is a smaller step towards elitism than the other solution. (While the philosophy here is that there's no reason to deny elitism if it is necessary, there's no reason to make a huge step towards it if unnecessary either). - Incentivates quality posting from Everyone. This means the community as a whole will become more skilled at doing quality posts as time goes by. - Awards better users by giving them more tools to influence the community as a whole through more points. - No changes to the actual forums structure means it is easy to restart if it ever goes wrong. Rating/Karma system cons: - More refined solution means it is much harder to implement initially, both in work spent and hardware requirements, as in technical knowledge and creativity. (in other words - Giving power to the community means it can be abused or have the opposite results if not implemented/moderated correctly. - While incidents concerning this kind of system wouldn't be nearly as problematic than ones caused by the other solution, the system needs to be complex enough that some accidents are to be expected. - If badly implemented, it won't achieve its goal. In a nutshell: complicated, but better solution. Fitting for the best SC community in the web. Major disadvantage: If this is a Karma system open to everyone, people who voice the most liked opinion are getting the most points. And when top players said they stopped posting because every of their posts gets pounced on by 10 bronzies, accept it as truth. Us low level players are the majority. And as thus, those people will upvote each other until huge idiots with huge support rule the Karma pool. I'll take my quality handpicked forum every day of the week. And I trust the TL staff to make good and careful choices in the participants. | ||
|
Maaku
United Kingdom142 Posts
| ||
|
CagedMind
United States506 Posts
On September 23 2010 06:46 brocoli wrote: As I've said back in page 12, (and saying it again, because I think this is important) IMHO, we don't need to segregate the good users from the bad users, we need to make the good posts and threads visible and the bad posts and threads invisible. This just screams a rating/karma system, not a separate subforum. Why? Because: Subforum advantages: - Easy to implement and moderate. - Guarantees quality. - Less flood means more organized infos. Subforum disadvantages: - The rigid structure means it can't be tweaked easily. - If the structure does break down, it takes much more work to clean it up and causes an incident. - While it assures quality, it also wastes good posts. - Segregation by user means that when a bad user does a good post, it will not be seen... - ...and it is much worse when the opposite happens. - Reading interesting ideas, but being denied to help since you can't post means you get no incentive to contribute with quality either. - This last line means that while the subforum can safeguard one "good" part of the forums, it will -not- help the forum in general. On the contrary, the rest of the forum will become a meaningless trash can that can never become a better place. In a nutshell: easy solution, non-optimal. Fitting for your common, small SC community. Rating/Karma system pros: - Doesn't segregate users, only the infos (which is the part that really matters in a forum). This means that the problems from "users =/= posts" are minimized - Can be easily tweaked and improved for optimal results even while it is working. - Is a smaller step towards elitism than the other solution. (While the philosophy here is that there's no reason to deny elitism if it is necessary, there's no reason to make a huge step towards it if unnecessary either). - Incentivates quality posting from Everyone. This means the community as a whole will become more skilled at doing quality posts as time goes by. - Awards better users by giving them more tools to influence the community as a whole through more points. - No changes to the actual forums structure means it is easy to restart if it ever goes wrong. Rating/Karma system cons: - More refined solution means it is much harder to implement initially, both in work spent and hardware requirements, as in technical knowledge and creativity. (in other words - Giving power to the community means it can be abused or have the opposite results if not implemented/moderated correctly. - While incidents concerning this kind of system wouldn't be nearly as problematic than ones caused by the other solution, the system needs to be complex enough that some accidents are to be expected. - If badly implemented, it won't achieve its goal. In a nutshell: complicated, but better solution. Fitting for the best SC community in the web. Of course, all this is just my own, personal opinion. I strongly believe that this place will inevitably become outright boring in a few years if a subforum is created and maintained. The quality community won't grow enough, and the forum's quality level will reach a ceiling. Also, you can't really work around the conceptual disadvantages of the subforum solution, while the rating/karma system can always be fixed through better work. Karma voting system is horrible!!!!!! its a popularity contest and basing it off of ladder points is 10 times as accurate What do you mean it can't be tweaked easily? You have it separated by ladder points and you can change where it's cutoff at and you can also invite people in. How does it waste good posts? People contributing bad posts is part of problem so you limit how some people contribuate to some extent no matter how you do it. If we go with one of my ideas you can still post but you have to open up posts to see them. Segregation can happen to some extent but I don't think it will be too much and overall the quality will improve. sc2 General is not gonna to become immediate trash and you can even argue that subforum will set a good example and top players will come to tl more and some posts end up in other sc2 places. No matter if there's a subforum or not I think there should be a indication next to name of "pro and "good" players. Non restricted forums will benefit from it always. You can impose some rules that noobs can't argue and post rubbish at pros and only politely ask questions or introduce a new thought. Karma systems are terrible lets leave it at that. | ||
