Team Fortress Wiki talk:Community Strategy

Basic strategy

I feel some of the basic strategy pages are in need of review too. Do we add them to this project or wait or a different one? Guybrush20X6 (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2015 (PST)

Add. — The preceding assigned comment was added by Tark {Finish Him! ▪ Contribs} 17:02, 7 November 2015 (PST)

We can add it for the time being. The project right know is still a minor work in progress but we're looking into improving all strategy, including smaller stuff like achievements. --Dr. Scaphandre (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2015 (PST)

Ok. I've been updating the Basic Medieval Mode Page. But it still lacks the B.A.S.E. jumper and the Tide Turner. I'll add them later Guybrush20X6 (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2015 (PST)

Don't forget the community version of the article. --Dr. Scaphandre (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2015 (PST)

We also need to add these two pages to the list. Guybrush20X6 (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2015 (PST)

I'm already working on a task list for gamemodes, then I'll be making one for each MvM tour. --Dr. Scaphandre (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2015 (PST)

Class Strategy Massive Edits

So recently, a lot of edits have been occurring on the class strategy pages that need to be addressed. With the Tough Break update, they all need review and major work done to them. The questions is what and how? -- Dr. Scaphandre 12:59, 30 January 2016 (PST)

Most of all, the recent edits from Hayzze does not reach the wiki quality with follow reasons:

• It's good to split into small section to clarify each items, but the titles do not match with Style guide. Example like "Original (Reskin with subtle mechanic difference)" or "Situations where having only 3 rockets will not kill you (No sarcasm)".
• Efficiency Techniques? Gimmick? Usage in actual gameplay? Why we have to put these in? Everyone have their own playstyle, community strategy should be just the guideline that tell the good points and bad points of weapons, not the suggestion of the way to play.
• Medic Buddies has it own section, don't need to put more.
• Most of his writing are suggestion and/or personal thought, which is not pass the quality.

These are things I saw on that massive edits, low quality, a lot of useless contents. Rikka Takanashi (talk) • (contributions) 16:10, 30 January 2016 (PST)

The community strategy page is for the community to edit. It is not a proper wiki page or it would have been more organized. Some people wrote the exact same thing twice. Hayzze (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2016 (PST)

Anyway, the things you added are too low quality, have a lot of useless sections and use a lot of your own personal thought. Still, did the massive edit without asking anyone is good for you? I don't think so. Rikka Takanashi (talk) • (contributions) 17:06, 30 January 2016 (PST)

I thought opinion is supposed to be put in there... And you don't care if it is useless, as this is not a real page. I said things were gimmicks that were things unlikely to be used in actual gameplay, etc. spy-checking with a black box. Efficiency Techniques were techniques used with the weapon itself to get the most 'efficiency' such as always reloading. I also included some parts in efficiency related to compensation. The reason I made the Original have extra description was because it needs its own section. The medic buddies and crits section I made was because all those info comments were related in that they talked about crits, medic buddies, or both, so I grouped them. I also think Original should not be considered a reskin from now on. Hayzze (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2016 (PST)

After I sliced every parts you did in that Soldier strategy, here are my point out:

• Overlink a lot in many parts, which really hard to tell how many of it in those edits.
• Titles are not formal. Why you have to add the "Reskin with subtle mechanic difference" part?
• Efficiency Techniques, Specific/Situational Attacks, Gimmicks, Usage in actual gameplay are suggestions, rather than the guide.
• We have Weapon Combination section for reason, we don't need to add it in the weapon section.
• Many of your writing is from your thought, not the weapons' attributes themselves.

Like I told on your talk page, do the sandbox, edit as much as you want then ask other opinion and advices. Rikka Takanashi (talk) • (contributions) 17:31, 30 January 2016 (PST)

'every part' or 'all the parts' is the correct way. Don't take this as being insulting, I am trying to help. I seriously cannot understand some things you say at all.

1) No idea what this sentence is supposed to mean, sorry.

2) Yeah... My bad. Can we just add a new section for Original and stop calling it a reskin? It has its own unique attribute so I think even if it is supposed to be a reskin, it should have its own mini-section.

3) Yeah, I was trying to make it legible. Maybe we should delete the redundant things in there...

