Possible Forum Layout?

After a bunch of re-reading I think we're still both working in the same direction. As I have said, I wasn't being very clear in my reasoning and purpose which I believe lead to some confusion.

In my remaining time tonight I'd like to try to implement a little of the feedback. Hopefully this will start clarifying things.

Aldemarran wrote:

Character Optimization: {Class} = "The place to discuss how to improve {Class} performance."
This forum is for {Class} performance improvement discussion and resources. In addition to the typical discussion threads there are several threads that have been sticked for ease of access and reference:
- - Currently Established Tactics and Configurations (closed thread, maintained by Theory Doctors)
- - Frequently Asked Questions (closed thread, maintained by Theory Doctors)
- - Simple Questions & Simple Answers (Open thread, all are welcome to participate. Please limit yourself to questions and answers that require no more than 1 or 2 sentences. "Walls of Text" and other complex questions should be given threads of their own.)

I generalized Configurations to cover both Skill Points and Gear Sets.

I'm not certain shifting from optimal to improvement accomplishes what we're looking for, but I hope its at least a step in the right direction. Please let me know what you think.

I wanted to move away from "the optimal" because when you're posting in this forum you're possibly not always hoping to find the optimal (maybe just the viable). Some people might be looking to find out how to make the best out of their char while sporting an uncommon skill set etc.

How about "optimize" instead of "improve". And something is weird with "performance", it doesn't feel right there?


"Tactics and Configurations" is nice.

I'm still pondering whether that sticky should be closed or not. You should still be able to "criticize" the given information if you think you can offer a better solution. But maybe that is best done in another thread. What do you think?

What about "Class Utility"? Though I'm wondering if that doesn't move too far way from what we're talking about.

"The place to discuss how to optimize the Trooper's utility"
"The place to discuss how to optimize the Trooper's performance"

There's something I like about utility but it just lacks the clean meaning that performance provides us with.
Let's just stick with it

What I suggested earlier for the whole Casual v Hardcore aka Social v Progressive v Competitive was to have an optional "Casual" tag (no "Hardcore" tag at all). That way, you can communicate when you're aiming for casual and people will know to find or avoid you.

In the end, the goal of such an additional tag is to make it easier for people to find what they're looking for by looking at the title. I think this method would provide enough in that regard without using unknown or prejudiced terms. I feel "Casual" has no burden to it, while "Hardcore" clearly has.


What I thought about too was this: Should the "Current Established Tactics and Configurations" thread be open or stay closed? I feel there needs to be a place for people to possibly challenge the "Established" information if they think they have possibly a better way or another good way of doing it. I see no problem for people to ask their questions or add their opinions to it in the same thread. You don't need to read it after all and that would be a defined place to go on about that.

I'm for the optional Casual tag in the title.

As for Utility vs Performance. meh on both. Performance sound too much like "get the best out of the class" as opposed to "what make a better healer trooper".

"The place to discuss how to optimize the Trooper's builds"
"The place to discuss how to optimize the Smuggler's tactics"
"The place to discuss how to optimize the Consular's ACs"
"The place to discuss how to optimize the Knight's powers"

I'm so Republic biased.

Quote :

What I thought about too was this: Should the "Current Established Tactics and Configurations" thread be open or stay closed? I feel there needs to be a place for people to possibly challenge the "Established" information if they think they have possibly a better way or another good way of doing it. I see no problem for people to ask their questions or add their opinions to it in the same thread. You don't need to read it after all and that would be a defined place to go on about that.

I think that the "Current Established Tactics and Configurations" thread simply organize links to existing threads. Which is how this is usually done on other forum. So the discussions would be in those threads, while the the sticky thread will be kind of an index. Theory Doctors simply need to decided if a build or tactic is worth being listed and maybe put recommendations (hard to play, easy for newcomers, etc).

azarhal wrote:

As for Utility vs Performance. meh on both. Performance sound too much like "get the best out of the class" as opposed to "what make a better healer trooper".

"The place to discuss how to optimize the Trooper's builds"
"The place to discuss how to optimize the Smuggler's tactics"
"The place to discuss how to optimize the Consular's ACs"
"The place to discuss how to optimize the Knight's powers"

What about a plain "The place to discuss how to get the best out of {class}"?

Yes, you just mentioned it as something "performance" sounds like, but this explains quite well what it's about and sounds better, I think. Other ideas are welcome!

azarhal wrote:

I think that the "Current Established Tactics and Configurations" thread simply organize links to existing threads. Which is how this is usually done on other forum. So the discussions would be in those threads, while the the sticky thread will be kind of an index. Theory Doctors simply need to decided if a build or tactic is worth being listed and maybe put recommendations (hard to play, easy for newcomers, etc).

It would make sense to have it work this way. But even if the builds are in other threads (where they could be discussed) you could still want to say "Hey, I think this build deserves to be in here as well". I just fail to come up with a good reason as to why this thread would have to be closed. Please enlighten me (I think there is a reason).

Grome wrote:

What about a plain "The place to discuss how to get the best out of {class}"?

