Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Yeah we've done a good job of working with rather than against each other among all the people who have made decent contributions in the few days since I ramped up my activity.

 

I'm more looking to see what people's thoughts are in general to help with the creation of a more complete outline of talking points when a better time (fairly soon though I expect) to do a real cleaning and updating to a set standard can happen. If we get a few more people dedicating themselves to certain groups of tanks, we can have the first pass (and thus the catching up) out of the way, at which point this is going to be what we need to look at.

 

 

 

I'll see if I can help out.  Just perusing some tanks I enjoy and have a decent number of battles and reading things like this make my head explode:

 

"The M3 Stuart excels as an arty hunter. Equip it with the Spall Liner and it is a very effective battering ram. No arty it will face can withstand a shot from the M3 followed by a high speed ram followed by a second shot if necessary."

 

Nothing like advocating that new players equip a spall liner on a freakin' M3 and go hunting arty.

 

 

Yikes. I avoid editing lowtier tanks myself because I kind of blow past them quick ingame (so not a great knowledge base to go on + most of them were 3 years ago...), so I appreciate you looking through them for errors like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yikes. I avoid editing lowtier tanks myself because I kind of blow past them quick ingame (so not a great knowledge base to go on + most of them were 3 years ago...), so I appreciate you looking through them for errors like that.

 

I wouldn't consider that an 'error' since I'm sure it is pretty good at that task.  But it's an issue to have it so prominently displayed in the description.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion on the pro/con thing: bullet points, short and sweet, only list the things that make the tank what it is. Adding fluff to it makes no sense when there is an entire section (performance) below dedicated to fluffing up the pro/cons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will treat this as the last word that I will tolerate on the Dai issue, because this is the only fact relevant to the wiki: after doing some searching around in the wiki itself, I have yet to find a single edit actually performed by Daigensui or any of her known aliases - although only Daigensui would have the greenname priviledges. What this means to me and I think to everyone else is that her title as a wiki editor is at this point in name only, and unless her situation changes - and if does rest assured I will note that publically - she is not relevant as an objection to the validity or quality of the wiki because she has had no effect on it. The result is that until further notice E3 I consider your objections against Dai to be ones of principle only and would ask that if you continue to vent lyrical on your objections to the wiki, that you instead confine yourself protesting the nature of active editors; the list at this moment in time, for reference, consists solely of Haswell, Misfire, Apple, and myself. You don't need to check for a consipiracy or anything, those are the only names in the edits list for the last month.

 

 While I will echo my previous sentiment that any Wotlabs members who wants to contribute has my blessing, confidence and good wishes in their efforts, for what it is worth, Daigensui, regardless of being active or not, as long as she is is some sort of position of authority, I, personally, will never have anything to do with the Wiki. Do not underestimate how damaging having her on that roster is, it may be worse than you think. That is all I will say on the matter, as the thread has been pulled astray enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts on the pros and cons are pretty similar to Rexxie's; keep them short plus avoid the obvious (weak side/rear armor or other things like that).  I would also try to avoid adding things like saying arty or TDs have powerful guns,  heavies having good armor, lights being fast, etc.  Of course, it would be fine to mention something like a TD has a powerful gun, as long as the tank in question is like a SU-100Y where the powerful gun really is worth noting.

 

Regarding Dai's absence, this is something that I remember her acknowledging.  IIRC she said she is finishing up her current project before she gets involved in fixing up the wiki.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly force, I'm winging it until we actually get a concerted effort, format and task-list. If something is pants on head retardedly wrong, I've been rewording it in such a way to correct it, no editwars yet.

 

I'm working on that. Not very quickly, but I'm working on it. As for the edit wars, baddies typically just make a hit-and-run edit. More determined ones, while they do exist, are rare.

 

My opinion on the pro/con thing: bullet points, short and sweet, only list the things that make the tank what it is. Adding fluff to it makes no sense when there is an entire section (performance) below dedicated to fluffing up the pro/cons.

 

I'd say that's right. Definitely nothing that's just "decent", because that isn't really a pro or a con.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Use terms like "damage-per-minute" instead of DPM, "damage" instead of alpha, etc.

1,000,000 "likes" for this. Spell it out. Make it terse. Use present, active tense.

