|
On January 21 2011 18:11 ChickenLips wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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. 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.
As a serial Mr Silver McIdiot myself, I'd love to get clarification on something I think bears strongly upon this issue, particularly with respect to the idea of segregating the community that pops up from time to time:
Some posters plainly feel that if a build won't work at a pro level, it should never be recommended. Is that right, and should the strategy forum be structured to reflect it? Or can that attitude actually retard players' development?
Personally, I'm not sure what to think. The argument in my head goes something like this:
Yes: A build or strategy that only works up to, say, mid-diamond is, beyond that point, a bad habit, and one should not go learning bad habits.
No: Brood War pioneers learned plenty of bad habits, and yet between them managed to refine the game to an art form.
Yes: That took a long time, though, and they didn't play sub-optimally out of choice either.
No: But don't 'pro' strategies often rely upon tight timings, great game-sense and razor-thin defence? And can't their advantages over 'safer' builds be marginal - significant at top levels of play, without question, but lost in the noise of sub-standard mechanics otherwise. Isn't attempting to emulate them before you're ready begging for a string of frustrating losses?
Yes: Winning and losing doesn't matter. Focus on your fundamentals and you'll start winning in the long run.
No: But dropping down the rankings because you're struggling with a build might mean you end up facing players who don't actually tax the skills you're trying to train.
This last seems very much the case with my ladder experience. The moment I get a run of losses, the matchmaking system seems to take pity on me and I end up with a string of wins that, upon inspection of the replays, turn out to be utter garbage and would have been losses if I'd been matched against the players I was losing to before.
In a way, I feel like if I was 7RR-ing every other game, I'd at least keep banging my head against the kind of players I need to learn to beat, rather than ending up playing versus the equivalent of the 'medium' AI for five games in a row. What are your opinions?
Poll: Is it OK to recommend different strategies at different levels of playNo. Bad habits are bad, no matter how many losses you incur trying to develop good ones. (16) 52% Yes, so long as it's made clear what you'll learn from a strat and what its deficiencies are (15) 48% 31 total votes Your vote: Is it OK to recommend different strategies at different levels of play (Vote): Yes, so long as it's made clear what you'll learn from a strat and what its deficiencies are
(Vote): No. Bad habits are bad, no matter how many losses you incur trying to develop good ones.
|
On January 21 2011 21:55 Greth wrote:Show nested quote +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 
:D i thought the same thing about me when i read your post afterwards :D.
The truth is i read the thread when your posts wasn't there and after i had thought about it i wrote something, forgot to check again apparently. I mean there are some posts in that direction but one should not just say nothing because there are posts that say something similar.
|
On January 21 2011 21:58 Durp wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +On January 21 2011 21:58 Durp wrote:
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.
It's not a case of elitism. It's a case of arrogance on the part of the 'lesser' players that decide to voice their opinions instead of taking advice under consideration. Of course it is pretty black and white in this thread, as with every post on a forum some things are left to interpretation.
There is no problem with people asking for help, and it's fine to criticise. But a functional discussion must be held. And that's the issue at hand.
Now, people aren't even asking for help anymore. They are only voicing opinions riddled with ignorance and it is impossible without having actual advanced knowledge of the game to determine who is an 'ignorant' a troll or an actual credible source.
... I think that summed it all up pretty nicely.
On January 22 2011 00:35 Kultfrisur wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +On January 22 2011 00:35 Kultfrisur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2011 21:55 Greth wrote: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 :D i thought the same thing about me when i read your post afterwards :D. The truth is i read the thread when your posts wasn't there and after i had thought about it i wrote something, forgot to check again apparently. I mean there are some posts in that direction but one should not just say nothing because there are posts that say something similar.
Yeah I thought something like that might have happened, I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to point out the obvious irony.
And you're right; I believe the general tendency right now is to quote a full page worth of posts and then write: "^this". So it's a welcome change.
@Umpteen (not going to bother quoting all that)
It's not an A or B situation at all. There is however a question to be asked:
How far are you willing to go?
You can either treat SC2 as a game or as a hobby. If you want to play a few games now and then I don't think you'd worry too much about buildorder perfection. But then you shouldn't busy yourself with strategy forums. If you want to muck around a bit go through liquipedia, browse the forums, lurk, have a laugh on IRC. You'll get the general gist of things. It's what I do.
