Decks Criteria

[Gyrodiot]

Hi everyone,

Once again I'll be talking about decks on the Wiki, because they're still kind of a mess. We now want to clarify the purpose of the decks on the Wiki, to make clear which decks should be kept, and what should be deleted on sight. I don't want to see editors waste their time on decks that aren't worth the effort.

Many players (especially new ones) consider the Wiki as a huge database of decks where every idea can be edited until reaching the status of "good deck". However, it does not work that way. First, decks receive more comments than actual editions. Second, the Deck Help section of the Forums has the purpose of improving untested deck ideas.

Wiki decks served, for a long time, as examples of strategies and combos. Posting a very weak deck with an original combo wasn't completely useless but no one could recommend playing the deck. However, Synergies articles, gathering as many combos and strategies as possible, are now the resource for combo ideas.

What should be kept on the Wiki ? Good and proof-tested decks. The ones that, after dozens of comments and mods, have reached effectiveness and are actually played by people. There are a few of them on the Wiki, and we're working on improving their articles, adding variants, strategies, stats, any useful data we can find.

I have two propositions :

Adding the requirements for new decks to the Main Page of the Wiki, and delete all deck that don't meet themLaunch a project for the addition of worthy decks to the Wiki.

Suggestions and comments will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance

[Gyrodiot]

Hi again ^^

After some thought, I made a list of criteria on which we can base.

Deck effectiveness

Known effective farmerKnown farmer for beginnersSpecific farmer (like Oracle FG decks)Famous decks (designed for a competition)Other decks

I personally consider a deck as effective if I can't find a better deck that replaces it in all situations. A better winrate isn't enough, I won't switch a good control deck for a rush if I really like control.

Deck originality

Original deck (or, best known mod)Unupgraded/updgraded version of the deckVariant with a similar effectivenessOther decks

If you have other ideas of criteria, please post them ! It's worth noting the quality of the post itself (presentation, grammar, decklist) isn't taken in account. If the deck is good, somebody will improve the post (Wiki Editors are fond of making posts beautiful... well, some of them).

Also, I'll add a poll a bit later to decide which criteria must be met to keep the post on the base. Thanks !

[Xenocidius]

It depends what we are trying to do with the Wiki decks. Do we want a database of famous/noteworthy decks? Or a reference list of tested, effective decks designed for a specific opponent?

It may be worth changing the categories to the opponents the decks are designed for:

AI3 decksHalf-Blood decksFalse God decksPvP decksArena decks

I've already talked about a tagging system like: Deck name [Opponent][upgraded-or-not][elements]. Of course, the [opponent] tag wouldn't be necessary with the above categories (except in Arena).

As for mods of any given deck, I think they should be posted on the same page UNLESS they are for fighting False Gods (in which case the strategies could be drastically different).

I personally believe we should delete ALL decks that aren't on the Forums, and perhaps add a criterion based on number of posts in the topic. In the end though, only the decks actually known to work and are used by many players should be kept.

Oracle FG decks do not need their own topic - there is already a topic with all of them and they are in their respective God's section.

Or, we could go in the other direction and keep decks purely based on how well-known they are (for example, Trials decks, competition decks, War decks, etc.). This may be more like a Wiki, but would be much less useful.

It all really depends on which direction we want to go in: helpfulness or informativeness. Once we decide this we can determine the criteria.