Talk:Mechanics: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
'''Shatangmi''': I think that the more strategy-related topics like uptime and team composition should be moved to the strategy page. The mechanics page should include "objective" (for lack of a better word) information that is explicitly included in the game. Like stats, map timings, souls, etc. I'm just concerned that the more strategy-related topics could be seen as subjective or debatable. | '''Shatangmi''': I think that the more strategy-related topics like uptime and team composition should be moved to the strategy page. The mechanics page should include "objective" (for lack of a better word) information that is explicitly included in the game. Like stats, map timings, souls, etc. I'm just concerned that the more strategy-related topics could be seen as subjective or debatable. | ||
'''Igor''': Macro and micro concepts have no place in a mechanics page, they should be in the strategy one. The Dota 2 wiki has an excellent mechanics page that could be used as reference https://liquipedia.net/dota2/Mechanics | |||
Revision as of 18:17, 4 September 2024
FakerofDeadlock: Will have to add out-of-site hyperlinks to the first mention of macros and micros, probably to Wikipedia.
Shatangmi: I think that the more strategy-related topics like uptime and team composition should be moved to the strategy page. The mechanics page should include "objective" (for lack of a better word) information that is explicitly included in the game. Like stats, map timings, souls, etc. I'm just concerned that the more strategy-related topics could be seen as subjective or debatable.
Igor: Macro and micro concepts have no place in a mechanics page, they should be in the strategy one. The Dota 2 wiki has an excellent mechanics page that could be used as reference https://liquipedia.net/dota2/Mechanics