|
tedster
984 Posts
For example, I could give detailed, high-level commentary for SC1 and describe in intimate detail the specifics of the metagame, various players, and matchups, but I am a terrible player because I've never actually taken up SC at all. There are certainly posters like this in SC2, who are great analysts or commentators but not great players, and who might have just as much, if not more, insight into the game than most players who meet some ethereal criteria. | ||
|
MK4512
Canada938 Posts
If there is a seperate sub forum for high level diamond, then what would ever be the incentive for them to come and talk to lower levels. From there you get a large divide that keeps alot of players from theorycrafting, because who is going to going to read or listen to some "low diamond scrub" when their is a pro sub forum to read? Also, many people watch, or study starcraft (myself included) but just don't play enough to get high (1000+) points. I have actually spent at least 3x amount of time on TL, Liquidpedia, and Watching High Level VODS, than I have actually playing. Finally, I think that not all high diamond players are articulate or helpful. Many of them, I feel are your typical xbox live style players. TL should encourage quality posting, in my opinion, even more then skill. My rank, if you care that much + Show Spoiler + low diamond (600 pts) player. EDIT: Want an example of a high level players only forum? www.smashboards.com the main forum is just a mess, and tier lists/info come out like letters from god, mystifying people... | ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
A nice touch, if feasible, would be a 'spectator' forum, where OPs from the private forum are automatically mirrored and anyone can discuss them - but no new threads can be created. | ||
|
Stoli
Canada173 Posts
On September 23 2010 07:21 tedster wrote: The problem is that it doesn't really account for people that know the game extremely well but don't play at the highest level. For example, I could give detailed, high-level commentary for SC1 and describe in intimate detail the specifics of the metagame, various players, and matchups, but I am a terrible player because I've never actually taken up SC at all. There are certainly posters like this in SC2, who are great analysts or commentators but not great players, and who might have just as much, if not more, insight into the game than most players who meet some ethereal criteria. This is bullshit imo. If you can't play, you only think you know what you are talking about. This is the entire problem that exists now as I see it; low level players who believe they have a higher strategic level of understanding are actually simply grasping key points and making suppositions on the basis of their level of play, where inconsistent macro from one game to the next makes discussing strategy or balance completely ridiculous, let alone the impact of good micro or the potential it has to save you. This is not real sports; understanding SC2 requires game experience because it's an artificial environment with a set of rules arbitrarily created that requires practical ingame application to even begin to understand. edit: besides, what "good" commentators do we have that are bad players? can anyone actually NAME one? I would say better player almost directly correlates to better caster, and I believe it's causal as well. edit2: also, theorycrafting is bullshit. seriously, i can't even believe people are seriously discussing the value of theorycrafting. you may enjoy it, but it's utterly worthless | ||
|
CagedMind
United States506 Posts
On September 23 2010 07:21 tedster wrote: The problem is that it doesn't really account for people that know the game extremely well but don't play at the highest level. For example, I could give detailed, high-level commentary for SC1 and describe in intimate detail the specifics of the metagame, various players, and matchups, but I am a terrible player because I've never actually taken up SC at all. There are certainly posters like this in SC2, who are great analysts or commentators but not great players, and who might have just as much, if not more, insight into the game than most players who meet some ethereal criteria. You can always post in other sc2 forums as I said they might even become better quality even with subforum if some changes happen. How well do you know that stuff though? Platinum players understand some meta game and what units to make to counter things in sc2. People could be invited and maybe even have somewhat loose invites to people who post intellectually. | ||
|
Maaku
United Kingdom142 Posts
On September 23 2010 07:27 Stoli wrote: This is bullshit imo. If you can't play, you only think you know what you are talking about. This is the entire problem that exists now as I see it; low level players who believe they have a higher strategic level of understanding are actually simply grasping key points and making suppositions on the basis of their level of play, where inconsistent macro from one game to the next makes discussing strategy or balance completely ridiculous, let alone the impact of good micro or the potential it has to save you. This is not real sports; understanding SC2 requires game experience because it's an artificial environment with a set of rules arbitrarily created that requires practical ingame application to even begin to understand. Guess sports commentators know nothing also by your theory? | ||
|
Pulimuli
Sweden2766 Posts
| ||
|
Cell.cell
United States46 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
PiG Sty Festival
Clem vs Serral
Maru vs ShoWTimE
Sparkling Tuna Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