If, however, you want to get into the top 200 or at least be the top of your diamond division, if you want to compete in a tourney or two then you're in for keeps. You'll have to accept that it will be a long road ahead. You don't play competition in a football or tennis club and then refuse to kick the ball the right way or swing your tennis racket upside down. You're going to keep practising the basics until they are second nature. And then you're going to take a step further with tactics of the game.
That's how it is with all sports, and SC2 is one of them.
So it is a choice of what you want to do. And when you have made that choice, there is only one road to follow.
|
I blame all the reddit fags that troll the TL forums.
User was banned for this post.
|
On January 19 2011 05:12 imp42 wrote:
In my opinion, the only feasible way to define what good and bad posts are is to let the community decide. I am convinced a like / dislike feature as mentioned would help a lot.
However, I would like to propose a somewhat more refined rating system:
Each member gets to rate any post with either +1 or -1.
Each poster is assigned a rating = the total rating of all his posts.
Each rating is weighted the following way: rating * (rating of rater) / (number of rates by rater)
This has the following effect:
- the rating of popular raters is more important
- the influence of a single rater is very small, since each subsequent rating loses value, therefore abuse is virtually impossible
After an initial phase the system should stabilize and good posters should stand out.
Now, I should back up my statements with evidence and a replay, but I won't ;-)
I agree with this.
There was also a suggestion about having subdivided forums where only masterlvl players where allowed to post; what if instead of masterlvl players you use the above described system as divider and give posting-privilege in the "quality-forums" only to posters who have a +rating overall?
This would make ppl more careful of writing nonsensical posts because their rating would drop and that could have an actual negative impact on their ability to participate in the forums.
Its an idea atleast of how to design the forum to have the communities collective inteligence weed out some of the worst spammers.
|
The problem with quoting is, that you might search via tl search and find a quite old topic in which ret
says that: "roaches are the most important lategame unit for zerg vs any civ"
So this statement suits your own opinion and thus you don't care about it that that statement was from the time roaches were 1 Food.
It would be extremly difficult to argue against ret's 100% quoted opinion, as they long don't have the game understang which ret has.
Note: This is an extreme example but point remains it will be difficult through all the patches this game went to figure out if the quotation is still up to date.
And now my own Opinion: Your post blows, it is well written and such but you talk way too much around your actual problem.
Pro Tip: next time put a TLTR.
Edit: To the solution I agree with some post above. It would be totally amazing if you could connect your TL Account to your battlenet account, so that in The line of your name your Ligue and Rate is written. (Best would be if one could use the hidden elo system but w/e)
|
LOL at stressing abt posting quality on a ''game'' forum.
I agree that peeps neeed to post replays…but as for the rest... I disagree
Every1 can give advice, all advice comes from something that either worked for them, they saw / read abt…bottom line is…they trying to help and get enjoyment from putting their 2 cents on the internet…is this not like 90% of posts here?
If you want to isolate high diamond / masters / higher grade english & comprehension.…why not just request a section be made for them? Call it the ''no noob strat section for serious gamers who play and write good only''.
We can ALL learn from a bronze player….it just requires more chewing on what advice he gives…and a bronze player can drink in advice from everyone….hence ALL should have absolute freedom to post.
If anything….we need to be grateful that any1 even posts a reply.
This is a good idea!
Edit: To the solution I agree with some post above. It would be totally amazing if you could connect your TL Account to your battlenet account, so that in The line of your name your Ligue and Rate is written. (Best would be if one could use the hidden elo system but w/e)
Last edit: 2011-01-23 20:33:19
|
I agree with the sentiment, but I really do not believe it is possible to divide good posts and bad posts in a way clear to everyone. All the measures proposed here are solid, but the truth is that people either are willing to put the effort necessary to provide proper reasoning and replays, or they are not. I bet most of you just ignore the topics that lack the reasoning and replays anyway, even if they bear some credence. You just can't be bothered. Or you post for the sake of argument. There is really no difference between that and the proposed approach, other than the hope for more quality posts. I would like to believe that the appeal is going to convince more people to put more effort in their posts, but I am somewhat doubtful of it.
