Documenting Classes

Sarapis

In response to a previous thread, and to an effort by @Daeir, we want to push to get a lot more class-specific info up on the wiki. We're looking to get enough info up there for someone to start combat with the class and not be completely useless, so we're not really looking for super advanced strategies/info. 

It's hard enough to learn to play Achaea, and harder still to learn combat, without putting IC barriers in people's way. All help is appreciated!

Here's the general format we're looking for:

http://wiki.achaea.com/Combat:Blademaster

If people who are experts in a class want to 'claim' that class and do a first pass, that'd be awesome. Post here if you intend to do that. I think @Iocun already said he wanted to do Serpents.

Naisar

Could we add in a section on each class page on how to survive against that class' strategies?  I've always felt that learning how to survive is much more useful to new fighters than the intricacies of offense.  Something along the lines of an updated version of the book I posted in the previous thread.  People seem to have found it useful on occasion.

Agrias

I'm curious to know what these dissections will turn out to be.  This sounds like a fun idea, but an awful lot could go wrong with it, especially if lots of people take it as hard fact, no matter how cleverly worded it could be.   Time will tell, though!

Sarapis

@Naisar Done! Section for that there.

Ruth

Going to assume these will be the general combat strategy pages for each class, from what I read about the BM class.

Dortheron

This is a good idea, but what about the RP factor that will be lost? I remember a few training sessions where I learned my class and interacted with other housemates that I never had really talked with before. This is more than a basic guide, it has a lot of information that aren't really needed to learn beginning combat like the artefact section. I'm just concerned that newbie will go look at the wiki instead of trying to learn from experienced fighters

edit: was going to talk about how the wiki needs more work, but some people are already working on it between the time I last looked at it

Nim

I'd personally like more emphasis on technical things (drawslash takes this much balance, discernment uses equilibrium but can be used off-balance, etc.) than general advice like this. This sort of advice is pretty easy to come by in most organizations (I think just about every single house out there has a list of learning requirements/suggestions, for instance!), and includes plenty of stuff that actually could be roleplayed out and learned in-game in a reasonably realistic manner. ETA: More specifically, I'd prefer a focus on OOC information that would be awkward or difficult to discuss in-game without just straight up going OOC, as the wiki essentially is an OOC resource.

At the same time, I do admit that a heavily technical-looking guide might be scary or off-putting, but I have no sympathy for that argument, because Achaean combat revolves around that level of complexity and technical stuff.

Then again, maybe that's just because I've always preferred reference manuals. >_>

Naisar

Sarapis, what're your thoughts on AB files?  They have a place on the wiki?

Sarapis

@Naisar Definitely.

Ruth

I enjoy the RP factor in teaching novices what they can do with their class (it's even in our requirements). I suppose the need to interact for combat advice in-game is still there, but in a lessened capacity.

They can read all they want, but actual, successful implementation or more in-depth knowledge (balance times, different strategies, what to do with limited skills) will still be on their own efforts.

Xith

Tentative dibs on Jester, after classleads go through here.

Will try to only include the strategies that are most commonly known so special tactics aren't spoiled. Possibly even an excerpt from that How-not-to-Jester thread (believe it was Beya's).

Sarapis

Nim said:

I'd personally like more emphasis on technical things (drawslash takes this much balance, discernment uses equilibrium but can be used off-balance, etc.) than general advice like this. This sort of advice is pretty easy to come by in most organizations (I think just about every single house out there has a list of learning requirements/suggestions, for instance!), and includes plenty of stuff that actually could be roleplayed out and learned in-game in a reasonably realistic manner. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But if that were the case, so many people wouldn't complain that they don't know what order to learn abilities in, or don't understand even the basics of combat. And I mean, there are a lot of complaints that are sourced from frustration born out of a lack of information. You say it's easy to come by, but you've already spent a couple thousand hours playing too. What seems easy and obvious to you today isn't to newbies, including how to find info.

I would eventually like to have technical details like that included, but that takes someone with access to the code, and we don't have the bandwidth to do that right now. It'd be more of a longer-term project that's well-worth undertaking. 

Sarapis

@Xith If a strategy is important enough to be actually secret (vs included in commonly-used systems, for instance), no need to include it. Almost by definition, that kind of thing isn't really meant for newer combatants anyway.

Sothantos

I'm a little concerned about the problem that Ruth touched upon already, as well. Sure, a basic combat knowledge guide is fine, but...right now, the guide seems way too extensive for something that's supposed to be OOC, looking at the blademaster example, which covers almost everything. You'd barely need to learn IC at all if everything is going to be documented that well -- teaching in Houses would become pointless, as you'd just point to the guide.

Nyboe

Its kind of cool reading information about my class that I play. I am curious to see what the other wiki pages of other classes with look like.

Naisar

Sothantos said:

I'm a little concerned about the problem that Ruth touched upon already, as well. Sure, a basic combat knowledge guide is fine, but...right now, the guide seems way too extensive for something that's supposed to be OOC, looking at the blademaster example, which covers almost everything.

 

Almost everything? What?  The current BM strategy section has the absolute bare minimum to kill someone with brokenstar, and even then forgets to tell you to break the torso.  I don't see how you could give someone less advice.

As the to the rest, well, combat knowledge and ability has always been an OOC skill.  I don't really care one way or the other, but I've always felt it was a little silly to try and force IC interaction on the matter.

