Editing Talk:Competitive Play

Ok, this is not a work in progress anymore. I'm pretty much done here and will only complement the text with various other demos or screenshots or whatever I can find from now on. If anyone spots any mistakes or areas that could be improved, feel free to have a go at them or point them out here so I can make the necessary corrections. --[[User:Masta|Masta]] ([[User talk:Masta|talk]]) 06:58, 5 April 2013 (EDT)


By far one of the best and most through pages on the wiki! Amazing work, Masta! --[[User:Reagan|Reagan]] ([[User talk:Reagan|talk]]) 13:47, 6 April 2013 (EDT)

Thanks a lot! I actually forgot to add all those links to the various terms and names. I will do so the next time I'll go through the various sections. --[[User:Masta|Masta]] ([[User talk:Masta|talk]]) 14:02, 6 April 2013 (EDT)

I took care of 2010-today. A start at least.  --[[User:afiNity|afiNity]]

This is good! I'm really not confident enough to write on that part due to my lack of familiarity, so I'm happy if others expand on it. I also see that you found out why I bugged you about those demos a while back. I tried to keep the demo section short and concise, only adding the most important or the most rare demos in there, but I'm happy with the result. --[[User:Masta|Masta]] ([[User talk:Masta|talk]]) 02:46, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

Ye good job so far with this article, I will also add a few demos. So far this page is just (more or less) about the ESL. Would be nice to have something more about MBII, CTF etc. Might have to restructure parts of the article or otherwise it will become really confusing (mixing ESL, MBII, CTF and so on). --[[User:AfiNity|AfiNity]] ([[User talk:AfiNity|talk]]) 06:32, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

I thought that might be a problem. I'd suggest adding new sections about the other gamemodes after section 2 and before section 3, so it goes like 1. History of Sabering, 2. Big Four of Sabering, 3. History of CTF, 4. History of MBII, then 5. Notable (Saber-only?) Games with Demos, 6. Notable CTF Games with Demos, 7. Notable MBII Games with Demos etc etc. I think keeping the demos at the very end would look best. How's that? I wanted to somehow put the Big Four under section 1, but I'm not sure if that looks good. About the demos: I've gone to great lengths to stick with quality over quantity, i.e. only added the best and most important ones. After all, we have democloud for the rest. I'm sure you will stick to that principle as well! Or better yet: Maybe we could discuss any additions to the pre-2010 demos individually? Anything from 2010-2013 I have no clue about, so I'd love if you were to add some of those. --[[User:Masta|Masta]] ([[User talk:Masta|talk]]) 07:28, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

Ok sounds good, but I think the big four should be a sub-point within '1. History of Sabering'. So you'd have 1. History of Sabering 2. History of CTF 3. History of MBII 4. JA+ (if there is any history) 5. Notable Games with demos.
And everything else in subitems imo.
I think you already own all my good demos from pre-2010 so I will only add 2010-2012 demos anyway.
--[[User:AfiNity|AfiNity]] ([[User talk:AfiNity|talk]]) 07:47, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

I'm debating as to whether or not to entirely remove the section on the Big Four. It's more of an essay or an analysis than actual wiki material. --[[User:Masta|Masta]] ([[User talk:Masta|talk]]) 08:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I think that section is slightly subjective cause there are more clans which could be included into this list. --[[User:Balthor|Balthor]] ([[User talk:Balthor|talk]]) 09:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It's also a bit unfair to newer teams, since it's not their fault that axiom, aiming, ozone and nL were not there anymore after 2010, and i use scores vs those teams as a measure of how well a team is doing in general. So for example vP has a big four score of plain zero, so what do I do now? Back when I wrote it, I reasoned with myself that because they lost so much to tua, while none of the big four ever had a close ratio against tua at all, they shouldn't be included. This is also unfair because tua obviously changed over the years and got better etc etc. There's lots that is problematic. Another point is that clans that focus mostly on 1v1s are a bit disadvantaged. Then again, I really like the tables. Maybe we can keep the tables and turn this section more into notable rivalries rather than an evaluation of teams. --[[User:Masta|Masta]] ([[User talk:Masta|talk]]) 09:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yea, that's what I thought as well. Staraiming played the last match in 2009, 5 years in which other clans dominated. Besides that it get's complicated when clans renamed or formed new teams with the same players. xeTox won pretty much everything but at some point they renamed to aXiom while it was pretty much a mix of the old aXiom and aiming players (dureal, mrl, dev, soxaz etc). Xentinels lost only three out of ~100 matches from 2008 to 2010. And some people would maybe even add clans like saber academy or RGA. I think you should keep the tables though.
--[[User:Balthor|Balthor]] ([[User talk:Balthor|talk]]) 09:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)