4) We do actually, I was mainly rearranging the stuff. I did notice at least 2-7 things in each weapon section were also giving load-out advice (such as 'use a base jumper with airstrike'), and this was probably written by random people, which is why it was all over the place and some stuff was repeated. We should probably move this then. Although can I keep the part in Rocket Jumper where I said to not equip gunboats...?

5) I don't really know what you mean by a sandbox. I have tried editing a copy of the page in a word document so I can do it all in one edit. However I told you that before the browser/page crashed because it took too long to load all the information. Note that I took several hours to edit it. Anyway, I think that it is still a good idea to organize those pages. (This is getting sort of annoying now. I type 'organise' and it gets a red squiggly line and I have to change it to organize. Then I write 'offence' and then because of consistency with other comments, I have to turn it to offense. Can America please make up its mind? Just make them all 'c', 'z', or 's'. Look, I didn't invent English but this is getting confusing now...) Hayzze (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2016 (PST)

1),2),5) are the proof that you didn't read the Style guide at all. I told like 4 times that you have to read it, but seem like you use your own judgement to do anything you want. Like Dr. Scaphandre said, you're the car that going too fast and nearly hit the block ahead. I'm trying to slow you down but still, you think you're supercar that cannot go slower. If you don't even listen to anyone in this community, nobody will help you. Also, I forgot to mention this, Do not add your comment in other people's comment. It makes the page looks harder to understand. And group your every thought you want to say before write them down in comment, it likes cluster that you did on many pages and nobody don't want to read torn newspaper like your comment that torn both your and my comment to nearly unreadable. Rikka Takanashi (talk) • (contributions) 02:25, 31 January 2016 (PST)

Okay, I heard enough. Hayzze, I know you have good intentions, but as Rikka said the way you wrote those changes do not follow the style guide, and I should know since I wrote the style guide page for Strategy Pages. The class pages are under review, not under update, for we need to update them to the changes Tough Break caused, but what you're trying to do is change the pages too much without coming to me or anyone else in the project. I'd be cool with it if it wasn't for the fact that the wiki update is causing so many problems for me, making me unable to check every strategy edit made.

So Hayzze, I'm asking you personally to not edit any of the class strategy pages without consulting me or one of the project members first. That way we can keep this problem from happening again. -- Dr. Scaphandre 13:20, 1 February 2016 (PST)

Just dropping by.

It's been years since someone has proposed an overhaul of the strategy pages and I heartily approve of the format-in-progress. I've overhauled and maintained the Basic strategy, Anti-class strategy, and Obtaining achievements pages for a while, so you can have faith that eventually, those pages will reach the wiki standards after updates. Just wanted to give my opinions/observations.

• Basic strategy and Obtaining achievements are some of the more accessed pages, which is why they were the target of my overhaul years ago. I'm totally biased and think they're pretty good to go.
  • If you need any of the smaller pages you've marked for review looked over for grammar, order, and formatting (as opposed to content), feel free to ask me? I'm looking at individual and team strategy pages, mostly.
• As cynical as this sounds, plenty of additions to Community strategy are made by users who don't actually read the Community page. It's a negative feedback loop: there's so much not-well-written content to sift through, which leads to the newbie editor just wanting to add their niche entry and get out. This leads to a jumbled mess which several users have tried to overhaul but proved to be too large a task. A set format would be amazing.
  • Something like...
    • General (Basic stats, offense, defense, support, class-specific roles)
    • Weapon-specific (Taunts not separated and something done about those tables)
    • Class-specific mechanics (Such as Rocket jumping, Demoknight, Cloak, Healing)
    • Weapon combinations
    • Cooperation with other classes
    • (Class combat information moved to Anti-class strategy or Match-up pages)
  • That leads to another problem: with too much policing, the pages lose the community touch.
• Community map strategy pages, on the other hand, are a specific enough topic that plenty can be said without overwhelming the user. The pages for the more popular maps have a good feel to 'em.

-- InShane (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2016 (PST)

Thanks for dropping by. Why don't you stick around why don't you?

Since you finished review of the Basic and Achievement pages, could you give the green light on the tables that they're up to date? I'm on mobile and can't do it right now.

