|
My solution,
Open a new post with interesting title:
Start Reading post
Realize poster doesnt know wtf he is talking about
Close the post
Open a different post, lose respect for the last OP, ignore his posts in the future, Continue on my merry way.
This is the internet, and it's not a courtroom. People on here are from different cultures, different political systems, different parts of the world, different ways of thinking, and thats what makes it great. Just because some newb, makes a post in the strategy section and says wahh wahh wahh terran is imba lulz, doesnt mean I have to read the whole thread and all the replies, and get in on the argument. See something stupid??? ignore it.
People get drunk, they get high, some people are just dumb when they are born, People post stupid shit, it happens this is the internet. The problem is when "The TL.Net White Knight" sees a thread that displeases him, the "TL.Net White Knight" then try's to have an honest debate with someone who obviously is incompetent. AND BAM theres the mistake, If you see a stupid post, don't continue to post in it, every time you post, you make it more popular and move it too the top of the list!!!!! Yet if everyone just DIDN'T POST IN STUPID THREADS they would very quickly fall to the bottom of the list and disappear. voila
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/iaSRy.png)
now another issue I've found is people who think they are English/Composition majors and have a PAGE OF STUPID ANALOGIES before they actually get to the point of what they are posting about.......
also this is in the wrong forum, and people who have accounts made in 2010-2011 (myself included) have no place to talk on this issue.
|
This is well articulated and very much appreciated. The application of forethought really helps in the quality of a post.
Similarly I was pretty startled (though I suppose I shouldn't be) about actually seeing an imba thread in the strat forum the other day (which was promptly deleted). This got me wondering if part of the problem with these kinds of posts/threads are that newer members need to be forced to read/agree to the forum rules before they are allowed to post on that specific forum? I can't speak for everyone, but I know that's the first thing I did when I started posting.
|
I like what you say here, Zerg~Legend, and hope many posters see this advice and incorporate into their posts. 5-sentence arguments with support work better than 1-sentence anecdotal evidence or "But if he does this" style of arguing. Even further, 10 sentences with a replay and a logical flow to the paragraph give such credence to the poster and his argument. He at least went through some effort finding a solution to a problem, and found a replay demonstrating his point (hopefully not showing an opponent that has no experience reacting badly).
Here's to more substantive posts in the Strategy forums!
Chant with me,
Nothing is overpowered!
Diamond/Masters league placement isn't the be-all end-all of your authority!
Research and replays are king!
|
I'm glad Danglars and a few others seem to have understood the point that the OP was trying to get across.
I stumbled upon this post after doing a name search of Zerg~Legend. This was motivated by the awesome and thorough ZvP and ZvT guides he posted. After reading those guides I wanted to know if there were other quality posts I had yet to discover. Lo and behold, I find a post regarding the sad state of affairs concerning the strategy forum. The fact that the OP took the time to make this post when he should be working on a ZvZ guide is disheartening.
Those who have had a chance to look at the two guides I'm referring to will note that the OP practices what he preaches. It is rare to see forum posts of such amazing quality where time, effort, and thought were put into the research and the writing.
Readers of those posts will note that the OP did the following.
1. He only briefly mentioned his ranking on his server and did not use that as the only source of "evidence".
2. He provided his reasoning (in this case all the potential tech/unit timings of the opponent)
3. Explained what the post would not cover and why (i.e. no recent experience with 2gate or Blistering Sands) HOWEVER, it would have been nice if there was a description in the guide early on stating it was a guide on Speedlings into Roach&Hydra into Broodlord/Ultralisk, but that's a minor quibble.
4. Provided replays and some fancy looking charts.
5. Made substantive suggestions regarding strategy that could be debated and improved upon because the assumptions and evidence were made clear.
Some other posters have suggested that TL admins should take care of this problem (e.g. create a Pro and Master's League forum). I for one think it is silly to ask for change and not try to be part of the change. One can debate the relative merits of a tiered forum posting privileges to death. inControl has certainly been vocal about how low quality posts and the general lackluster "professionalism" in the strat forum discourages and derails pros from successfully getting their points across. But that's not what the OP is asking for.
