Talk:Crits And You - A Brief Guide

What is the purpose of spreading related information? Critical Hit and this guide discuss pretty the same topic, dont they? Do I care too little about the forum to understand? =Fleur (15.1.)
 * This guide contains a lot of good information, but is mostly the author's opinion, such as offensive and defensive strategies. I would like to keep the page Critical Hit limited to only facts about how it works in the game. I intend on creating a new namespace of "Guide:". These will be pages that contain not only facts but also opinions of the author like this guide does. --Seth 16:00, 15 January 2013 (CST)
 * That guide has many precious facts on crits, agreed, totally. And that's exactly y I dont c, that they don't fit into the article and need a seperate guide. Even fear u'r plan of a seperate namespace for further guides: if a topic is so complex and has so many facts about it, that one's lost without a guide, I'd c the need, but would still expect to find the main facts in its article. Having loads of stub articles and valuable info spread on guides, is precisely the environment that made me lost between the given info here, when I stumbled over this wiki. If it's an opinion or a thought, there's cquote, like used in Gauss Rifle, imho. - The changes and work on the guides last weeks made me pretty insecure what this is going to be. Whilst trying to fill articles with content, someone drops in a guide about the stuff. - With the prospect of guides being the main lead here, I'm out; I'll occasionally search forum for them. =Fleur, 16.1.13 8:19 cet

Regarding the text about CASE and XL, maybe add "...As CASE tends to prevent CT destruction, an in-universe reason is that the 'Mech can be salvaged after a battle and fight again another day. 'Life is cheap, Battlemechs are expensive'. If Repair and Re-arm returns to MWO, the lower repair bill may justify it." =Fiona Marshe 22.1.13

I feel that the two could be merged together, I don't see a need to separate them. but yes, I agree that the wiki should be about "facts" first, then dissenting opinions lastly. opinions can be there but they need to be said like this --> "some pilots feel that [blah blah blah ] while other pilots think differently and [blah blah blah]" this lays out both the conflicting opinions while not taking side on the wiki. It allows the reader to decide for himself what to think and puts forth topics for discussion and review by the community to test further. If new evidence shows one side to be wrong and the other right that can be sated in a non-offensive manner like this ---> "it was once thought by many that [blah blah blah] but after much testing by Mr."enter name here" [blah blah blah] was show to be the actual results." also the guide is out of date and needs to address the updates to LBX-10's in the "Offense, or how to completely ruin someone's day " With as few as two "pellets" it is possible to destroy a 10Hp item now. I'm still building the statistics in R, I'll get back to that in a few days and give you my findings = Leeroy_002 uhhh... 21/feb/2013