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 Quality Control
• Anti-Soldier Strategy  Needs Quality Control
• Anti-Pyro Strategy  Needs Quality Control
• Anti-Demoman Strategy  Needs Quality Control
• Anti-Heavy Strategy  Needs Work
• Anti-Engineer Strategy  Needs Work
• Anti-Medic Strategy  Needs Work
• Anti-Sniper Strategy  Needs Quality Control
• Anti-Spy Strategy  Needs Quality Control

Standard

(All of this is subject to change)

• 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 avoiding stating the obvious?

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

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

For example, "Use the Shortstop 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)

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)

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)

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)