He's asking for better posts and I think those who want to raise the bar on posts should take heed. We have nothing to lose and much to gain from improving overall post quality.
Here's to better posts!
Looking forward to:
1. Evidence and/or authority (citation)
2. Reasoning
3. Qualifiers/caveats
4. Replays & vids (when applicable)
5. Fancy carts (optional)
|
Hey I'm sorry if someone has already said this, I read the OP but i didnt read through the whole thread. What if TL just implemented some kind of rating thing, where you can rate other members based on their posts and replies (like seller ratings on ebay) , and on you could see a posters rating before you open the post.
|
While I appreciate your sentiment in regards to the current state of the forum. Your argument dose not hold water. For one, the analogy that the forum is a court room is a well crafted straw-man because in fact a public forum would never be an ideal place to conduct a court proceeding involving a murder. Secondly, an argument from authority is also a logical fallacy because as stated before "not all high level players are necessarily good at the game".
On January 17 2011 03:14 Grumbels wrote:
Not all high level players are pro's of course, and not all high level players are necessarily good at the game (since you get to fairly high ladder ratings by just doing one strategy very well, or having good mechanics, not by good understanding per se).
It is legitimate to consider the training and experience of an individual when examining their assessment of a particular claim. Also, a consensus of scientific opinion does carry some legitimate authority. But it is still possible for highly educated individuals, and a broad consensus to be wrong – speaking from authority does not make a claim true. The converse also apples, where in a complete laymen may be in fact correct about his statement in spite of the fact that he is witless.
That's not to say that your heart was in the right place when you wrote this thread. However, as Aeres said, in time things will reach a equilibrium. Ether the weaker member/poster will elevate themselves to reflect a higher standard or they will grow tired of SC2 and move on to the next fad when that time comes. Ether way it is up to you to represent yourself with your own personal ethics as a roll model and conversely it is not up to you to govern the free exchange of Ideas. Unless you are a mod where you have full authority to be a tyrannical Overlord (at least here).
|
On January 20 2011 04:18 The_A_Drain wrote:Show nested quote +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 
What a terrible comparision. Someone in bronzeleague really has absolutely no clue about the game, he is most likely not even able to remember a build order up to 20 supply correctly.
Its way better to just ignore all the bla bla of bad players than listening and considering all of it, just because they might randomly find something that actually turns out to be worthwhile (i mean, if you give them infinite tries, one of them will most likely say something thats not completely useless).
|
It seems to me that the SC:BW community grew, slowly and eventually by its own drive and need to exist. The Sc2 community appeared overnight, occupied by the marauding ex-denizens of casual and competitive games alike (though all inferior in some way). I think the BW community was somewhat spoiled; I was not into competitive SC, but I can tell you, WoW, Halo, DotA, and even Wc3 have far worse followers than even Sc2. It has impressed me so far, that Sc2 has been as civilized as it is -- I believe this to be the result of the many upstanding moderators to sites like TL, and just as importantly to the BW players that have come to Sc2.
With that being said, it will take a long time for the OP's request to be fulfilled completely, if at all, but I think it is an admirable goal to strive toward.
Can we do this? Can discussions about strategy be more than just opinions slewn at one another? Can we reach conclusions about a build or strategy; judge its effectiveness and usefulness fully?
|
On January 21 2011 10:49 DarKFoRcE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2011 04:18 The_A_Drain wrote: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 What a terrible comparision. Someone in bronzeleague really has absolutely no clue about the game, he is most likely not even able to remember a build order up to 20 supply correctly. Its way better to just ignore all the bla bla of bad players than listening and considering all of it, just because they might randomly find something that actually turns out to be worthwhile (i mean, if you give them infinite tries, one of them will most likely say something thats not completely useless).
i agree, we can keep the 'everybody has the right to have his opinion heard' bullshit up in the strategy forums or we could make it what it has the potential to be, which is a sub-forum that almost EVERY pro reads (looking at the latest HomeStoryCup you were able to find TLs theme on almost all the non-sc2ing screens) and a heck of a lot more pros will post in (like every single one that has talked on the subject wants it to be private (as in not everyone has writing rights))
heck, we can even let the noobs have their own place to discuss strategy and then another one for more experienced people.
right now reading & posting in the strategy forums is a joke, sure its good for your average silver/plat player, but if you are good at the game, you might as well (as idra said) "keep the strategy tab closed ... its that bad"
EDIT.