This discussion about a new set format has been brought up by a couple users. Problem is, we don't have a new format to use. If you have some more format ideas, feel free to share it. You can also help with the style guide page to help users know what to do.

As for map pages, my problem is there's not enough people working on them. I'm pretty much the only one updating them, and I've hardly done any updating due to wiki lag from the update. What I'd love is to get more people on board to help out. -- Dr. Scaphandre 13:31, 1 February 2016 (PST)

Here to help out.

It took a while to find this page, but like most of you here I've seen so much outdated info on the Strategy pages that I had to come in and do something. I have been frequently (and still am) updating another wiki, SmashWiki, so I think I'd be down for the job since I have a lot of time right now. So far I've added info and trimmed outdated info from the Basic Strategy pages of the Scout, Soldier, and Pyro, but I'm going to go through everything, even the Community Strategy pages, and update whatever is currently wrong. So if you guys could help out by editing any info I might miss out or mistakes I made, it would be a great help. Again, I'm glad to be of help here, cause these pages aren't going to update themselves. Archrelico (talk) 05:28, 13 March 2016 (PDT)

Great to see someone fixing up those9 messes, I'll gladly help out when I get the time to!

Faghetti V.2 (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2016 (PDT)

Alrighty, noted! Wanted to say your additions are fantastic. There are definitely plenty of use cases you've added that do fall under Basic Strategy (as opposed to niche entries that belong in Community Strategy). I will make sure to maintain all of your information while shuffling words around to make paragraphs flow better, as I have for the past few years. -- InShane (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2016 (PDT)

Oh, with that in mind, I'd like your opinion on how I integrated your additions into the Basic Strategy pages. I try my best to keep entries at their original length even as more information is added (a little below 150 words each). I ask because that means my edits are almost always big red numbers, which means it seems like tons of what I do are removals. If it looks too removal-ly, please bring it up! -- InShane (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2016 (PDT)

I think that was my main issue at the beginning, as I'm not exactly sure when it is a good idea to add weapon synergies on the Basic Strategy pages. I see that you managed to change some of my lengthy sentences into shorter ones which is always really good, and thanks for that since I usually type in run-on sentences. However, some of the weapon synergies you removed are those that I've seen people use to great effect. Should I just keep very obvious weapon synergies such as the Air Strike and Base Jumper while transferring more uncommon ones like the Beggar's and Gunboats to the Community page? Archrelico (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2016 (PDT)

Sounds like my mistake if I took synergies like those out completely. I should have moved the Gunboats info to the Gunboats entry and mentioned which launchers work best with the Jumper. Will do so soon. As you said, it's good to mention common combos in Basic. Any useful two-weapon combos are great in basic, while community has three-weapon loadouts. Thanks again for your additions. -- InShane (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2016 (PDT)

Alright, that's good. I'll continue to add info and polish up the strategy pages. If I happen to write way too long again, your rewordings will help really well. Thanks! Archrelico (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2016 (PDT)

Okay, we pretty much got the Basic Strategy pages done. Thanks for shortening unnecessary and wordy additions on my part, InShane. I'd be nice if we could get feedback on our updates, but I guess it's now for the nitty-gritty: Community Strategy pages. I've browsed through them a while ago and there are so many outdated weapon synergies and stats that it's really bothering me. I'll be starting from Scout as usual. Archrelico (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2016 (PDT)

I think you're an expert on the subject matter enough to say, "Hah, my edits are the best!" Serious, you ID-ed tons of outdated info that I never noticed. I have mixed feelings about trying on community strategy myself as seen above, because revisions is all I do. If adding your strategies becomes daunting, you could try focusing on outdated info first? Your call; I'd follow your lead if I were to contribute further. -- InShane (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2016 (PDT)

Attempt at having a Format

Righto, for the current Community Scout strategy page, I'm following this type of format to make things easier to sort:

• General Strategy
  • Class advantages and general tips
  • Gamemode-based tips
  • Anti-class tips
  • Item-specific tips

