Team Fortress Wiki:Anti-Class Strategies

From Team Fortress Wiki
Revision as of 14:53, 29 December 2010 by Bri (talk | contribs) (Standard)
Jump to: navigation, search

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

Standard

(All of this is subject to change)

Don't Mix Perspectives

Write as if you are countering the class in general, not as if you are playing another class.

BAD! This belongs on the Spy Strategy page.

  • An Engineer with an exposed back is vulnerable to backstabs.

GOOD! This is valid content for the General section of the Anti-Engineer Strategy page.

  • The Engineer is vulnerable to damage from behind when his attention is fixed on his buildings.

The player can then figure out his class' specific means of dealing ambush damage by reading a Pro-Class Strategy page. EG, Go read about Backstabs if you play Spy or Ambushing in general.

Generalize, Not Individualize

Be general as possible. General is key! Generalize everything you can! Again, this is Anti-Class, not Pro-Some-Class-Countering-Class

BAD! You can generalize this even more.

GOOD! This encompasses more in less.

Don't Simply State the Obvious

Don't state the obvious, unless it has strategy with it that might not be so obvious. Here is an example:

BAD! This is trivia for the Huntsman page.

  • The Huntsman will kill any class in one headshot.

GOOD! This is valid content for the Huntsman section of the Anti-Sniper Strategy page.

  • The Huntsman will kill any class in one headshot. If taking a hit is unavoidable, try to take a body shot to prevent an instant death.

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) User The Neotank Signeotank.gif 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)

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)