Reduce jargon wherever possible and this includes all the three letter sleights-of-hand that one is supposed to know.

I'll jump in and copy edit eventually.

Great at tanks and information design. Two of my most favorite things.

What don't you do well, Rexxie? :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I dont like about the pros/cons system is that alot of tanks have things listed as cons that arent, compared to tier and class. Example, I read through the STA-1 page, saw the early research bit was completely wrong (said to get tracks first, among other things, which is wrong when you can mount everything on stock tracks) but anyway, in the pros/cons section ot had 'below average damage" listed as a con. What? Compared to what, exacty? 240 alpha is pretty much the tier 8 medium standard. Compare it to heavies and TDs it is low, yes. But not meds. This sems to happen often. Things like that need to be compared to other tanks of tier AND class. Not just tier.

If it had say, the Caernevon, which had it listed as below average damage (230) that would make more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I dont like about the pros/cons system is that alot of tanks have things listed as cons that arent, compared to tier and class. Example, I read through the STA-1 page, saw the early research bit was completely wrong (said to get tracks first, among other things, which is wrong when you can mount everything on stock tracks) but anyway, in the pros/cons section ot had 'below average damage" listed as a con. What? Compared to what, exacty? 240 alpha is pretty much the tier 8 medium standard. Compare it to heavies and TDs it is low, yes. But not meds. This sems to happen often. Things like that need to be compared to other tanks of tier AND class. Not just tier.

If it had say, the Caernevon, which had it listed as below average damage (230) that would make more sense.

 

That's not a problem with the system, that's a problem with the people using it incorrectly. If you see something like that, remove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm, I guess I missread what was being asked then.

 

On a second read, I was the one who misinterpreted it, not you. You were responding to Forcestorm's post about the current state of the section, I responded like we were talking about the ideal system rather than the one we have. Speaking of that, I did throw together some (still a little rough) guidelines, which I might as well post here since it seems relevant:

 

Pros and cons should be kept brief. They should quickly convey the vehicle's most significant strengths and weaknesses without adding unnecessary information. Because of this, pros and cons that have little to no direct effect on gameplay, such as ammo cost or capacity, should be avoided. Anything that is just decent should be left out; being decent is neither a pro or a con and is implied unless stated otherwise. They should be specific: don't just say a tank's mobility is good, say it has excellent acceleration and a high top speed. They should be short and say no more than necessary to describe an advantage or disadvantage. More detailed information should be left to the performance section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will treat this as the last word that I will tolerate on the Dai issue, because this is the only fact relevant to the wiki: after doing some searching around in the wiki itself, I have yet to find a single edit actually performed by Daigensui or any of her known aliases - although only Daigensui would have the greenname priviledges. What this means to me and I think to everyone else is that her title as a wiki editor is at this point in name only, and unless her situation changes - and if does rest assured I will note that publically - she is not relevant as an objection to the validity or quality of the wiki because she has had no effect on it. The result is that until further notice E3 I consider your objections against Dai to be ones of principle only and would ask that if you continue to vent lyrical on your objections to the wiki, that you instead confine yourself protesting the nature of active editors; the list at this moment in time, for reference, consists solely of Haswell, Misfire, Apple, and myself. You don't need to check for a consipiracy or anything, those are the only names in the edits list for the last month.

 

Mind you I would love to have any WoTLabs personnel that are willing to themselves be held accountable for what they write, E3 included even if you don't believe in it still, come and help with the improvment of the wiki in any way.

 

 

It doesn't matter what she's doing, it's the principle that I am objecting to to begin with, I'm hardly the only one to voice such objections.

 

Her name being on that roster of official staff alone is enough to destroy the credibility of the wiki.

 

Returning to real business. I have a question which I would like to recieve some opinions and input on from the WoTLabs forum. As we all know, the wiki has never had any sort of expectations or guidelines regarding the style or format of any given section regarding a tank on its page which has before been codified. As I've browsed through the various pages, I've come to be particuarly piqued by the absolute inconsistency of the pros/cons section: many have bulletpoints that are tautologies, true for most tanks, or not really standout characteristics at all. In addition, some pages have unending numbers of bulletpoints, while others have only a few short items listed. Outside of being reasonably sure that pros/cons should really only be used to convey the standout characteristics of a tank, I'm stymied as to how to (or indeed, whether to) further set a formatting standard for that section.