• Weapons
  • Weapon statistics and a summary of its playstyle, benefits and flaws
  • Weapon strengths, and what it can do compared to the class' stock weapon
  • Weapon weaknesses, and advice on what not to do/how to get around it
  • Weapon techniques
  • Weapon synergies, such as equipping another weapon to enhance the weapon's ability/make up for the weapon's weaknesses

• Weapon Combinations
  • First Paragraph: Short explanation of what the combination excels at, but at what cost
  • Explanation Type 1:
    • Separate paragraph explaining each loadout slot's utility (eg. Shortstop, Mad Milk, Fan O'War)
    • ...then a paragraph explaining weaknesses (eg. Lack of firepower)
  • Explanation Type 2:
    • Separate paragraph detailing the use of weapon combos for specific advantages
      • (eg. Combine a Force-A-Nature jump and an Atomizer jump to reach great heights)
    • ...then a paragraph explaining tactics to fully utilize the combo and what to watch out for
      • (eg. Keep the Pocket Pistol holstered until you are at a height that's safe to heal up your Atomizer's 10 health jump)

• Cooperative Class Strategies
  • Short summary of class-class advantages
  • Duties and techniques of each class
  • Gamemode-specific tips
  • Loadout and weapon-based tactics
  • Weaknesses and how to work around them

Do note that this is just a guide. It would be appreciated if you follow it, as it will make updating and sorting the Strategy Pages easier.

I might add more but that's all for now, because I am currently finishing the Cooperative Class Strategies. I'm putting this here so I and other editors have an easier time sorting all this info out, and mess will be minimized. Revisions will be appreciated, and if this sound like a good format, I will attempt to make a style page in the help guide to notify any future editors.

I also realized that the Community Scout strategy page is the only one without a Class Combat Strategies section. I may add in that section sometime soon, but I'm currently doing the Community Soldier strategy page. Archrelico "Mexi" 04:50, 1 April 2016 (PDT)

Community Strategy: not exactly regularly updated

From what I've seen from my work a few months ago, the community strategy pages are still very outdated. There were still stats from way before EOTL, and I was still re-updating Community Pyro Strategy before getting busy the past few months. Can I change the community strats status to "requires updating"? Archrelico "Mexi" 11:11, 5 September 2016 (PDT)

I can. Right now I'm going through pages that need content. Which pages need to get updated? -- Dr. Scaphandre 11:58, 5 September 2016 (PDT)

The pages from Community Pyro Strategy onward needs some serious rewriting. Basic Strategy were redone by me and InShane so they should be fine. Community Scout and Soldier were rewritten by me a few months ago but need to be revisited to check for any Meet Your Match patch changes, and I'm currently doing Community Pyro. I've been away for a few months but I think i can finally continue the rest of the pages. -- Archrelico "Mexi" 15:14, 5 September 2016 (PDT)

Alright I already reclassified them. I also put a notice to recruit some more contributors, as you and I both know we can't do this alone. More details are below in the other topic. -- Dr. Scaphandre 15:19, 5 September 2016 (PDT)

We need new contributors

A problem that we've been facing is we've hardly been updating these pages. I created this project to bring awareness to Community Strategy pages, but it seems a lot of users still forget about these guides. So we need to start recruiting new contributors so we can get these pages updated, filled, and done. Anyone have any ideas they want to bring to the table? -- Dr. Scaphandre 13:35, 5 September 2016 (PDT)

I honestly feel like I'm the only one updating the Community Strategy pages, and even during my recent 3-4 month break, barely anyone else has done any major changes to the pages. Unfortunately it also seems like I'm the only one in my group of friends who's remotely interested in wiki editing, so I'm not sure who else I could bring to the project. -- Archrelico "Mexi" 15:23, 5 September 2016 (PDT)

Style guide/Community Strategy - Map Strategies

My interest is in the presently missing Map Strategies; which is a way to say that at present I am not current with what has been happening with Weapon and Class Strategies. ( I remember from limited involvement in those years ago that there was ample room for grammatical and structural improvement. This state may well have been improved?) I have just scratched the surface with completing Map strategies, so my comments here might not be broadly applicable or fully informed.

My contribution pace may seem a bit slow, but it depends on the variability of the time I have to write as well as whether the Muse strikes me.

