[VOTE] SC2 Player quality limits in order to post - Page 32

On September 23 2010 07:34 Cell.cell wrote:
Don't forget guys its a subforum. Sub. Forum. Like, you can still post your inane shit everywhere else, but not in that sub-forum.

On September 23 2010 07:29 Maaku wrote:


Guess sports commentators know nothing also by your theory?

On September 23 2010 06:46 brocoli wrote:
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.

On September 23 2010 07:29 Maaku wrote:


Guess sports commentators know nothing also by your theory?

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.

On September 23 2010 07:38 Stoli wrote:


Well first, even in real sports commentators with real game experience are preferred, even common. They aren't contemporary players simply because there is so much more money to be made actually playing, but still.

Second, almost every sport has been around for more than 100 years, and the rules are relatively simple. It's common that everyone understands them and that they have a much larger history (wealth of data) that laymen can draw on to gain insight, insights which most PLAYERS know intuitively or are difficult to discern without research, and perhaps only begin to apply consciously when the research realizes what the successful players are doing.

Third, as I mentioned SC2 is an artificial environment whereas sports are based in the real world, it's far harder to "learn" the intricacies and nuances in a game where you start from scratch.

Fourth, the physical abilities of athletes is standard, and unchanging from game to game. In SC2, it's an entirely mental game, which is much more inconsistent and difficult to judge. On this basis alone, sports commentators who haven't played can judge and comment on the match.

It's really incomparable, and even if it was, it's extremely common for ex athletes to be more valued as commentators.

On September 23 2010 07:44 On_Slaught wrote:
I still haven't seen a reason why anyone of value/extreme skill would even want to post on these "sub forums" if they were made.

If I was a great player, why would I want to go give away everything that makes me so in order that other players benefit from my work, while doing little to none of their own?

These forums would either be

1. a graveyard or

2. only slightly better than the normal forums, if at all.

Rule No 1

Everything you say must be supported by evidence

This game is new to all of us. No one has a definite answer for every strategy related question for SC2. This game has not been tested out in every detail to the death like BW has. Thus it is extremely important that you back up everything with sound reasoning, a replay, a VOD, anything that supports the point you are making. Your word is not enough - you know just as little about the game as everybody else.

That said, there are already people much more qualified to talk about strategy than others. This includes ladder top spots, Blizzard employees, good BW players that have logged a decent number of games in SC2, and people who have shown they got what it takes through streaming a lot of high level gaming. Naturally, statements by these individuals will be weighted differently than had they be posted by complete unknowns. Thus, the less reputation you have the more you need to back up your claims as described further up (Note however that this does not excuse outrageous claims by a good player – in the end everything will need proof).

Also keep in mind:

- Nothing is imba. If you found something imba, it's most likely not. Find a counter.
- This is no place for balance discussion.
- B.net league placements aren't that relevant. Your Diamond spot doesn't mean anything.

Categorization

Always put the right tag ([H][D][G][Q]) in your thread title

Tagging your threads is very important. The difference between [D] Bisu Build and [G] Bisu Build is worlds apart. Please use thread categorization correctly as described below. Not only will the expectation to your thread depend on it but of course you will get feedback faster also.
Categorizing thread makes it easy to find threads later using the search. You can search for “[H] Bisu Build ” and there you are.

[H] Help threads.

Post a replay, give your own analysis, get help!

The classic “Why did I lose this game?”. For these threads it is absolutely required that you post a replay. No exceptions. Nobody is going to be able to help you if you won’t post a replay.

Additionally, first put some thought into what happened in the game, and include your own analysis into the thread. It might be wrong, but try your best. It doesn’t have to be long, a few point form lines is enough to give people a starting point to give you advice. Your thread won’t last if you won’t put any effort in it.

If you have specific questions, ask them along with your analysis. It’s always easier to reply if we know what exactly you need help with.

[Q] Question threads

Ask for help with or against a specific strategy

In a [Q] thread you may ask about a specific, situational strategy, whether that is executing it yourself of playing against it. It is very important that you keep these threads specific. A general "How to FE against Zerg?" is not acceptable. This is the most important distinction from the [H] threads.

Post some analysis of the problem, and what you have tried so far. This not only avoids redundant advice but also shows people you have put some effort into this yourself.

As with the [H] threads, it makes it a lot easier to help you if you ask a couple of specific questions regarding the strategy you are unsure about.