There is absolutely no point to post in a discussion when it has grown past 5 pages unless you make a very controversial post OR are a very recognizable name. The noise from the low-level players makes it too much of a hassle to a) look for informed posters and b) maintain a discussion with such a person since so much random junk just flies in between. If you want to solve this problem by making good posters more visible you will have to make it so extreme that the non-good posters are almost invisible.
Sure, back in the BW days the strategy forum worked because people used to shut up when a pro speaks up & the extremely bad players were in very small numbers.
With the release of SC2 and the influx of new players (just like i once was) the TL community deserves a new system to produce quality strategic discussion. Leaving the community to its own just doesn't do it anymore.
|
On January 20 2011 02:12 gakkgakk wrote:
The thing about having a pro only forum, is that most of the people playing to win tours etc, will probably not share build orders and strategies.
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.
plenty of people near the pro level love to share their build orders
people at the pro level still like to discuss strategy, they just want to do it in a somewhat homogenous environment.
|
For what little it's worth, I think this forum could benefit greatly from the strict application of these rules:
1. All OPs must include a replay.
2. Any responses along the lines of "I'm in the bath / on the roof / raping my dog and can't watch the replay right now, but..." earns a crisp warning / ban, exceptions to be made for recognised top tier players who can obviously rape whatever they like.
So, so often I read threads where four out of five responses are "Can't watch the replay now, but...", and when I watch the replay, the actual problem was nothing to do with Thors, or DTs, or Hellions, or whatever the OP was about.
As a personal aside, Darkforce (who was kind enough to contribute to a thread I started) might recall that said thread violated the 'replay' rule and thus should not have been posted. With hindsight I'd have to agree. I didn't post a replay because I was scared my mechanics would undermine the point I was trying to make, which is pretty idiotic. Lesson learned.
|
Here's a story with names from The Simpons to protect the guilty/innocent and to avoid a massive derail of people justifying themselves.
DiamondMartin created a topic regarding a build order he'd been working on. The Strategy Forum guidelines were adhered to (replays given, builds strong/weak points etc) and as much information as any reasonable person could ask for was given.
ProLisa said she didn't believe a word, dismissed everything provided in a condescending manner and even managed to fit in some name calling. ProLisa said she preferred her intuition over DiamondMartin's evidence.
The thread quickly became pointless.
So here is a question, the same question I PMed to a Moderator regarding the above discussion (although discussion is too much of a compliment to ProLisa). Which trumps which? A low ranked player provides replays but then a high ranked player has their opinion weighted differently.
On February 24 2010 00:47 zatic wrote:
SC2 Strategy Forum Guidelines
Everything you say must be supported by evidence
...That said, there are already people much more qualified to talk about strategy than others.
...In the end everything will need proof.
Provided one ignores the last sentence, and ProLisa certainly did, there is a question of who trumps who.
Oh, those guidelines go on for a while don't they...
On February 24 2010 00:47 zatic wrote:
Feedback on Guides
It makes your point incredibly more believable if you post a replay.
I think the jury is still out on that one. High level players have the fail-safe "You're wrong" and replays be damned.
From the order of the OP's headings - Authority, Reasoning, Demonstrating - I take it he believes these are in order of least to most reliable. If not then I've read too much into the post, but I certainly believe that. The Strategy Forum Guidelines seem to say that. The Appeal to the Community is based on the idea that high level players agree with that. But as far as I can tell the jury is still out.
|
On January 21 2011 15:16 SixtusTheFifth wrote:Here's a story with names from The Simpons to protect the guilty/innocent and to avoid a massive derail of people justifying themselves. DiamondMartin created a topic regarding a build order he'd been working on. The Strategy Forum guidelines were adhered to (replays given, builds strong/weak points etc) and as much information as any reasonable person could ask for was given. ProLisa said she didn't believe a word, dismissed everything provided in a condescending manner and even managed to fit in some name calling. ProLisa said she preferred her intuition over DiamondMartin's evidence. The thread quickly became pointless. So here is a question, the same question I PMed to a Moderator regarding the above discussion (although discussion is too much of a compliment to ProLisa). Which trumps which? A low ranked player provides replays but then a high ranked player has their opinion weighted differently. Show nested quote +On February 24 2010 00:47 zatic wrote:
SC2 Strategy Forum Guidelines
Everything you say must be supported by evidence
...That said, there are already people much more qualified to talk about strategy than others.