I have made some changes to the Community Strategy style guide, with intention of contributing additional sections to that style guide (work in progress):

=== Strategy architecture === (How Community strategy pages “work” wrt other articles)

• In Class, Mode, or Map pages, place a Strategy section with a link(s) to a Community strategy page(s) and possibly particularly notable high-level strategies.
• In Map pages, place a Location section, with bolded locations that are thus available for reference in the Community Map strategy page
• Community Map strategy page: lead the article with a link to the Community Game Mode strategy page. Lead subsections with any other relevant Community Game Mode strategy

=== Game Mode strategy vs. Map strategy ===

• A distinction that minimizes repetition of Mode-specific strategy across multiple Map-specific strategy pages. This is both an article congestion and maintenance issue.

=== Locations === (How Locations in the main article “work” wrt the Community Map strategy page)

• Discussion of the importance of a complete Locations section to the Map Strategy.

Mikado282 (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC) 01:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Jungle Inferno contracts strategy guide

I want to create a strategy guide for the Premium contracts of Jungle Inferno campaign. But before I'll do that, I want suggestions to help me write it. - SojerManLan (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. Are you wanting to make a steam strategy guide or a contract strategy page for this Wiki?

Are you familiar with the Contract strategy page? Since the Mercenary Park contracts are the "premium contracts of Jungle Inferno campaign" and because that set represents over 95% of non-Halloween Contracts, the present Contract strategy page is effectively the strategy page for the Jungle Inferno contracts.

You will have noted already that the Mercenary Park contracts have a lot of redundancy; that is, many of the individual objectives are the same between several contracts, maybe differing only by counts or values. A strategy page that covered each contract and its objectives individually would be, I think, very large and unproductive. Others, may disagree with me; if a player is looking for help on specific contracts, they have to read through the present page to find the specific objectives; on the other hand, certain notorious contracts do have their own specific sections.

I might be able to make more comments later, but presently I am on the hiking trail with just my phone.

M I K A D O 282 ❄❄❄❄❄❄ ❄❄ ❄❄ (talk) (Help Wanted!) 18:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The status of some strategy pages is outdated

On this page it say's that the Mercenary park strategy page is new and that it needs more work. While this was true a week ago, from that time till now, the Mercenary park strategy page has been completely reworked, the general strategy was build brand new from the ground up, the stub was removed and the 4 of the class specific strategies have received a complete overhaul, so for that reason the status on the Mercenary park strategy page should be updated to reflect its current position. The same goes for the Community Medic strategy and the anti-Scout strategy which too were overhauled and now no longer outdated, it would be nice if you could updated the status of this pages from "page is outdated" to "page is up to date" Thank you in advance :D Lolimsogreat21 (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Lolimsogreat21

I'm pretty sure you have the permission to do it yourself. - Danimations (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Better not play with fire...Lolimsogreat21 (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Lolimsogreat21

Anti-Scout strategy

So I had a quick read through a few parts of the Anti-Scout strategy and I feel like this is an incredibly poorly-written article for a wiki. It feels a lot more like it's a Reddit post you'd find on r/truetf2 or a script for a YouTube video. A lot of the stuff sounds a lot more like it's a casual conversation as opposed to a proper wiki article (I know the style guide mentions it being community-created and can be a little more casual, but this is TOO casual. It shouldn't be written like a letter to the queen, but also shouldn't be written as if your friend asked for a guide on Discord).