Feedback on [H] and [Q] threads

Be respectful and accept the advice you get

Be respectful of the opinions people give you – you came here looking for help. If you disagree with a reply, cite examples or give some sort of analysis supporting why you disagree. Potentially post a replay that shows the given advice is incorrect. If you engage in fruitless arguments with people trying to help you, your thread will be closed and you may be banned from the strategy section.

Experienced players should be direct and give advice that is generally accepted as standard. Their advice should be as specific as possible, as open-ended advice (“play faster”) isn’t very helpful.

Only reply to a help thread if you are an experienced SC2 player. Otherwise, these threads are simply NO PLACE FOR YOU TO POST. Do not make your own suggestions or ask your own questions in a help thread. If you need help, make your own [H] thread, don't derail an existing one.

[D] Discussion threads

Be clear about the topic and the feedback your are hoping for

This is the most open form of thread. Use a Discussion thread if you are not certain about some game mechanic and you want to get the feedback from other players. This can be about strategy and tactics, the role and viability of certain units, rock paper scissor counters, etc. The building blocks of what becomes sound SC2 strategy.

While the thread is less formal, please be clear and concise on the topic you want to discuss about, and open with your own opinion. Don’t make the topic too broad.

This is the perfect way to post a strategy you came up with that is not quite ready to be turned into a guide (See below). Post your strategy and point out the areas where you are not sure about it’s validity and ask for feedback.

Feedback on discussion threads

Be respectful and remember Rule No 1

You wanted to generate discussion, so please don’t brush off suggestions you don’t agree with. Post your counter argument and back it up (Rule No 1). The same goes for people replying to such threads.

Threads like these are a welcome place for people less experienced to ask for opinions, make suggestions and engage in discussion.

[G] Guides

Know what you are talking about

Guides are complete, detailed, and comprehensive advice for a specific strategy or tactic that can be generally executed and is not situational. Guides are held up against the highest standards of quality in this forum. They are the most valuable resource for the average player. Writing a good guide may yield you wide appreciation and e-fame, but comes with a lot of work and responsibility.

Naturally, do not write a guide about something you are not experienced with. If you have come up with a new build and you just won 6 games in a row with it, do not start writing a guide. Play your build more, tweak it, find out it’s weaknesses and follow-ups and branches. A good rule of thumb is to play a strategy until you lose a couple of times with it against different counters, then modify it until you win most games again, then start to think about writing a guide.

A good guide does not necessarily have to be written about a build in a specific matchup, although that is most common. If you have found a new, incredibly effective way to micro Helions you can write a generic Helion micro guide.

Most of the time guides will introduce builds in specific matchups though. Look through our legacy Strategy forum to get an idea on how to write good matchup build guides. There is no perfect recipe, but a few things to take care of: State the goal of the build, strengths, weaknesses, possible follow-up, and adaptations to what the opponent does. Dedicate a chapter to scouting and how to react to what you see within your build.

To give you an idea of the quality we are eventually aiming for have a look at this incredible SC:BW guide:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=89265

Feedback on Guides

Be respectful and remember Rule No 1

A guide is always evolving as the game is being more and more understood and as people find counter strategies. As the author it is your job to keep the guide up to date. If other players find weaknesses or suggest changes to the build, it is your job to alter it accordingly. If you disagree, fall back to Rule No 1: Post a replay or some other form of proof that the criticism isn’t valid.

If you think you found a hole in a posted guide, describe your findings and why you think the guide is weak there. It makes your point incredibly more believable if you post a replay along. Also don't be lazy: Make a suggestion on how to adapt the guide to address your criticism. This is how the best guides that stand the test of time are created.

Contribute

Contribute to this forum! Give good and meaningful advice when you can. Write good introductory OPs to spawn discussion. Even when your thread does not follow these rules here at all, if it's still a well written OP it will stay. We will always reward effort put into our forums.

This site has been the number one resource for Starcraft strategy for one reason: Because it's base of enthusiastic players put an indescribable amount of combined effort into it. Be a part of the best source for Starcraft2 Strategy from the beginning!

On September 23 2010 07:44 On_Slaught wrote:
I still haven't seen a reason why anyone of value/extreme skill would even want to post on these "sub forums" if they were made.

If I was a great player, why would I want to go give away everything that makes me so in order that other players benefit from my work, while doing little to none of their own?

These forums would either be

1. a graveyard or

2. only slightly better than the normal forums, if at all.

On September 23 2010 07:09 FoxSpirit wrote:


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.

On September 23 2010 07:17 CagedMind wrote:
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.