Blooncyclopedia talk:Strategy guidelines: Difference between revisions
Latest comment: 4 October 2024 by Polavux in topic Blunt descriptions
Scrooge200 (talk | contribs) →Blunt descriptions: new section |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I'm wondering if the "'useless' towers can be bluntly described" thing should be dialed back. Just saying a tower is "useless" or "should never be used" not only feels elitist, it's unhelpful to anyone outside the writer. It doesn't specify whether the tower is too situational, has a better alternative, is too expensive to be feasibly used, etc. I'm also thinking about balance changes, and specifying what the problems with a tower are can help with re-evaluating it if it gets changed. [https://www.bloonswiki.com/index.php?title=Bloonchipper_%28BTD5%29&diff=26108&oldid=25977 This edit] is an example of how I think it should be handled. [[User:Scrooge200|Scrooge200]] ([[User talk:Scrooge200|talk]]) 23:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC) | I'm wondering if the "'useless' towers can be bluntly described" thing should be dialed back. Just saying a tower is "useless" or "should never be used" not only feels elitist, it's unhelpful to anyone outside the writer. It doesn't specify whether the tower is too situational, has a better alternative, is too expensive to be feasibly used, etc. I'm also thinking about balance changes, and specifying what the problems with a tower are can help with re-evaluating it if it gets changed. [https://www.bloonswiki.com/index.php?title=Bloonchipper_%28BTD5%29&diff=26108&oldid=25977 This edit] is an example of how I think it should be handled. [[User:Scrooge200|Scrooge200]] ([[User talk:Scrooge200|talk]]) 23:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC) | ||
:I do think the guidelines should be more clear that you ''should'' explain why something is useless. What I meant is just that you should avoid the encyclopaedic wording that this wiki normally uses, because in these cases, something like "X is generally not considered to be worth using because Y" is less straightforward and obfuscates the point more than "X serves no purpose because Y". This is mostly meant for older games where some towers and upgrades genuinely do nothing useful in any situation whatsoever, unlike in BTD6 where every tower and upgrade has at least some niche. [[User:Polavux|po]]●[[User talk:Polavux|la]]●[[Special:Contributions/Polavux|vux]] 00:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:46, 4 October 2024
Blunt descriptions
[edit source]I'm wondering if the "'useless' towers can be bluntly described" thing should be dialed back. Just saying a tower is "useless" or "should never be used" not only feels elitist, it's unhelpful to anyone outside the writer. It doesn't specify whether the tower is too situational, has a better alternative, is too expensive to be feasibly used, etc. I'm also thinking about balance changes, and specifying what the problems with a tower are can help with re-evaluating it if it gets changed. This edit is an example of how I think it should be handled. Scrooge200 (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- I do think the guidelines should be more clear that you should explain why something is useless. What I meant is just that you should avoid the encyclopaedic wording that this wiki normally uses, because in these cases, something like "X is generally not considered to be worth using because Y" is less straightforward and obfuscates the point more than "X serves no purpose because Y". This is mostly meant for older games where some towers and upgrades genuinely do nothing useful in any situation whatsoever, unlike in BTD6 where every tower and upgrade has at least some niche. po●la●vux 00:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)