Team Fortress Wiki:Anti-Class Strategies

What's this all about?

We have strategy pages for how to play certain classes, so why not strategy pages for how to play against certain classes? Now, I was excited that the idea got support, because I haven't had the chance to do something big on the Wiki, and I went ahead and created some of the pages. They are obviously unsatisfactory. There needs to be a standard for how these pages should work. What is acceptable, and what is not? That's the purpose of this project page. So, discuss away.

Strategy Pages

• Anti-Scout strategy  Needs Work
• Anti-Soldier strategy  Needs Work
• Anti-Pyro strategy  Needs Work
• Anti-Demoman strategy  Needs Work
• Anti-Heavy strategy  Needs Work
• Anti-Engineer strategy  Needs Work
• Anti-Medic strategy  Needs Work
• Anti-Sniper strategy  Needs Work
• Anti-Spy strategy  Needs Work

Standard

(All of this is subject to change)

• Q: Does my question avoid stating the obvious?

For example, "The Huntsman can kill in a single headshot" is unsatisfactory. What can you do to prevent being headshot?

• Q: Is my tip relevant to two or more classes?

If your tip can only be used by one class, then your tip is better served to that single class in their respective pro-Strategy page.

• Q: Does my question generalize to include as many classes as possible into the tip?

For example, "Use Natascha to slow down charging Demomen." only incorporates one class. "Use Slowdown to slow charging Demomen." is better.

Answering true to all of the questions above suggests that your tip(s) is worthy of submission.

Comments

I think it should be an extension of the match-ups page. The page should go into detail on how each class can effectively take down the anti-class. I know it's pretty generic: Shoot them. Kill them. But, there are tips and tricks that make it easier for each class to do that. Hey, you play Sniper? You don't always have to go for the headshot. Swallow your pride, a fully charged bodyshot will usually take him down much easier. That sort of stuff. It can then go into the weapons of the anti-class, and how to exploit their downsides or weaknesses, even how to avoid or negate their upsides, because survival is necessary to ensure you are alive to counter the anti-class, right? What say ye? --Bri 06:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Might these pages better be called "Community Anti-Class Strategy"? --Bri 22:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

An extension? Perhaps, perhaps not. I think that these pages should be a bit more general. After all, why create these as an extension when we can just rework the Class match-ups pages themselves? I believe that these pages should be focused on highlighting the weaknesses of each class and ways to exploit those weaknesses, regardless of what class one is playing as. -The Neotank ( | Talk) 00:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I revoke my opinion on making it an extension. I also made that comment when I failed to understand how what I told was anti-class was actually more fit for pro-class strategy pages. I'm a changed man! Heh. :p --Bri 12:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of the anti-strategy articles are marked as stubs and some aren't, despite containing similar amounts of information. Considering that none of the articles are in a completed state yet contain a fair amount of content, should they all be labeled as stubs or not? - Antwon 20:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Naming convention

I propose that the titles of these pages change from "Anti Pyro Strategy" to "Anti-Pyro strategy". This is the format that Basic Pyro strategy and Community Pyro strategy use so I think it would be better if they matched. The hyphen seems more 'correct' in a way. I understand there are a lot of redirects setup to the current titles so if this change is agreed on I'd be happy to update any pages. seb26 [talk] 09:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually considered which to use for a bit. I ended up going without the hyphen, because it seemed like the more formal way of doing it. --Bri 12:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If so, I will gladly move and redirect all of this mess. I just need the A-Okay Wintergreen 19:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Completed. Wintergreen 01:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

How General?

While we all seem to agree that these pages should focus on generally exploiting weaknesses in classes, the issue of how general one gets is a concern. Certain weapons and classes are built so that they have weaknesses that can only be exploited by certain classes (Take the Bushwacka with its fire vulnerability, for example.). When it gets to the point where we replace specific terms with more vague, general terms that mean the same thing, it may become a problem. I thought it would be interesting to hear everyone's opinions on this matter. My own opinion is that where appropriate and necessary, specific classes and items should be mentioned. -The Neotank ( | Talk) 19:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

 Support Yes, I do believe this can be the case if a weapon's weakness/attribute can only to taken advantage by only one class. Wintergreen 19:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I was told that the anti-class pages should be a general overview of the class' weakness that could be exploited by all of the classes, and that tips that catered to an individual class were best served on that class' respective strategy page, even if it were more anti than pro. That's why I have been enforcing a rule of making the tips general, applying to at-least two or more classes. In terms of the Bushwacka and fire vulnerability, I consider that something that can be exploited by more than one class: Sniper and Pyro. Of course, the Pyro is necessary if the Sniper is not playing on DeGroot, so, it's a tough call. If other people weren't so turned off by the idea, as if it were to step on the toes of the Match-ups page, I would happily accept single class-specify advice. --Bri 19:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to poke too persistently, but I thought that this would be an issue when I noticed this edit. Not to say that anybody was doing anything wrong here, but I became concerned with the fact that we removed something specific (rockets, grenades, stickies) and replaced it with a more vague term that meant exactly the same thing. This is less informative, and while the intention behind it is certainly legitimate, the extent to which we take this is a matter subject to debate. The removal of the Pyro tidbit is less grating, in my own warped mind, but does continue the "less informative" issue. I dunno, just searching for opinions here. -The Neotank ( | Talk) 04:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand. I might have been too caught up in the idea that we have to avoid mentioning specific classes. The Pyro thing, however, is unacceptable if we are trying to avoid pro-class strategy. People have an issue with that, so I am trying to avoid it. --Bri 12:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Furnished Format

Later format will end up being this: http://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/User:Wintergreen/AntiTest , but we will continue to use the current ones until they start to fill up. Then, we will cut off the weak ones and install it into this more beautiful plot. Wintergreen 19:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I really like your format. -- OluapPlayer _(t) 19:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but a slight problem is that it could get slightly confusing for newer Wikians that could express a good Anti-Class idea, but can't due to this being a more difficult format. It also stains the eye if you stress too much. Other than that, another problem arises: The Attribute symbols/icons. I need some for power, speed, size, etc. The Class ones will do, but it might end up hectic. Wintergreen 19:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The icons are fine, and I think that we should move to the new format as soon as we get at least one entry for every section of each page. In my opinion, if newer members have an example to work off of, it helps immensely. Thoughts? -The Neotank ( | Talk) 17:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the format, and using it now when people are showing up to add to the pages, is that it's pretty difficult finding where you place content in all of that code. The current format is good, and should be good, for some time. How about we wait until each section gets at-least three entries or something before the switch? --Bri 22:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's all pretty intuitive if you already have an example available. The problem arises mainly when there are no examples at all. In my opinion, one example for each section is sufficient. I'm sure that even people new to wiki editing can figure out that a new line and an asterisk are all that one needs to add a new tip, as long as we show it to them first. Really, though, it doesn't matter all that much. -The Neotank ( | Talk) 00:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"We did it, hehah!" --Bri 03:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)