...In the end everything will need proof. Provided one ignores the last sentence, and ProLisa certainly did, there is a question of who trumps who. Oh, those guidelines go on for a while don't they... Show nested quote +On February 24 2010 00:47 zatic wrote:
Feedback on Guides
It makes your point incredibly more believable if you post a replay. I think the jury is still out on that one. High level players have the fail-safe "You're wrong" and replays be damned. From the order of the OP's headings - Authority, Reasoning, Demonstrating - I take it he believes these are in order of least to most reliable. If not then I've read too much into the post, but I certainly believe that. The Strategy Forum Guidelines seem to say that. The Appeal to the Community is based on the idea that high level players agree with that. But as far as I can tell the jury is still out.
A replay, even at the diamond level, doesn't prove much. You have people successfully 7RRing their opponents but darkforce doesnt need to hop on ladder and play it ten times to know that good players can scout AND defend it. Even 20000 replays of beating diamond players doesnt help the strategy in that case.(unless you want to practice stuff that only works against bad players(i.e. dont want to improve))
imo, people should just be happy the pros even post on these forums. getting a pros input is valid information even if it isnt INSTANTLY PROVEN BY REPLAYS. just accept their authority, if you dont want to, you can ignore but, but accept that most peoeple do, and for a good reason too.
ninja edit:
quite recently a (pre-patch 3.3k) Zerg posted a strategy in the strategy forum. darkforce very quickly said you will die to a 5 minute stimpush. now the zerg was - compared to the normal populace - _very_ high level, easily top 200, and he replied with 'i think it can work, but maybe i dont play good enough players and youre completely right'
now think about that for a second.
Mr Plat McIdiot starts getting argumentative when darkforce posted that his build is crap and clings onto replays to try to find some evidence for his build, and a top 200 zerg IMMEDIATELY admits that he isnt at a level where he EVEN WITH REPLAYS could argue his point reliably.
How do we solve this problem? Well we certainly won't be able to change much telling that guy that he please should stop being such a ignorant & bad poster and I'm certainly not saying that if only master league players would post that problem would instantly vanish, but it would give good players a place where they can discuss strategy without having as much garbage thrown their way.
|
On January 21 2011 11:18 Poonchow wrote:
It seems to me that the SC:BW community grew, slowly and eventually by its own drive and need to exist. The Sc2 community appeared overnight, occupied by the marauding ex-denizens of casual and competitive games alike (though all inferior in some way). I think the BW community was somewhat spoiled; I was not into competitive SC, but I can tell you, WoW, Halo, DotA, and even Wc3 have far worse followers than even Sc2. It has impressed me so far, that Sc2 has been as civilized as it is -- I believe this to be the result of the many upstanding moderators to sites like TL, and just as importantly to the BW players that have come to Sc2.
This I agree with completely.
While I don't necessarily disagree that separate forums would be a good idea, I think making the higher level ones private borders on segregation, and that' is never good any way you slice it.
It's a fair point that a Bronze League player is not going to be of the same standard as a Diamond League player, but people come to highly regarded, well respected sites like these with the aim of learning, becoming better at the game and discussing it with other like-minded people. Knowing very little about a game does not always go hand-in-hand with being a complete idiot.
The forum rules already make it abundantly clear that if your post does not at least contribute to the thread, it will be removed and I think that is a fantastic barrier against some of the drivel that infests most websites for other competitive games. I just think this attitude of tying peoples opinions to their level of success, to the point of actually suggesting segregating the community by blocking new players from a Pro's-Only Forum is kinda dangerous. I have seen attitudes like this tear communities apart, and fast. All it does is make new players feel like they are unable to connect with the community, and it puts them off. While that might sound like a plus to some people, it can suffocate competitive games over time to the point of stagnation.
