EPT[VOTE] SC2 Player quality limits in order to post - Page 9
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Sqq
Norway2023 Posts
| ||
|
positron.
634 Posts
I agree that it is impossible to filter out good players by rating but hey what can we do? We can only do the best we can and hope that works. At least people get 1500 would know when to shut up. I am only 800 and trust me I do know when to shut up. If you really feel like being elitist then only let people who play in tournaments post in that sub forum but I doubt it would really happen because it is too time consuming to sort out who play in tournaments and who doesn't. | ||
|
DwmC_Foefen
Belgium2186 Posts
On September 21 2010 05:44 Deadlyfish wrote: Lets say that we'd make a forum for 1800+ people only. Because 1800+ people probably think that 1400 players are scrubs. Point is, there is always someone better, and someone will always think that someone else is a noob, no matter his rating. This also happened to Arena Junkies, a sort of elitism within the elitism developed, where 2.4k players were idiots and only 2.8k players knew the game. Then then 2900+ crowd though that 2.8k players were idiots. You see the problem? You cant just say "here's the line from good to bad". I bet i could find a gold player who knows more about the game than me, a diamond player. 100% certain. But wouldn't it help the game to develop? And more importantly, I think the biggest issue here is the fact that many immature posters post stupid, shallow stuff and worthless advice in otherwise possible great threads. (See my edit of my post.) Edit: And for clarification, by good players I mean players who are known to be good players and who have perhaps participated and won big tournaments. And who use their head and common sense when it comes to playing and figuring out SC2. | ||
|
Tabbris
Bangladesh2839 Posts
| ||
|
tGhOeOoDry
United States48 Posts
So what are the high-level gamers getting out of posting in the forums here? What is their incentive? What do they get out of it? If they know that replies to their threads will be met with constructive criticism from knowledgeable gamers, well, that might be enough incentive to share their thoughts. A new, expert-only forum would be extremely interesting for me to read. And I would likely still post in the public forums; I believe that there will still be value there. And I believe there will still be community there. But the expert-only forum would be different. It would be teachers' lounge, if you will. If a lowly plebian like myself wanted to comment on the pro's post, I could start a thread about it, linking to it, in the public forum. This just seems like a good way to keep a large community while preserving the quality of the content. | ||
|
ShadowWolf
United States197 Posts
On September 21 2010 05:25 Liquid`Tyler wrote: Can you compare AJ's strategy discussion to some other WoW Aarena forum's strategy discussion that does not have rating requirements and show that AJ isn't any better? AJ doesn't have to be a perfect forum in order to prove that its methods are in its best interests. And it's unreasonable to expect a strategy forum to provide excellent responses to any question you throw at it. If I think something is a bad idea and I know most people will agree with me, it's better if I don't waste any effort giving a long explanation why it's a bad idea. I can say "don't do that strat it sucks" and when everyone else reads that thread and agrees w/ me, they won't bump it just to say that they agree with me. They let it die. So it dies and that's all you see is one guy asking a question, one expert saying "no lol!" and nothing else. But you have to respect the consensus of top players and let them put effort into discussing more interesting things. Well, the idea of posting those links is that they are more a sample of the majority of the threads & posts on that forum. The mods there are active and do their best to try to prune some of the trolling; however, that wasn't my point. Unfortunately, I know of no other resources from which to glean Arena knowledge - the closest things I know of just don't get enough traffic to be good comparisons (e.g. http://forums.hydramist.net/ or http://www.shadowpriest.com/viewforum.php?f=58&sid=c1c79f1a9a14a33246e2768122ad0910 or http://wowmb.net/forums/f43/ ) My point is more that you can compare their section, which is posting-rights restricted to the TL.net SC2 Strategy section, which is not posting-rights restricted, and my opinion is that TL's is superior. The point of going to ArenaJunkies was more to illustrate that having a limitation in posting capacity doesn't automatically improve the quality of posts. If you want to improve the quality of posts then it's going to take more than that. | ||
|
EoR
Ireland127 Posts
Oh, yeah, there'd be about 5-6 posts a week. Nice in theory, not so nice in practice. Also, not to sound like a douche, but I don't even think 1000 diamond is near a C rank on ICCUP. | ||