A lot of stuff there is also written as the objective truth, but as far as I can see it's only written by one person. It's also riddled with spelling errors and grammar errors (Even basic ones such as confusing your/you're or then/than). It also appears completely different from every other anti-class strategy page (Which I don't necessarily mind, but it should be a similar style throughout all of them). Personally, I'd leave someone more experienced to go over this page, as I'm not familiar with writing strategy pages. I just thought this was an issue worth bringing up, as it doesn't feel like a wiki article in the slightest. (Also some of the stuff written on there is... weird. It says Soldier has a hard time beating Scouts with stock, but the splash on his rockets and the hitscan of his shotgun are both great for killing Scouts.)
GrampaSwood (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Im sorry that you didn't enjoy reading my edit, but its just the way i write strategy articles. This is a community strategy after all, meaning that it can and should be detailed. So I don't see a very big problem for it being "overly-explainatory", but if you seriously have a problem with this, I guess that I could go back and shorten it. Yes, i know that this particular page is different from all the other anti-class strategy, but I couldn't find time to work on all other pages, so Im adding this "class-specific" section one by one to all of them. As for the grammatical mistakes, yes those definitely should be corrected, thata abd on my part. Also, it doesn't say that the "Soldier has a hard time beating Scouts with stock, but the splash on his rockets and the hitscan of his shotgun are both great for killing Scouts". It say's: "That in close-quarters combat, Soldier excels at beating Scout with no-matter what Rocket Launcher he is holding, this is duo to the fact that the Scout has nowhere to dodge Soldier's powerful rockets in tight spaces. But when the Soldier and a Scout are dueling outsids (In a large open area) Soldier is at an disadvantage since the Scout can now fully exercise his mobility and make himself a difficult target for Soldier's stock rockets. Lolimsogreat21 (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)Lolimsogreat21

Here, I've reworked the anti-Scout strategy and made it less "casual" and more professional while fixing the grammar mistakes, is it now a bit better article? Lolimsogreat21 (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Lolimsogreat21

It's hard to find a volunteer with both detailed understanding of the meta and adhesion to style. Literally a decade ago (oh my...), I was the one who went through all the basic strategy, anti-class strategy, and class match-ups pages. I revised all the huge, disconnected entries from various community members into cohesive, shortened versions. I stepped back around 5 years ago, with my role being to quietly blend in added information or better strategies found lurking in informal discussions on YouTube and Reddit. Lol's initiative is fantastic, as no one since then has tried something like this. I believe that Lol is bringing in good information that only requires some reformatting. I was thinking that we could turn over the entire class-matchup pages over to Lol. This might be a crazy idea, but it's close to how I ended up watching the strategy pages for 10 years.

Right. To elaborate...class match-up pages would be split into 4 sections as per what Lol has so far:

1. The current entry, as a summary.

Then, as "details:"

1. Main advantages and disadvantages, as seen in Lol's work
2. Strategy, as seen in Lol's work.
3. Optimal loadout, as seen in Lol's work.

I would recommend that Lol maintain a set of dummy user pages, which can then be reviewed by members who are more experts on style. (Or me. Just not now. I'm very busy in-person teaching. Thank you Wiki, for keeping my writing skills sharp for this.)

I should back up GrampaWood is that while your edits exist on a single class's page, the pages don't match and look amateurish. That is why I highly recommend maintaining drafts of your work - 9 drafts, one for each class - on 9 dummy user pages or word processor documents. If you don't know how, there are folks around who can help. After all 9 pages are ready, they would be added all at once.

Eh? Ehhhh? Would like input from our top brass. Please say I'm not the top brass for these pages. - InShane (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Im now quit sure what do some of the things you said mean Shane. Firstly, are you saying that the "class-specific" section of the anti-Scout strategy should be moved to class-matchup page... or that it should stay where it is? Since you also recommended me to have a set of "dummy-pages" where I would edit my work before I upload it to the real anti-class/class matchup page, does that mean that I should delete the class specific section on the anti-Scout strategy, and then edit it back in when I have completed all the anti-class pages? Anyway, this are all the questions I wanted to ask you. And can you also tell me something else. By these "dummy pages", do you mean something like a sandbox which other users have? Lolimsogreat21 (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Lolimsogreat21

Hey guys, I'm a little new to this Wiki, but I did update the Anti-Heavy Strategy, and I think I'll work on the other ones too. If someone wants to mark the Anti-Heavy Strategy as updated (or tell me how to update it myself, OR call my edits stupid), that'd be much appreciated! You're Welcome - WohMi (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

You did a fine job editing the Anti-Heavy Strategy WohMi, but that page is certainly not done. Go to the Anti-Scout strategy and scroll down until you see a "class specific" section of the page. That class specific section is what we are trying to add to all the Anti-class strategies, and until every anti-class strategy has one, they won't be considered "updated". But before you start adding in those "class-specific" sections yourself, lets wait and see what InShane and GrampaSwood have to say about them before doing anything. Lolimsogreat21 (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Lolimsogreat21

Got it, thanks! I'll try working on them when I have the time. You're Welcome - WohMi (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Oops. I've been elsewhere for so long that I forgot we call them "sandboxes." Lol, yes, I believe that your class-specific anti-strategy could best belong as class match-up information, thus giving you huge agency over those pages. For example, let's take your anti-Scout strategy. The information there could go straight to the "vs. Scout" section for the match-up pages.

