User talk:Lolimsogreat21/Sandbox2

Before submitting

Before you submit this, I'd suggest running it by some other editors for spelling mistakes and a wording check. Making an entire strategy page by yourself can also make the strategy very biased.
GrampaSwood (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I was already planning to go through the entire page after I'm finished and correct any grammar mistakes I found, so I won't need help on that teritory. But asking other editors for potential biases does seem like a good idea.

Lolimsogreat21 (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Lolimsogreat21

I'd still say you need help on this, you still replace "due" with "duo" and replace "quite" with "quit". The reason it needs to be checked by people is that rewriting an entire strategy by yourself is not a very good thing, strategies are meant to be strategies given by multiple people with different experiences to make a good combination of strategies and tips. I'd recommend after this one to add onto existing strategies, rather than to rewrite them entirely.
GrampaSwood (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not that I rewrote the entire Goldrush strategy just because I prefer completely changing a page rather then adding onto it. No, doing that is tiresome and very time consuming. But unfortunately, some (If not all...but we'll get to that later) map strategy pages leave no other choice other then to entirely, or at least partially, rewrite them. This is because of a couple of reasons.

1. Many of the map strategies are filled with information which is simply too general for that map, and has no business being there. Because of this, I'll first need to remove all of that excess information and replace it with something appropriate, before I can add any additions.

2. I also plan to introduce a minor formatting change which should be implemented in every map strategy. The change consists of dividing the existing map strategy pages by checkpoints and stages, so that every checkpoint can be thoroughly covered and explored, something I already did with the Mercenary park and Goldrush strategy. So even if the page in question contains appropriate information, I'll still reorganize it and slightly reword it, for the sake of formatting.

Here, I hope I made myself clear enough. Lolimsogreat21 (talk) 12:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Lolimsogreat21

I certainly have been a proponent of removing generic (not specific to the map) and/or redundant (already stated elsewhere) strategy, that doesn't quite seem to case with the Gold Rush that it had generic or redundant content. But, more towards our previous discussions of newer map and Event map Strategies, absence or removal of redundant or generic Strategies does not create any imperative to fill in the voids left by their absence or removal.

When I stated editing, Strategies were very messy, having, as intended, grown by many small individual contributions, and I made a few efforts to clean a few, but I had two premises; 1) improve grammar, structure, and logical flow 2) preserve other's contributions as much as possible. Strategies pages aren't so important in any scheme of things that we have to thoroughly adjudicate everyone's suggestions of how to play a map.

However, between my newness to the wiki and recurring imposed hiatuses, the project created by others to broadly improved the Strategy pages though the Project. Others managed to get a lot (basically all) of this work done without me. So, I approach existing well-developed strategy pages such as Gold Rush with the presumption of having been reworked and vetted under that effort.

So, it was not obvious to me that Gold Rush Community Strategy needed rewriting.

"doing that is tiresome and very time consuming." Reviewing total rewrites for omissions, errors, and biases is also tiresome and very time consuming; this work requires side by side comparison of the whole page of before and after to see what was added or removed. When I have made gross changes in a page, nothing ever so close to such a rewrite (e.g., Synopses), I would list and justify details of the changes in the Talk page.

Off the bat, as far as I can tell, you deleted the BLU Gold Rush Stage 1 rollout strategy that is/was very specific to the map. On asymmetric mode maps, BLU always have rollout, and so there are generic rollout strategy, but the rollout strategy that you removed was very specific to the Gold Rush Stage one roll out. You may have also removed BLU Stage one roll out from Mercenary Park, but I cannot tell for sure without tiresome and very time consuming cross-referencing without any help at all from Revision history.

Narrative format: It is not like I have never written a narrative strategy, and a narrative format, especially for offense can be effective, especially where strategy engages multiple class cooperations. An example one I wrote somewhat like this is Community Mossrock strategy. Hypothetically, a limitation to narrative style arises when there are conditional narratives; alternate team makeups, alternate attacks, alternate defensive deployments, etc..

Without further time to analyze, your effort seems to focus more on direct control point captures with less attention to essential de facto stages of control of spaces between the capture. Taking a time-limited review of your Community Mercenary Park strategy rewrite, again limited largely to BLU roll out, you replaced more detailed map specific discussion of control of the intermediate areas with a generic statement that is true for any asymmetric mode map, "After the round starts and the gates open up, the Blu team should be aggressively pushing out of their spawn in order to capture the <roll out area>." Name any AD or PL where this does not apply?

I did need to see the origin of what you replaced in Mercenary Park; honestly, I might have written something like that. But, I see that you, without explanation, replaced your own 26 March 2021 map-specific rollout and area control strategy with much more generic phases "At start, roll out and control this area and this area ... and then the first CP." Again, this is true of any AD or PL, and if all one is going to say is not really different for any map, then there is no reason to say it. "Blu team has X ways to exit ..." is simple counting, unless you offer strategies that differentiate the exits.

Sorry for the delayed, limited, and possibly erroneous analysis.

M I K A D O 282 ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ (talk | contribs) (Help Wanted!) 17:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)