New blood is never a bad thing, and sure, a whole host of morons will need a good whomp with the banhammer, but that happens with the release of any new game in today's internet-focused culture. Personally I think the value of just a handful of new players who are able to act with respect, take the advice of players who are better than them and overall strive to become a better player are worth the trouble a few hundred other new players cause with inane comments or bizarre questions.
|
On January 21 2011 18:11 ChickenLips wrote:
ninja edit:
quite recently a (pre-patch 3.3k) Zerg posted a strategy in the strategy forum. darkforce very quickly said you will die to a 5 minute stimpush. now the zerg was - compared to the normal populace - _very_ high level, easily top 200, and he replied with 'i think it can work, but maybe i dont play good enough players and youre completely right'
now think about that for a second.
Mr Plat McIdiot starts getting argumentative when darkforce posted that his build is crap and clings onto replays to try to find some evidence for his build, and a top 200 zerg IMMEDIATELY admits that he isnt at a level where he EVEN WITH REPLAYS could argue his point reliably.
How do we solve this problem? Well we certainly won't be able to change much telling that guy that he please should stop being such a ignorant & bad poster and I'm certainly not saying that if only master league players would post that problem would instantly vanish, but it would give good players a place where they can discuss strategy without having as much garbage thrown their way.
This is the core problem. It's the engine that drives the +10 page discussions or ends the involvement of more knowledgeable people.
It's the constant 'rock paper scissors' discussion:
"I want to try a build where I go Rock."
"Your build is invalid because your opponent will just Paper you."
<OP leaves discussion>
"Yeah but if he uses some scissors it could work."
"Going both Rock and scissors will defeat the purpose of the build, you should just go Paper which is tried and true."
<Queue build order nitpicking and endless buildorder tester logs.>
<5 pages later>
"But what if you forget about all this and just go Rock?"
<thread is locked on page 23 during the fifth recursion of the Rock debate.>
The reason why these kind of discussions could manifest constructively in the BW scene was because the community had come to the consensus that this would always be a problem. That the nature of the game allows your opponent to go X to beat your Y. Strategical discussions are very fast to go into the realm of theorycrafting and throw out 90% of the game 'for the sake of simplicity'. But right now most people (sometimes willingly) will only focus on the remaining 10% and hold it as law.
I remember a discussion that boiled down to something like 'Zealots will always counter Marauders when they have charge.' I didn't exactly participate in the debate, I simply tried to incorporate a critical component: surface area. You can't discuss this without that 'real world' component. It took about 4 pages before someone even read my post and defended it. Right before the thread closed at about 15 pages people started to talk about it.
The BW community accepted strategy posts. They all knew of an unwritten 'disclaimer' at the top of every OP.
"Things might appear simpler than they are in reality. Reader discretion is advised. It is implied that all concepts and suggestions are subject to real world conditions."
Maybe it's time that we did write that disclaimer in full. Because the BW community had over a decade to evolve, isolated. Remember, the internet was far more tribal than it was now. The power to destroy is not contained to a 'local' clan or channel. Ignorance is a powerful force now.
A mass without education is dangerous. It won't be long before all the 'gamers' that hop from game to game will discard Starcraft 2 for being too 'old', calling it 'dead' and drag everyone along with them, peer pressure ensuring that only a fraction of people will remain. Something the diehard BW players will embrace with open arms.
The strat forum is a small piece of it, but it's a place to start educating the masses.
|
I think there is a general problem with reasoning in most of the posts in the strategy forum.
Most of the reasons look a bit like this:
A: Mass Marines are imba, because they have lot's of dps
B: Banelings counter marines, because they splash and marines die instantly
A: You cannot build banelings, because tanks steamrole everything
B: You can do etc etc...
What i mean by that is, that all arguments are very one dimensional. They do not take into account the whole situation of the game. This is probably not even the fault of the authors but of something like a forum because you simply cannot explain the whole situation. Furthermore we always want to find quick solutions in a complex system, which is probably not possible.