Or...we could always create a set of 9 new pages, called "Detailed Match-ups" or similar - if I were the reader, I'd prefer the basic match-ups and detailed matchup pages be separate and link to each other. I like this idea most. A few editors passionate about certain classes have started sections named "Class Combat" or similar in the community strategy pages, but this hasn't been done on all the pages. We can edit the navigation bar to include the 9 new pages, too.

My user page contains an example sandbox. If you would like, I can create the set of 9 on your Discussion section (or your User Page section, if you're okay with me editing it), where you and anyone else you recruit can work on them without worry. -- InShane (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

No worries, the fine folks at IRC already showed me how to do it, but thank you for offering help. So, I guess that I'll remove the "class specific" section for now and will continue the work on these sections in my sandbox. In the mean time, we can discuss where and how, will these "class-specific" sections be inserted. Lolimsogreat21 (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Lolimsogreat21

You got it. My current idea is that the strategy navbar gains 9 new "Detailed Match-up" pages based on the anti-class information you are compiling. For example, once your sandbox contains information for how all 9 classes are dealt with by the Demoman, those 9 entries would become a "Detailed Demoman Match-ups" page. Or "Community Demoman Match-ups" page? -- InShane (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

So we can agree that the "class-specific" section should be taken out of the anti-class strategies and be inserted into class matchups. But I don't think that we need to create a new "detailed class matchups" page for those "re-purposed, class specific" sections. We can just create a new section below those tables which will be named something along the lines of: "Detailed class matchups" or something else Lolimsogreat21 (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Lolimsogreat21

WohMi, keep in mind that your edits appear instantly to the public. Your information is useful, but careful on the delivery. I panic reverted the anti-Spy page because, well...y'know. Expect that myself or others will take your info and make it blend better with the current entry - universal style and all that. -- InShane (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

On the (original) topic of the wording, I agree that it should be read through by more experienced users, I can offer a rewritten version of a lot of the Anti-Scout strategy section (because I still think it sounds too informal) but that'll take some time. I'm still currently not really happy with how it sounds and I'd even advocate moving the entire section added back to the user space and then grammar check it (+ maybe reword based on what I might rewrite).
GrampaSwood (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't really see what is wrong with my edit, especially after I reworked it. But if you want to, I guess that you can take it and rewrite it yourself. Lolimsogreat21 (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Lolimsogreat21

To offer how to improve the entries: redundant information can be removed under the assumption that it is already known (example: "Scout possesses the best mobility in the game"), entries can be shortened for reader-friendliness (I could reduce several of these paragraphs to half their length, a task for after info is gathered), and grammar must be correct (you're and your, of and off, its and it's). I'll move the entry to your sandbox, then we can transition to getting the information into class match-ups. -- InShane (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Here Grampa User:Lolimsogreat21/Sandbox2/Scout, this is the third rewriting of this guide, is it finally more formal? Lolimsogreat21 (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)Lolimsogreat21

Anti-Spy Strategy

I started on the Class-Specific section like the Anti-Scout Strategy page, but I want to make sure that people agree with the placement of the classes before I continue. Please look at them and make any changes you want/tell me to do it! You're Welcome - WohMi (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Ay WohMi, I can see that your eager in editing some strategy pages, more specifically anti-class strategies. So how about you join my sandbox Lolimsogreat21/Sandbox. Its a page where the two of us can create all the necessary "class-specific" section of for each of the classes, then after we're done, we can insert them in to real pages for other people to read. What do you say about that one? Lolimsogreat21 (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Lolimsogreat21

Sounds good. You're Welcome - WohMi (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Small change, my sandbox has been moved to the User:Lolimsogreat21/Sandbox2. Just so that you can know

To add: Sandbox pages can be named whatever you want, like "User:Lolimsogreat21/Strategy_Sandbox/Detailed_Scout_Match-ups" -- InShane (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Heavy Load Coming Through! (Formatting for large amounts of new content.)