 

My question, then, is thus: what information should be conveyed in a pros/cons section and how should it be arranged/formatted, and do you feel that there should be a suggested limit to the number of items or words for a given set of pros/cons?

 

 

1. If the pro is one of the primary features of the tank, it's in (e.g. T69/54E1/57 having 2s intraclip)

 

1a. If the pro is something like a significant advantage over a related tank, it's in (e.g. T32 turret roof being impervious to overmatch by 122mms)

 

2. If con is big enough to affect the tank, it's in (e.g. terrible DPM of the PTA)

 

2a. If the con is a practical disadvantage over a related tank, it's in (e.g. Panther 2's relative lack of turret armor vs the Indien)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I dont like about the pros/cons system is that alot of tanks have things listed as cons that arent, compared to tier and class. Example, I read through the STA-1 page, saw the early research bit was completely wrong (said to get tracks first, among other things, which is wrong when you can mount everything on stock tracks) but anyway, in the pros/cons section ot had 'below average damage" listed as a con. What? Compared to what, exacty? 240 alpha is pretty much the tier 8 medium standard. Compare it to heavies and TDs it is low, yes. But not meds. This sems to happen often. Things like that need to be compared to other tanks of tier AND class. Not just tier.

If it had say, the Caernevon, which had it listed as below average damage (230) that would make more sense.

Stuff like this seems to be common (The 59-16 is big and slow?  The Matilda IV has subpar alpha?), but thankfully they're easy fixes.  Hopefully things will start looking nicer when we finish the style guide for pros and cons.  The list Eche just posted looks nice.

 

Also, could we keep this debate about dai out of this thread?  If you really wish to make such a deal about this, you can either make a new thread (assuming the mods here are fine with that) or you can talk to WG about it.  I would prefer it if your dislike for Daigensui didn't take over this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really, I only have a passing knowledge of who dykegetsyou or whatever is, and I can't in any way see the dislike for one person being reason enough to not possibly give the slightest glimmer of hope to the unwashed masses. 

 

 

 

 

Team Battle

Team Battles, also known as 7/42, is a limited tier game mode with 7 players comprising of five tier 8 and two tier 1 vehicles per side. Team battles put a strong emphasis on co-ordination and communication, and are the current form of WoT professional competitions such as WGLNA. Battles are a maximum of ten (10) minutes.

The following tanks are strongly preferred in team battles:

Currently limited to the following maps:

  • Abbey
  • Ensk
  • Himmelsdorf
  • Lakeville
  • Mines
  • Prokhorovka
  • Ruinberg
  • Ruinberg on Fire
  • Steppes
  • Winter Himmelsdorf

Somehow, until a day or two ago, there was literally nothing on team battles. Like wtf. So, basic info, and oh look, a basic guide of what tanks to bring, I did this in 10 minutes while on the can; if that one shit can make even one set of team baddies not bring retarded tanks, it was a good shit time well spent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really, I only have a passing knowledge of who dykegetsyou or whatever is, and I can't in any way see the dislike for one person being reason enough to not possibly give the slightest glimmer of hope to the unwashed masses.

The same reason you don't donate to a charity which lists a Neo-Nazi on its board of directors.

Somehow, until a day or two ago, there was literally nothing on team battles. Like wtf. So, basic info, and oh look, a basic guide of what tanks to bring, I did this in 10 minutes while on the can; if that one shit can make even one set of team baddies not bring retarded tanks, it was a good shit time well spent.

 

M26 and 416 wtf.

 

If a tank like an M26 gets mentioned then even the Borsig would be counted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M26 and 416 wtf.

 

If a tank like an M26 gets mentioned then even the Borsig would be counted.

 

M26 does have an applicational capability in TB, sure you aren't denying that. May not be as effective as a T69 in this mode, but it's still legit especially on hilly maps. 416's star has faded since its introduction though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M26 does have an applicational capability in TB, sure you aren't denying that. May not be as effective as a T69 in this mode, but it's still legit especially on hilly maps. 416's star has faded since its introduction though.

 

Which raises the even greater question of why T69 wasn't mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...