Also remember that bad ideas can also be reasoned and backed with bad evidence. It always requires you to be the final judge of the credibility of it. And it requires you to be able to reason and test things on your own. Which is what most people here complain about.
|
On January 24 2011 19:49 KawasakiJ wrote:
LOL at stressing abt posting quality on a ''game'' forum.
I agree that peeps neeed to post replays…but as for the rest... I disagree
Clearly you haven't been visiting this forum for long. Is it so bad to want intelligent and worthwhile discussions on what used to be a uniquely civil, friendly and informative website, something that is enough of a rarity on the internet as it is?
Every1 can give advice, all advice comes from something that either worked for them, they saw / read abt…bottom line is…they trying to help and get enjoyment from putting their 2 cents on the internet…is this not like 90% of posts here?
Just because someone reads about something or experiences something doesn't mean they fully understand it, why it worked, why it failed, how to counter it, defend it etc The point is, regardless of the posters intentions, if they do not truly understand what they are talking about, then they shouldn't say anything, ignorance feeding more ignorance makes for very weak discussion and post quality and is exactly what is ruining this forum.
If you want to isolate high diamond / masters / higher grade english & comprehension.…why not just request a section be made for them? Call it the ''no noob strat section for serious gamers who play and write good only''.
This is not even close to what is being asked for, I suggest you actually read through the OP 1 more time.
We can ALL learn from a bronze player….it just requires more chewing on what advice he gives…and a bronze player can drink in advice from everyone….hence ALL should have absolute freedom to post.
If anything….we need to be grateful that any1 even posts a reply.
I'm only a low diamond player myself, but there is no way in hell I will ever learn anything at all from a bronze player, except for how to fight off poorly executed cheese. A bronze player cannot simply learn from advice alone, that advice needs to be taken into context of the situation, their skill, their game knowledge/sense, their scouting etc.
For example, a bronze player posts a replay of him losing a TvP vs a 2 gate zealot rush, a silver player tells him, wall in every game, you will never lose to zealot rushes again, the bronze player proceedes to wall in every game and starts getting roflstomped by voidray rush variations, so the advice to wall in alone is not sound enough advice, where as a much higher level player might tell him something along the lines of, scout constantly, control xel naga watch towers, and respond to what you scout, see 2 gates and no gas, no cyber core, expect zealot rush, throw down 2 bunkers at your ramp, continue to macro.
Why should anyone be grateful for any replys at all? Teamliquid got along just fine before SC2 was released and TL was flooded with your typical moronic forum user. IMO I would prefer it if only certain users like TL staff or recognized pro gamers could post on the strat forum, atleast then it would stop the flood of moronic, uneducated, unintelligent posts that have taken over this forum
|
|
|
Would it be possible to have a sort function in threads?
Like on YouTube, where people can vote up or down posts. default thread setting would be as now, all posts in date order. however you could click to sort by popularity and see the most popular replys first.
This doesn't solve the problem of bad posts, but provides a work around to enable users to circumvent all the chaf and get at the good posts quickly.
With regards to implementing, I have little experience in website design but on the basis that many websites use functions like this for user comments, it would appear to be a fairly standard thing.
EDIT: I see this has been mentioned by others. lots of long posts made me unwilling to read all 6 pages. TL:DR's should be compolsury for posts over a certain length! 
seeing some peoples posts re linking sc2 ranks to posts to validate your opinions, has, in my view, a couple of flaws:
- some diamond players aren't very good at the game overall, and just have a couple of good strats which they repeat.
- there are some such as myself, who have played abit, but generally watch a lot more SC2 then I play. However they can have just good ideas as someone who plays lots but doesn't watch much.
|
On January 24 2011 19:49 KawasakiJ wrote:
If you want to isolate high diamond / masters / higher grade english & comprehension.…why not just request a section be made for them? Call it the ''no noob strat section for serious gamers who play and write good only''.