Thats just my thoughts on the whole reasoning part the OP adressed.
|
On January 17 2011 02:02 Aeres wrote:
That courtroom analogy is probably the most accurate comparison I've seen. Really illustrates the point. Unfortunately, this topic has been brought up quite a few times, and from the looks of it, each thread's consensus seems to be that the only remedy for this issue is time. Once all the bad / ignorant / overly assertive / what-have-you people get bored of TL and leave, and once people in general get better at the game, the crappy, unsupported advice will dissipate and the quality advice will become more prevalent.
It sucks now, yes, but for now, one should heed the old military phrase, "Hurry up and wait". Patience, dude. =)
the problem is that people are too arrogant to take eachothers advice.. a 1400p diamond player will already think of the advice of a 1200p diamond player as "not applicable to his/her skill level"
|
Ok then. The jury is definitely out and not coming in anytime soon.
On January 17 2011 01:48 ZerG~LegenD wrote:
The Problem
There are a lot of awesome advice given out daily in these forums... lost in a whole swarm of imbecilic comments, poor arguments and plain terrible advice.
So there is little or no argument about the problem but...
On January 17 2011 01:48 ZerG~LegenD wrote:
The Solution
Instead those who know what they're talking about and those who understands this game well enough should try to stick out from the crowd.
How you ask? By actually arguing your points and backing them up with evidence.
On January 21 2011 18:11 ChickenLips wrote:
How do we solve this problem? ...I'm certainly not saying that if only master league players would post that problem would instantly vanish, but it would give good players a place where they can discuss strategy without having as much garbage thrown their way.
...also little or no agreement on the solution.
"Stick out! Back up! Yes that means you!"
or
"Stuck up? Back out! Can someone give us a room?"
|
On January 21 2011 20:47 Kultfrisur wrote:
I think there is a general problem with reasoning in most of the posts in the strategy forum.
Most of the reasons look a bit like this:
A: Mass Marines are imba, because they have lot's of dps
B: Banelings counter marines, because they splash and marines die instantly
A: You cannot build banelings, because tanks steamrole everything
B: You can do etc etc...
What i mean by that is, that all arguments are very one dimensional. They do not take into account the whole situation of the game. This is probably not even the fault of the authors but of something like a forum because you simply cannot explain the whole situation. Furthermore we always want to find quick solutions in a complex system, which is probably not possible.
Thats just my thoughts on the whole reasoning part the OP adressed.
Funny how one of the things we have discussed here is that people don't even read two posts above their own, let alone the whole thread before responding ...
EDIT:
But it's nice to see we are in agreement
|
I believe myself to be self-aware enough to know that my opinion is both unimportant and irrelevant to the discussion amongst you high level players, but I'd like to point out something for your consideration.
Amongst the myriad of bad posters, and low level players, there are the few players both with the intention and diligence to improve their gameplay. I personally have gone from bronze beta to diamond, from reading posts here and trying to learn from the opinions of the players obviously better than me. I've drastically improved both my gameplay and understanding- and I am still leaps and bounds from remotely understanding either at what I consider "high level." Diamond had been my goal for some time- while merely a stepping stone to masters for many of you.
I attempt to soak up the opinions that I know have a better understanding of the game. In many threads, I will repeat what I have learned. Not as gospel, and if possible I will always try to reference the thread I have taken it from. But, alas, very few bad players follow this behaviour, and that imo is where the focus must be.
Part of the reason Team Liquid has such an enormous thriving community is the fact that it opens itself up to anyone. This site has allowed me to improve to the level I am today, and as one of the few that actually went from bronze-diamond with the help of this site, it would upset me to see the course of the site lead towards segregating the good from the bad.
Ultimately, this is something that must change over time with the community. While I personally have never bought into the cop-out of "its a new game, give it time"- I do personally feel like the bad advice is slowly dwindling relative to the time the game has been out.
Given the majority of reactions I've read (and yes, unlike most newer posters here, I have read the entire thread and not just OP/last page), it seems the higher level players are truly getting fed up with the redundancy of trying to help the nubs who aren't willing to accept their help. I understand your frustration, and ask you to believe that there are some underlings on here that appreciate the effort of the few high level posters that try to help us out.
Please, my appeal to you (the higher level players) is to not follow the path to elitist separation. I understand the desire to eliminate the idiots, but it is the availability and prevalence of your posts and opinions that keep this site as enriching as it can be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
