This thread is locked
PLEASE NOTE: This thread has been locked by the moderators. You cannot reply to it.
I like this guy. Other than how blunt he is, he knows what he's doing.
Now I'm going to have to skim through this for points of argument...
brb, skimming 20 pages.
EDIT: Guides here are bad, knew this. Not what you wanted to hear, but we're working on it.
Make some guides yourself if you're so ticked off about them. Most of the scouts and vets should know what they're doing and it'll get to the top or at least featured.
We are currently kinda discussing a new voting system but no promises.
Now I'm going to have to skim through this for points of argument...
brb, skimming 20 pages.
EDIT: Guides here are bad, knew this. Not what you wanted to hear, but we're working on it.
Make some guides yourself if you're so ticked off about them. Most of the scouts and vets should know what they're doing and it'll get to the top or at least featured.
We are currently kinda discussing a new voting system but no promises.
"Make some guides yourself if you're so ticked off about them."
I've addressed this. I don't want to spend hours upon hours pouring my heart into a guide just to have it downvoted to oblivion by trolls/noobs/people that don't like me/people that don't think it's pretty enough. I don't care about having the highest rated guides, or whatnot. I just want my guides to be high enough that it will get exposure as the 100% most optimal way to play a champion. Some champs don't necessary have an 'optimal' way to play them. There are many options, all vialbe. But for every matchup, there is an optimal way to build. and for every team comp your team has, there is a viable way. and for every team comp the enemy has, there's a viable way to build.
It will take a lot of effort for me to write the best guide possible, and I don't feel right now that it's prudent. I'm in talks with jhoi for co-authorship ATM.
I've addressed this. I don't want to spend hours upon hours pouring my heart into a guide just to have it downvoted to oblivion by trolls/noobs/people that don't like me/people that don't think it's pretty enough. I don't care about having the highest rated guides, or whatnot. I just want my guides to be high enough that it will get exposure as the 100% most optimal way to play a champion. Some champs don't necessary have an 'optimal' way to play them. There are many options, all vialbe. But for every matchup, there is an optimal way to build. and for every team comp your team has, there is a viable way. and for every team comp the enemy has, there's a viable way to build.
It will take a lot of effort for me to write the best guide possible, and I don't feel right now that it's prudent. I'm in talks with jhoi for co-authorship ATM.
BOW DOWNBOW DOWN
BOW DOWN
Lugignaf wrote:
Most of the scouts and vets should know what they're doing and it'll get to the top or at least featured.
The current way of featuring guides barely gives the guide any more exposure. My Orianna guide would be a good example. Not to sound cocky, but I'm pretty sure I'm a better Orianna player than the 3 authors who have a higher rated Orianna guide than I do and the information in my guide is more correct, having mained her for months now and having a 70% win ratio at 1900 elo, yet it barely gets any views (despite it being featured)
I'm not even gonna talk about my Diana guide >_>
If any system were to be implemented where platinum elo players got the power to give guides a certain mark or something that would make them stand out (PROPERLY - not like the current featured system which barely does anything), or the guides we made would automatically stand out on there own I would put a lot of time and effort into making good guides, and getting good guides by other people known.
Lugignaf wrote:
We are currently kinda discussing a new voting system but no promises.
I assume this is on the vet forum. It'd be really nice if us non-vet users could at least see those discussions, for transparency's sake if nothing else. Of course, even if this does happen it won't happen immediately, so I don't suppose that a vet could give us a summary of what's going on there, in a blog post or something?
throatslasher wrote:
I've addressed this. I don't want to spend hours upon hours pouring my heart into a guide just to have it downvoted to oblivion by trolls/noobs/people that don't like me/people that don't think it's pretty enough. I don't care about having the highest rated guides, or whatnot. I just want my guides to be high enough that it will get exposure as the 100% most optimal way to play a champion. Some champs don't necessary have an 'optimal' way to play them. There are many options, all vialbe. But for every matchup, there is an optimal way to build. and for every team comp your team has, there is a viable way. and for every team comp the enemy has, there's a viable way to build.
It will take a lot of effort for me to write the best guide possible, and I don't feel right now that it's prudent. I'm in talks with jhoi for co-authorship ATM.
Given the exposure you've got on this thread and the fact that you can clearly write a good guide (I haven't had a chance to try a GP10 mid, but I plan to), I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't have a problem with your guides ending up at anything lower than 70% (whatever 70% actually means). Sorted by score, they'd end up very high on the list. Nor do I think that you'd have any issue getting your guides to featured status, as again you have both exposure already and they would be good guides. After the initial comment-to-vote period is over, you will get some troll votes (some meaning I have no clue how many), but your guides are likely to remain high on the list.
Of course, as Khazem mentioned, our featured guides aren't really getting the exposure they (ideally) deserve, so this might not really be enough. The simplest solution to this would be to always display featured guides on top, whenever someone is searching for guides for a champion. That way, MOBAFire's (presumably) best guides are always featured the most prominently in searches. From there, it's just a matter of making sure that our featured guides are actually our best, or are at least good enough that people won't call us out on them.
OTGBionicArm wrote: Armored wimminz = badass.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
lifebaka wrote:
Given the exposure you've got on this thread and the fact that you can clearly write a good guide (I haven't had a chance to try a GP10 mid, but I plan to), I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't have a problem with your guides ending up at anything lower than 70% (whatever 70% actually means). Sorted by score, they'd end up very high on the list. Nor do I think that you'd have any issue getting your guides to featured status, as again you have both exposure already and they would be good guides. After the initial comment-to-vote period is over, you will get some troll votes (some meaning I have no clue how many), but your guides are likely to remain high on the list.
I don't care if my guide is at the top of the list at 90%. That would mean, to the casual observer, that my guide is just as good as the 88% guide that swears that you should build morgana as an AD carry. I know that's an overstatement, but it holds true. If **** floats, it'll make my guide indistinguishable from all the **** around it. Not saying all top guides are ****, but there are far too many that are ill-argued and just plain wrong. What makes my guide, that's completely correct, well tested, and stands up to meta, distinguishable from something some 1100 wrote and his fanboys +1'ed? I'm going to write a guide and see what happens, probably a re-hashing of my malzahar guide, since it's more casual. Not sure yet. Pick a champ you guys want a guide on and I'll do it.
BOW DOWNBOW DOWN
BOW DOWN
<Member>