I have a question pertaining to formatting. I intend to release a rather large influx of tips and tricks referring to ÜberCharge priority on the Community Medic Strategy page, but I am uncertain whether to add the info into it's own new section or into the already existent Class Cooperation Strategies section of the page. I feel ÜberCharge priority is an important skill to learn when playing Medic, but I don't know if that really justifies it's own section. Thoughts and suggestions? CaptainKodachrome (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Damm, for some reason, the Community Medic strategy page has been the main focus of many editors over the past two months, it got expended and reworked almost beyond recognition. Anyway, the Übercharge priority strategy your trying to add probably doesn't need its own section so I think that it would fit nicely into the class-cooperation. There, you can explain how good of an idea is it to Über that specific class with each of the Mediguns and why. On the contrary, you can also put the Über priority strategy in the weapon specific section where you could detail which classes deserve Über the most "under" each individual Medigun. Choose what you prefer, but putting it into its own section seems rather unecessary.

Lolimsogreat21 (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)Lolimsogreat21

I kinda figured it would be considered that way. I'll simply place the tips in with the specific weapons' section. Appreciate it! (Update: I instead went the route of adding the priority tips into the Cooperative Class strategy section. Thanks again!) CaptainKodachrome (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Merging [class] match-up pages into regular strategy pages?

Given that the [class] match-up pages are essentially just a table each, it might be more practical to just merge said tables into a dedicated section in the Community [class] strategy pages. Thoughts? HitlineMiamo (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Intresting idea, but class match-ups are quit large tables to be honest. And im planning on expanding them even further. Also, community strategy pages seem quit crowded at the moment. There are quick tips, general strategy, weapon combinations and class cooperations. Adding the class match-ups would make already large pages much bigger, so I don't think that it is a particularly good idea.

Lolimsogreat21 (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Lolimsogreat21

Heyo. I had similar thoughts a while ago. This way of organizing the pages (the 9 x 4 nav) existed before I joined the Wiki in 2010! It's ingrained to the point that all the other languages are translated according to the existing format, and that's not trouble I want to deal with. A summary of match-ups separate from the winding Community pages is good for a reader who wants to get to the point, too.

Occasionally, a passionate player/editor comes along and inserts a giant section into a Community class page. For example, there's a big "Class Combat" section in Community Soldier Strategy that isn't matched on any of the others. That is the Community pages' strength. If someone has ideas for a very detailed insertion for even a single class's page, they are welcome to have at it without making a single class's basic page go on and on. -- InShane (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Alright. Sounds like it's best to just keep things the way they are, then. HitlineMiamo (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

New smissmas maps

As I was adding new smissmas maps into the status trackers and labeling them as incomplete, I remembered that some maps, such as chilly or doublefrost, are practically indentical to their original maps. Other then a slight change in environment, they have the same layout and no additional mechanics (Such as pumpkin bombs and etc.), thus making a new strategy page for them entirely unnecessary. I think that they don't deserve a page of they're own, just a small note in the strategy page of their original counterparts Lolimsogreat21 (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Lolimsogreat21

TFC classes strategy pages

Why isn't the strategy pages for TFC classes on there? Sure, it may be dead, but there is still a template for it. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

This project was started for TF2 articles only, it seems. I don't see much reason to add the TFC ones now on here.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Just found out that Strategy (Classic) exists. Yeah, I probably should have figured that this was TF2 only. Wondering if the TFC strategy pages are even worth keeping because all of the existing pages aside from the match-ups are extremely bare-bones. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

An idea.

Just saw that basic strategies exist and now I feel like an idiot.Scunt2345 (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

This is what the basic class strategies are for, e.g. Basic Scout strategy.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

How to become a contributor?

I know I'm kind of dumb and make mistakes all the time but I have a massive passion for TF2 and this wiki and I was wondering if/how I could become a contributor for the CSP. (Sorry and thanks) Scunt2345 (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Just contribute consistently and you can add yourself after a while.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)