Rolling on the floor here.
|
The length of a post does not make it more informative. I could of got your point across in a few lines. But then of course the quality would not be good enough for the likes of you. Walls of text are just as bad as dumb posts imo!
|
On January 26 2011 03:05 BigBossX wrote:
Just because someone reads about something or experiences something doesn't mean they fully understand it, why it worked, why it failed, how to counter it, defend it etc The point is, regardless of the posters intentions, if they do not truly understand what they are talking about, then they shouldn't say anything, ignorance feeding more ignorance makes for very weak discussion and post quality and is exactly what is ruining this forum.
Thing is, esports has adapted the tendency to only accept good "players" - although especially in BW and still to some extent in SC2 being able to exectue strategies or "just" understand what's going on is something totally different.
Let's compare this to "real" sports, where many famous and really succesful coaches never practiced the sport themselves on a high level. Although it's certainly "appealing" to only value input of high level players I think it's oversimplifying to generally conclude that, say, a diamond player has less idea what he's talking about than a master. Because there's always the possibility that the master simply executes basic strategies over and over, while the diamond doesn't practice that often but "thinks" more about the game.
Basicly what I'm saying is, that posts and inputs "should" be valued by the intelligence of the content itself, not purely based on ladder ranking. This is also why I hate forums where your profile is shown by default, because so many discussions end with the "highest" ranked player basicly saying "I have a higher rank, therefore I know better what I'm talking about, you don't have the experience and what you are saying won't work on the level where I am playing". This is 100% stupid, because such arguments literally kill each and every discussion. The highest ranked poster would always be kinda "right by default" because nobody could ever argue against the "what you are saying might work at your level but not at mine" - point.
|
On January 23 2011 20:30 oN_Silva wrote:
And now my own Opinion: Your post blows, it is well written and such but you talk way too much around your actual problem.
Pro Tip: next time put a TLTR.
On January 27 2011 03:41 shinogi wrote:EDIT: I see this has been mentioned by others. lots of long posts made me unwilling to read all 6 pages. TL:DR's should be compolsury for posts over a certain length!
So the OP says quality is being lost "in a whole swarm of imbecilic comments" and the solution is more detail when posting.
It is in this context you think to advocate for "TL:DR", a device invented to pander to people who go to forums for the express purpose of not reading.
Actually this thread has been really good. It's 10 days later and only 6 pages long with people being careful to state their point of view with detail, and even some disagreements along the way. It's not the Ask TL Anything thread where on page 50 some of the same questions as page 10 started to crop up.
Perhaps people who come here to not read could invent a new game: go to resturants and not eat, go to movies and not watch, or go to school and not learn (possibly an old game). Or perhaps the compulsory part should be IDREHETR<10PBILYATRMOC: "I don't respect everyone here enough to read <10 pages but I'd like you all to read my opinion carefully".
|
On January 17 2011 04:54 ikarigendo wrote:
One solution, which would (unfortunately) take some coding to implement would be a community moderation system similar to slashdot.org.
Basically, once you have been in the community for a while, you occasionally get "mod" points and you can mark posts up or down. Then readers can filter by post score. So, if you want to you can see all the posts, or you can filter out to see only the highest rated posts.
There are potential pitfalls with this method, but I like the end result at slashdot.
I was going to post a similar thing, im going to quote it in spoiler tags as it is slighty different
+ Show Spoiler +I totally agree with OP. Lately the quality of posts is getting quite lower, specially in the SC2 section.
Maybe a solution to this would be to implement a Like/Dislike post function, were posts with -10 score will be hiden in a special spoiler tag (like in youtube), same with good post scores (I mean responses) where you could see them somewhere highlighted.
I dont know if this would be a huge change but I may see some efectivness hiding awful posts at least. Also there could be a ban for those posts with -2000 score or so (just saying a number) to insta ban trollers or people giving terrible advice (although banlings do an amazing job in this task so maybe this is unnecessary
Edit: I saw some people just post these after reading the whole 5 pages, sorry about that. I love the idea of also using the rating on the poster (adding all his post points) as well as on the post itself.