|
IamBach
United States1059 Posts
| ||
|
Thenas
Sweden107 Posts
| ||
|
link0
United States1071 Posts
Make it so only the players from blizz's top200 for each server able to post. This list is MUCH easier to verify and implement. Most of the top200 are TL.net members. Balance threads really do not need non-top200 players posting. | ||
|
IamBach
United States1059 Posts
| ||
|
Pulimuli
Sweden2766 Posts
| ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
| ||
|
Alou
United States3748 Posts
Or perhaps - a system where they each get a chance to discuss a topic each week. Say "The use of banshees in TvP" then after a week of all these invite only people responding, the thread is made public for the rest of the forum to view and see what the opinions are of various things by top players? Maybe I'm interpreting it as something meant for learning when it's really about top level players getting their own spot. Either way, I'd prefer it atleast be readable to us low level players. No point in seperating the board into different groups. | ||
|
Pervect
1280 Posts
The creation of this forum and its rules would require a level of deliberation that I assume TL staff would take/has been taking (since there has been talk of this before) to decide who gets to post, since I'm not sure rankings in SC2 are a good metric (at this point in time, at least). Some accomplished/well-known players should be allowed in first, then add some of the borderline pros and remove them if they are not fit or do not contribute in a meaningful. I do not understand claims of elitism (or, more accurately, the problem with this type of "elitism") as the majority of people still has their area to discuss and pros would of course still be free to post there, while simply having a forum that provides them with the ability to have slightly more policed discussion with people in the upper echelon of players. Lower level players can still get their point out and people who devout more and often take the game more seriously (thus, in general, having more knowledge) can also have an area to discuss exclusively with people at the top level. This would be good for them, if they choose to use it, and good for people not on their skill level as it would allow them additional insight into how top players think about the current state of the game and current strategies trending the top of the ladder. And who knows, maybe one day you could post in that forum! If it becomes woefully underused or never meets its true purpose, it can be removed and marked up as a lesson. Overall, I feel a sub-forum like this would be good for the community as a whole and the only people who lose are people who don't like reading what the current bunch of top players have to say. | ||
|
Grettin
42381 Posts
But tbh, a requirement of "xxx" -amount of ladder points is ridiculous in some ways. There is alot of people with good points and posts that really don't even play SC2 seriously or either aren't that good in it. So there would be already one problem, cutting them off. IMO. As myself, i think i know shitloads of things about this game than any of my Diamond level friends for example, and i'm not playing it hardcorely, even though i could manage to get into diamond. | ||
|
vrok
Sweden2541 Posts
On September 21 2010 05:46 Koukalaka wrote: Elitist Jerks is an awful website. Only wannabes visit that website: I was in Ensidia and I didn't visit the website once. It's awful, but you never visited it. Ok? Back in S1 and S2 it contained tons of useful information for my team anyway. Still, that wasn't my point. The point is that heavy moderation is the way to go because whatever the arbitrary requirement is, it will not help. | ||
|
Vexx
United States462 Posts
I followed a really well run forum for awhile (non-gaming) that maintained the quality of their forums by really enforcing quality standards. Bad posts and poor spelling would get very negative comments/bans which would in turn keep the forum making quality posts. This also attracted more quality posters. However, it was a huge strain on the moderation team to keep up. But, it was always a great read. | ||
|
Deadlyfish
Denmark1980 Posts
On September 21 2010 05:48 DwmC_Foefen wrote: But wouldn't it help the game to develop? And more importantly, I think the biggest issue here is the fact that many immature posters post stupid, shallow stuff and worthless advice in otherwise possible great threads. (See my edit of my post.) Well i dont think there's a problem, but even if there was, then the solution wouldnt be to just exclude a bunch of people from posting, but instead be stricter about deleting threads that just arent up to standards. You cant just expect perfect replies always, there will ALWAYS be some silly replies. IMO it has nothing to do with rank at all. | ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
Just asking. | ||
| ||
