Developing Guides

Developing Guides

This section is for presenting and reviewing guides which have not yet been submitted and are still being worked on.

Nothing on this page will be archived.

Please Read Before Posting

• Users should be aware that page is discussion oriented. Other users are free to express their own point of view and are not required to be neutral.
• If you decide not to take your Guide to review, please remove it from this page to avoid clutter. You may move the discussion to your guide's talk page if you wish to preserve a record of the discussion.

Adding a new Guide

Post all guides in the following format, changing only the text in red to reflect your Guide's name;

==[[Page Under Development]]==
--~~~~
===Comments===

Cycling Guides

• Guides with no new discussion in the past week may be removed.

• Any Guide posted on Guides/Review Should be removed from this page, any comments on this page should be copied onto the Guides talk page.

Please add new guides to the top of the list

---

An In Depth Guide to Forming Groups

Take a look at it and speak your mind, please. All criticism, corrections or advice are appreciated. Hopefully it won't bore too many of you unconscious. :P --Penguinpyro 07:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Alright, first off, drop the "full disclosure" section. You're playing down your credibility right out of the gate, which isn't a good thing. You want the opener to be a hook, make readers think, "hey, this guy knows what he's doing!"

Instead of talking about how you could be biased, play up your group experience as a resume; say, "I lead this large group, so I'm more qualified to speak about this than master sgt. Xxxj0e$hmo3xxX over there." If you're comfortable with it, you could even try to work anecdotes of your experiences in throughout the text as a framing device; it shows that certain "tactics" are more than just ideas, but actual result-givers.

So far as the content goes, it seems alright, although I confess it's an ungodly hour over here so I can't be motivated to give an overly close reading. However, while content is good, the style seems a little bland- the entire thing is essentially an oversized list. While this is does a fine job at making each of your points stand out, overusing it makes it quite a chore to read; that's not including the fact that each of the sections seems to use a different formatting. Given the size of a lot of your bullets, you may want to consider folding them into paragraphs; that way, you can cut down on page length (especially if you combine similar bullets) and adopt a more natural tone, which should increase flow and readability- just make sure you don't go tot he other extreme and write a wall of text!

For your bullet points, I'd do two things. First, pick a formatting and stick with it. use EITHER * or # and be sure to bold the main point. Second, cut the commentary down to a line or two for each; when people read a bullet, they expect a brief explanation- read the bolded idea statement, then a quick summary of what that statement means. If you're going on for three or four lines, you should stop and ask yourself, "will people actually read all this?" If it's getting long enough that you have to think about it, then you might want to cut down the commentary, split it into several bullets, or turn the bullet into a paragraph.

That's all I have for now. Hopefully I'm still lucid enough this early in the morning that that all made sense. ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 07:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Tidal Tactics

Cast an eye over it, peoples? Mostly looking for more examples to give and perhaps some better layout-ing. 16:00, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Firstly, I think you mean fail, not fall in the opening paragraph. Secondly River tactics is not based off hyper organised large scale movements. I can, and have done it on my own. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:08, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Secondly, you don't always start at point 1, and you've made no mention of darks. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:10, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Zombie river? Regular river is just a tactic of avoidance, but zombie river is based on the inevitable victory of a massed horde. And no, I meant fall. 16:12, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Your opening paragraph cites river tactics, not zombie river. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:14, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Thirdly, Id say blackmore fell as much to do with Beachhead Tactics as to zombie river tactics. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:13, 14 October 2010 (BST)

See those to me are interlinked, the former an important factor in the success of the latter. 16:14, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Indeed, I'd mention them both. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:15, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Man, I hate to say it but you should probably dumb it down. Don't assume that everyone that could benefit from the guide reads at a college level. Don't get me wrong I thought it was well written, just probably too well written to retain the attention of everyone. --~ 16:33, 14 October 2010 (BST)