|
On January 27 2011 18:26 sleepingdog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 03:05 BigBossX wrote:
Just because someone reads about something or experiences something doesn't mean they fully understand it, why it worked, why it failed, how to counter it, defend it etc The point is, regardless of the posters intentions, if they do not truly understand what they are talking about, then they shouldn't say anything, ignorance feeding more ignorance makes for very weak discussion and post quality and is exactly what is ruining this forum. Thing is, esports has adapted the tendency to only accept good "players" - although especially in BW and still to some extent in SC2 being able to exectue strategies or "just" understand what's going on is something totally different. Let's compare this to "real" sports, where many famous and really succesful coaches never practiced the sport themselves on a high level. Although it's certainly "appealing" to only value input of high level players I think it's oversimplifying to generally conclude that, say, a diamond player has less idea what he's talking about than a master. Because there's always the possibility that the master simply executes basic strategies over and over, while the diamond doesn't practice that often but "thinks" more about the game. Basicly what I'm saying is, that posts and inputs "should" be valued by the intelligence of the content itself, not purely based on ladder ranking. This is also why I hate forums where your profile is shown by default, because so many discussions end with the "highest" ranked player basicly saying "I have a higher rank, therefore I know better what I'm talking about, you don't have the experience and what you are saying won't work on the level where I am playing". This is 100% stupid, because such arguments literally kill each and every discussion. The highest ranked poster would always be kinda "right by default" because nobody could ever argue against the "what you are saying might work at your level but not at mine" - point.
I don't really understand what any of this has to do with my post. But the one thing I would like to comment on is the "coach" aspect, sure a coach may not have experience in said sport, but that doesn't mean the coaches don't understand the sport to the highest level.
Also I somewhat agree with last part of your post, while I do not think that a system displaying peoples ranks would help the current situation at all, the whole "right by default" aspect is not entirely accurate, sure a higher ranked player could say that "what you are saying might work at your level but not at mine", but there are going to be many players at that same level who could in fact argue against whatever point. I mean I doubt there is much of a general skill gap between a 2800 master player and a 3000 master, so both players could have an intelligent discussion, without the whole "I'M HIGHER RANKED, YOUR WRONG I'M RIGHT" rearing its ugly head.
|
On January 28 2011 22:41 BigBossX wrote:
I don't really understand what any of this has to do with my post. But the one thing I would like to comment on is the "coach" aspect, sure a coach may not have experience in said sport, but that doesn't mean the coaches don't understand the sport to the highest level.
That is the point. A person can understand an activity at the highest level and yet lack the motor skills/ mechanics to be good at said activity. Vica versa someone can have exceptional execution or said activity but lack the mental capacity to fully understand why they are so successful.
Essentially I do not think rank should entirely bear credence in regards to judging the quality of ones post although it dose have it's merit. It is disappointing and disheartening to have to sort though BS to find legitimate strategies at the moment. However, there are still 2 expansions for this game in the works and I doubt we have seen our last balance patch. I'm sure there will be more concrete understandings of the game mechanics when the state of the game settles down.
I would like to see more people follow the lead of the OP's advice but that is a matter of each individual to take an effort to raise the bar for themselves to set an example. This cannot be governed by arbitrary systems.
|
I miss some way to be noticed if someone quotes you.
|
On January 19 2011 16:29 mlbrandow wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 15:59 imBLIND wrote:
I agree. Threads get totally shitted on and I spend days looking for arguments under a pile of crap posts. There doesn't need to be segregation of posters, forums, or posts because that will just make this site an elitist clique. All we need is a system where the good posts stick out from the bad posts.
That's what this forum should be. The most knowledgeable players should be the ones discussing most of the time. One of the best forums from WoW strategizing and theorycrafting is elitistjerks.com's forum, and it's even in the name. No one will argue though that that forum is home to the most knowledgeable and enlightening discussion related to WoW strategy.
I agree. I can't wrap my brain around how it would be bad for anyone to have a separate forum for masters league or even just for pros. That it will be an elitist website? Look I'm all for everybody sharing their opinions, and there's plenty of places on this site to do it. Wouldn't everybody like to be able to browse through some forum posts from pros only on strategy discussions? I know I would. Sure have a strategy forum for all the non pros and life will continue as normal there, exactly as it does here. But are you going to click on the forum where you can't post and listen to the pros talk or load up a forum similar to this one. Of course you're going to click on the pro one. Elitist? Maybe. Exponentially more valuable? Definitely
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