Edit: Quote formatting is weird

Sothantos

The stuff that's been left out is really just details that you could tell someone in about three sentences. What's left to teach isn't going to really establish any relationships or good interactions, since the real concepts are covered.

Naisar

If you're arguing that what's left to go on the wiki is only three sentences, then that depends on what you think should go there, which I think we differ on.  Personally I think it needs a lot more.  But you seem to be saying that from what's on the wiki right now, there isn't much left to talk about IC.  And on that I must disagree rather strongly.  There's:

Limb counting numbers, bleeding numbers, proper use of infuses, fists, striking afflictions, brokenstar setups capable of killing people who've left Minia, pre-impaleslash techniques/timings, handling mounts, handling runners, handling tumblers, timing rebounding correctly, the question of whether to use rebounding so as not to mess up your limb counting, manalock, riftlock, shin explosions, proper shin phoenix & healthtrans use, when and when not to Leap High, choosing different icewall setups against different classes, salve-stacking damage setups with Infusing Ice or Fire, when multislash is a better choice than compassslash, shin management (when it needs to be kept high for binding and when you can burn it freely), and precisely when to slip a torso break in.

That's what I can think of off the top of my head.  Now personally I think most of the stuff that's not really technical should go on the wiki, but regardless I believe in its current state you still have most of everything to talk about.

Sothantos

I think where we disagree is what should actually go on the wiki: I'd personally prefer the wiki to have a more technical focus, leaving theory to be taught in-game.

Naisar

Either way there's currently a profusion of both technical and theoretical knowledge for you to dispense IC instead of on the wiki.

Sothantos

My concern is more that topics which require actual IC discourse in-game may become sparse, and that this should be avoided. It's not just a matter of what questions are left unanswered, but what questions are unanswered that you can have a fruitful conversation about, and which provoke discussion. Leaving technical answers to be found IG while putting theoretical ones on the OOC wiki basically confines your relationship to new combatants to answering mundane questions which have two word answers.

As it is, the wiki page may be veering on the edge. If we added all the topics you believe should be added, this would become the case.

Shirszae

Out of personal experience, there is not really one combat conversation which does not, sooner or later but almost always sooner, veer into the realm of occ-talk about technicalities and treating everything in terms of combat usability without regards for roleplaying. And the worst thing is, people don't even bother to go away to do it, or even find anything objectionable about it.

So, as far as I am concerned, the least of that talk, the better.

Tesha

I hope this will not reduce player interaction. I like the idea of something to give new fighters a starting point and a little knowledge of the other classes, but something that has all data possible just seems excessive.

Kenway

Wow when I read the initial suggestion I thought it was a stupid idea but this is actually awesome. It's just vague enough to get people asking questions and just specific enough to get people absorbed and making sure those questions are the right ones.

Nyboe

It looks good right now. Just keep it as it is as its not too detailed but it give enough information about the class so even newbies can understand what to do.

Edit: Actually I reread it all this time without skim reading and it is rather detailed and I understand why people are complaining now, but the information is basic never the less.

Iocun

Hrm, question:

There are many aspects of combat that are not specific to a single class. Explaining the different types of locks, or what a kelp stack is (respectively the purpose behind "stacking" any kind of herb affliction), or the purpose behind "prepping limbs" are all things that apply to several classes, yet that kind of knowledge is required in order to understand the individual class tactics.

Writing a document on serpents and explaining such things that would have to explained for the other affliction classes just as well seems like the wrong way to go about it. It would probably be more useful to have some general documents on such topics and merely point out in the class documentations how that class would specifically go about obtaining a truelock, or whether a riftlock is feasible for them, etc.

So, are there any plans for such more general topics to be covered, or should they be put in with the individual classes for now?

Kalvon

Makes sense to create a page on locks. You should have the permissions to do that. I deferred everything to a non-existent http://wiki.achaea.com/Combat:Knight page for http://wiki.achaea.com/Combat:Paladin.

Antonius

Ah, I was wondering who started the Paladin entry. I was going to do it but never quite completed my draft. It definitely makes sense to link to standalone pages that cover general topics. I imagine a lot of the Infernal, Runewarden and Paladin information will be very similar.

Cahin

I would rather have general combat knowledge covered than just cookie cutter how to strategies for different classes.  I think a lot of the enjoyment from Achaean combat comes from understanding the combat mechanics and determining ways in which your class can utilize them.

Iocun

Well, in detail you'll still have to figure this out. It's not really possible to give a detailed recipe for how to win any fight as a given class. All you can do, and all I believe this documentation is supposed to do, is to list certain things that are relatively "common knowledge" to begin with, among players who have played for some time.

Sarapis

Iocun said:

Hrm, question:

There are many aspects of combat that are not specific to a single class. Explaining the different types of locks, or what a kelp stack is (respectively the purpose behind "stacking" any kind of herb affliction), or the purpose behind "prepping limbs" are all things that apply to several classes, yet that kind of knowledge is required in order to understand the individual class tactics.

Writing a document on serpents and explaining such things that would have to explained for the other affliction classes just as well seems like the wrong way to go about it. It would probably be more useful to have some general documents on such topics and merely point out in the class documentations how that class would specifically go about obtaining a truelock, or whether a riftlock is feasible for them, etc.

So, are there any plans for such more general topics to be covered, or should they be put in with the individual classes for now?

Duplicating info is always a waste of time, so if there are general topics that can be referred to from multiple class pages, it's definitely more efficient to have them in a general section. 

I've made the skeleton of a general combat page here:
http://wiki.achaea.com/Combat:Overview