"due to successful beachheads, it was the attrition of the constant Tidal Tactics that prevented the survivor foothold from spreading to other buildings. " Virtually every building in Ridley was reclaimed, and several of the trp's had 20+ survivors in them when blackmore fell. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:41, 14 October 2010 (BST)

For reals? I'd asked and was told that nothing was held for more than 24 hours at a time. If that bit's wrong then I'll take it out. 16:42, 14 October 2010 (BST)

who told you that? Factories, hospitals were up for days at a time. Thats why the constables were able to attack them with strikes most evenings. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:43, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Oh. I'll get to fixing that then. 16:44, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Yeah, when the constables took time to focus on a TRP, it fell rather quickly. Otherwise, it was just your standard feral-smash-cade act. ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 16:46, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Most buildings were repaired and caded, but there were very few occupants, with the possible exception of the TRPs close to Blackmore. Blackmore itself fell due purely to Beachhead tactics. As Papa Moloch put it, "we barely had to flex to take down Blackmore. The first semi-coordinated evening attack finished the place immediately." --VVV ^RPGMBCWS 18:27, 16 October 2010 (BST)

Oh, and SFHNAS weren't really trendsetters. Give some respect to Rowcliffe Must Fall --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:44, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Added. 16:56, 14 October 2010 (BST)

I skimmed through this when you made it yesterday, and it looked really good then. If facts need qualifying (a la Ross' comments) sort that out, but it's looking pretty good from what I can see.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:46, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Since you're mostly a survivor player, your thoughts on the notions of demoralisation would be great. 16:56, 14 October 2010 (BST)

In terms of the demoralising effect of somebody dying? Not really, imo, but my home suburb's been ruined for 2 years, so I may just be used to it. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:59, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Just trying to find the balance between encouraging "log in, fucking hell zombies, run" and maximising AP effiency. 17:01, 14 October 2010 (BST)

I'd be somewhat in line with Yonnua (and my home suburb, while adjacent to his, hasn't been ruined for two years). You can't really do anything to demoralize the survivors: most of the ones that have doubts just cut and run at the first sign of trouble, leaving behind the stubborn ones that'll stick it out until the end.

Given that a siege is a war of attrition (survivor supplies v. zombie patience) you (might) want to put in a section on preventing zombie demoralization. You know, just a few ways to keep the ferals entertained and keep them from getting distracted and chasing other opportunities.

Now, stylistic nitpicking.

1. You should break down the "Play by Play" bullets into paragraphs (either with a double space or <br>). Right now it's reading as a wall of text, and that's going to turn off casual readers.
2. "...was reached primarily due to Zombie River Tactics, due to successful beachheads, it was the trickling effect..." You should join the bolded clauses to read "due to zombie river tactics and successful beachheads" as the current format breaks the the flow.
3. As George Orwell once famously took eight pages to say, get to the point. So far as I can tell, your thesis, "hit it hard, keep hitting it, then hit it again tomorrow," is all the way in the third paragraph and doesn't really stand out. I'd recommend you move it to the end of paragraph one, around where you've bolded tidal tactics, and possibly bold it as well.

1. On a similar hyper-nitpicky note, just link straight to Zombie River Tactics instead of being creative and saying "true river tactics." It's an unqualified statement, and it isn't readily clear what your talking about. Similarily, I have
2. And while it's great for flavor, most people will have no idea what the hell "Marzan" is. I'd recommend a brief explanation of the word (i.e. "Marzan -the city's true zombie name-"), so you don't lose your reader. Also, you don't need to link to it twice.

That's all I can think of at the moment. It's a nice read, but right now it's far from reader friendly. ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 17:58, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Talk:Guides:Ghost_Town_Reclamation Iscariot's insights into how to make a guide American friendly. Well worth a read. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:49, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Whilst entertaining it's also quite specific to GTR. :/ 16:56, 14 October 2010 (BST)

think it shows what level you should pitch at! --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:58, 14 October 2010 (BST)

I've pretty much done everything here bar the excessive dumbing-down. How does it stack up with the changes considered? 21:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)