Yes, you just mentioned it as something "performance" sounds like, but this explains quite well what it's about and sounds better, I think. Other ideas are welcome!

"The place to discuss how to get the most out of the {class}" ?

Grome wrote:

It would make sense to have it work this way. But even if the builds are in other threads (where they could be discussed) you could still want to say "Hey, I think this build deserves to be in here as well". I just fail to come up with a good reason as to why this thread would have to be closed. Please enlighten me (I think there is a reason).

Probably because we don't want to clutter the "index" with opinions. Also, you sometimes want to delete/archive older posts to clean up threads/sub-forums and you also need to "reserve" places/posts to link new content.

Maybe we could have an index that is a "closed thread" and a "voting/discussion" thread where the decisions over what should be allowed in the closed thread is done?

azarhal wrote:

"The place to discuss how to get the most out of the {class}" ?

That's pretty good!

azarhal wrote:

Probably because we don't want to clutter the "index" with opinions. Also, you sometimes want to delete/archive older posts to clean up threads/sub-forums and you also need to "reserve" places/posts to link new content.

Maybe we could have an index that is a "closed thread" and a "voting/discussion" thread where the decisions over what should be allowed in the closed thread is done?

Yeah, a "discuss the established tactics and configurations" thread wouldn't be too bad.

There is a thing though. Who do you imagine will write up all the threads for the established builds etc? I don't think this is all just going to be the Theory Doctor. His job is to put it all together, but I'm hopeful the other people in the forums will come up with builds and tactics themselves.
In that case those "foreign" threads could be linked in; but what if these threads are not very well explained etc. Should the Theory Doctor write them up again? Don't know...

Quote :

In that case those "foreign" threads could be linked in; but what if these threads are not very well explained etc. Should the Theory Doctor write them up again? Don't know...

Maybe once a theory is "agreeable", the original poster could clean up the OP so it is well explained. Also, if TDoc have mod rights, they might be able to clean the OP. Or we could propose a guideline for theory posting.

We can always inspire ourselves from Guild Wars build wiki

Ok, we have a difference in understanding of the "Currently Established Tactics and Builds" thread. The role and process I had envisioned was:

1. Theory Doctor stays current on their class.
   
2. Theory Doctor identifies a strong theory.
   
3. Theory Doctor writes up clear, concise post (or borrows with permission) for quick and easy reference.
   
4. Theory Doctor gives credit to build/theory creator and includes link to original (but long and messy) discussion of the theory.
   
5. Reference Post is locked to keep the forward-moving discussion separate from the for-your-reference work.

My idea being that many others would be involved in figuring things out, but the Theory Doctor's primary role would be building the reference work.

I could see keeping the thread open for the specific purpose of correcting / improving the write-up, but not for the main discussion. I can also see keeping it locked so that the Theory Doctor can keep adding builds for different purposes at the top where they are easily found, but it would probably be better just to create separate threads for separate theories. Perhaps I should make the idea of "maintaining a collection of sticky build write-ups" in there instead.

How does this idea sit with you folks?

P.S. There are one or two other topics I still need to circle back to. Working on it!

Ald, I think that is exactly what we were talking about. I agree with how you summarized the TD's role.

My idea right now is this: The "CETB" (currently established tactics & builds - it's just faster this way ) is a closed thread.
The first post of the thread is a contents summary page, each point linked to the specific post of the thread.
This is followed by the explaining posts in the order of the contents summary.

Like so:

FIRST POST (contents summary)
1. Builds
1.1 Build A (links to post 2)
1.1.1 Equipment
1.1.2 Skills
1.2 Build B (links to post 3)
...etc... (how this looks is going to be determined later anyway)

FOLLOWING POSTS
Depending on how it fits.

POST 2
Build A and all subpoints

POST 3
Build B and all subpoints


This should be clear?

I agree strongly that the builds are not all "invented" by the TD. He picks them up and makes them readily accessible. As part of this he will also determine what part of the build is the "core" (important talents) and what is subject to personal preference (less important talents, that might be switched for something else possibly).

However, what I was mentioning before is possibly the need for people to challenge the TD's decision to write something down in some way. Or maybe they just want to suggest adding some information to it.
That's why there could be a feedback thread. What do you think?

You want a way to get easy access to the theories, though. People looking for builds usually know what they are looking for (Healers), so looking through 20 posts doesn't really interest them. An index will be required somewhere (OP or another sticky closed thread).

As for feedback thread...look at what this thread look like!!!! I suggest feedback be keep in the original thread of the theory, otherwise it will just look messy.

azarhal wrote:

You want a way to get easy access to the theories, though. People looking for builds usually know what they are looking for (Healers), so looking through 20 posts doesn't really interest them. An index will be required somewhere (OP or another sticky closed thread).

Well... I think what I suggested two posts above yours truly fulfills our needs.

azarhal wrote:

As for feedback thread...look at what this thread look like!!!! I suggest feedback be keep in the original thread of the theory, otherwise it will just look messy.

I understand the problem you have with this. However, if there is no feedback thread for the CETB thread there is a good chance your opinion might never get noticed. This is about feedback of the presentation and what the TD suggests in the CETB thread.
Besides, I find this thread is not that problematic, as long as you follow it. And the TD clearly would follow his own feedback thread, wouldn't he?

An example for something someone might want to "feed back" is this: "I think you're wrong to say this specific talent is not as crucial to the build as that one".

This is clearly not meant for the discussion of the original theory but the presentation the TD has chosen for the theory.
I agree the theory itself should still be discussed in the original thread.

It could be neat organizationally speaking to have a "Table of Contents Sticky", but probably not truly necessary. I'll go with either.

The reason is that each class has it's own thread so there should be a limited number of stickies per sub-forum. With each skill tree being focused on one role, there should be at most 6 build posts per sub-forum. That plus the F.A.Q. and the Q&A stickies leads to only 8 stickies max per sub-forum.

It would of course require very clear naming on the part of the Theory Doctor, but I think we can ask that of the Theory Doctors. That's my opinion anyway. Did you have anything else in mind for the Table of Contents thread?

Grome, I'm unclear on what's in the primary post. Just links and outlines? Or are the builds there too? Or is everything there and the links are to discussion threads?

Aldemarran wrote:

there should be at most 6 build posts per sub-forum..

Bouahahahahahah!

Read the latest Studio Insider Updates. They designed the AC so people want to pick skills in the lower part of all of the disciplines and some of the skills are PvE and/or PvP oriented, which mean they don't apply to all build/tactics. So your 6 just jumped to 12...at the minimun.

The game is going to be Build Wars: The Old Republic, I'm telling you...

You're not understanding. My model is not that at all. There are not multiple stickies.

It is all in ONE thread.

The first post of the thread is the table of contents. The contents themselves are in the following posts of the same thread.

There is just one sticky for builds etc. This one.

I can try to explain differently if you're still having difficulties understanding it but it's pretty straightforward.

Hence the "at most" part. For your design I would probably create separate posts for the two ACs.

Az has a point that under my original idea it could explode into 12 stickies, 3 for each AC, double for PvE and PvP. But under your model, Grome I would cut that back to 2 or 4, depending on if we wanted to separate PvE and PvP specs.

And again, even under your model, Grome, I'm not adverse to having a Table of Contents sticky. The more forms of presentation we can use to convey how to find things, the more comfortable people will typically be with it.

Would it be necessary? I suspect not in the case of half a dozen stickies or so.

I like my model a lot. This doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it was my suggestion. Well, at least I'm telling myself that I would just as well say "I like your model a lot".

Anyhow, I'm definitely very convinced by the idea now. I think an AC split makes sense, but that's it. Hence, two sticky threads.

I'm not sure why we would want to split PvE and PvP specs. Why not just have it under one roof (aka thread) for each AC? Possibly there can be some overlapping anyway (hybrid builds).


As for the table of contents sticky. I'm not sure if you think I suggested that or if it's just something you now consider due to the whole thought process.
Either way, I never suggested such a sticky. (I suggested a table of contents in each of the builds stickies, for the stuff within it, since they are gonna be long) What's good about a sticky that links to other stickies? Or whatever its purpose would be...
The way I see it now we'd have some 2 (builds) plus another 2-3 (FAQ, Q&A) stickies.

Each sticky will be clearly labeled. If you're looking for something you'll find the right sticky and in the stickies will be links to sources, if needed.

So I really see no need for another sticky there.

The word sticky is used a bit too many times in the last few posts... I actually like Grome's idea.

Résumé:
2 sticky threads per class (one for each AC)
First post of each thread is a table of content.
The table of content direct people to the appropriate build posted in the same thread and source material (if available).

This allow for sub-categorization of builds (PvE, PvP, Farming, Soloing, etc) and easy access to the information the user want by only looking at the first post.


Now we just need to find where people can QQ about what is in the stickies. Maybe make a dedicated thread for it?

azarhal wrote:

Now we just need to find where people can QQ about what is in the stickies. Maybe make a dedicated thread for it?

Yes, the feedback thread I was talking about. Now, when I'm saying we need a feedback thread for the build stickies I'm thinking myself "huh, that's stupid".

But after all the TD, we agree on this I suppose, is not perfect either and his conception can be faulty or at least disputed.

Sure enough, it still seems sorta silly to have a feedback thread for that but apparently it's necessary? I'd like to hear your opinions.

Grome wrote:

Sure enough, it still seems sorta silly to have a feedback thread for that but apparently it's necessary? I'd like to hear your opinions.

Well, a thread is better then through PMs. Also, personally, I prefer the build and tactic threads to be as "clean" as possible. I'm picky when it come to listing of data.

In a way, we can always make a thread if the need arise and do nothing in the beginning. Also, people could "petition" in the source thread. Like ask why this thread doesn't appear in the stickies. The TDoc can then explain why there. It's only the cases of "are in the sticky, but I don't think they should be" that cause problem, really.

Maybe do a voting poll every 2-3 months? (Throwing ideas around).