Warstory format discussion: Story, Log, Brains?

[Lord Alchemy]

We all love warstories, they give us insights into how people think and predict, and what generally works on a team and what doesn't. The more battle experience we get, even if it isn't first hand, the better battlers we all become and the farther we push the metagame standards.

But what do you really enjoy reading more, a story or a log? Many warstories tend to have bits of humor thrown in, or some underlying story intertwined with the actual battle. These can be entertaining to read, but sometimes the thought process of the trainer is lost. It can really be hard to understand what the trainer is doing with robots and AIDS in every other sentence.

So do you like to read a pure Battle Log? A dry description of what happened in the battle? These, while lacking any real soul, are the most pure and effective way to get across what happened in the battle and the true effectiveness of move sets and team builds.

But a pure Battle Log itself doesn't provide insight into the actions of the trainer. While some people like reading about the action, what about the thought? Much of a battle is determined by the action that never actually occurred; trainers can simply be out predicted, or predict themselves into a circle and end up where they started.

So where is the happy middle ground? What is the most popular, well accepted way to write a Warstory? I have a simple proposition, discuss.

I tend to lean towards a "fleshed out" Battle Log. While stories and humor are always entertaining, I find they get in the way of the actual battles and trainers. I like to see what happened, and what the trainer thought. I'd have to even say I prefer the actual thought process most of all. I like to see how people think and end up at certain conclusions.

The real meat lies in the mind. Mmmmm brains.

 

[MiekZor]

Brains are tasty.

When i'm reading a Warstory, I have the most favorable reaction when the battle is logged step by step, with the trainer's thoughts and a little humor in between. I think that telling a Warstory should be about the battle, and what's going on in the trainer's mind, and that the humor and actual storytelling should be present, but secondary to the expression of the trainer's thoughts and the flow of the story as a whole.

 

[tee tee]

When I read a Warstory, it has to be interesting. Usally the title brings me into the Warstory thread. I always like a little humor in Warstory but too much is not good. I like how some people use at least one favorite pokemon in a Warstory battle. Sometimes when you read one you can take what you learn from it and grow from it. So you can know what to look out for and to know what to do in that situation. You should already know how to but I just wanted to put that cause some people don't know how to.

 

[Bankai]

I vastly prefer war stories with thoughts over humor. Some warstories are trying so hard to be funny that it's impossible to read or understand. I love war stories where the battler expresses his thoughts or maybe even tries to explain why the enemy does the things he do.

 

[-Nitro-]

I do prefer commentary, and humour. I myself don't have much experience (STILL in the breeding phase, go figure), but reading warstories shows me how certain matchups can go, the prediction of certain people. It's similar to reading RMT's for strategies, however, you see what happens in an actual battle.

To be honest, I started reading them for enjoyment, but after noticing something in one of them (Can't remember which), I looked back on the ones I had already read for strategies and insights. Now, I usually read once for teh story, and the second read I read deeper.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Well the official smogon line is there must be some commentary, a straight log is not allowed..

This isnt a big issue in DP since Wifi battles dont have logs. But I wouldnt be happy to see people posting just the sequence of events without elaborating on their thoughts or whatever..

Have a nice day.

 

[Shank]

I prefer a little humor because it helps me keep interested in the battle.

 

[Krul]

If a warstory is just straight battling, I don't read it. I'm not going to occupy my time with something like that. Throw in a corny joke however, and you have my attention.

 

[wozfe]

A pure log with added thoughts and comments and a little tad of humor (as long as you don't overdo it) is what I enjoy reading.
I also find it annoying when people use their pokemons' nicknames instead of their real names in the middle of the battle. It can get really confusing if you see something like "trainer X sent out "Teh 1337z0rz" and you don't remember what kind of pokemon that is.

 

[iruchii]

I like those humorful (?) comments -between- each turn, not in the middle of the attack. Something like Kyogre used it's super omega killing Ice Beam for 47% damage on the opposing, sucky, shitty Giratina! really sounds stupid, unless it's cleverly well done and/or very funny.

Well, as long as it's not impossible to read and doesn't bore me to death, I suppose it's good.

 

[Tricky]

I like easily readable formats where your constantly updated on the status of most things.
Enjoy commentary but not when its just a paragraph of describing what just happened in the turn. Also try to insert humor into every turn takes away from the battle as well.

 

[Suikama]

Part of a good warstory is the battle itself. It doesn't matter if it's humourous or not, if it's nothing but a 6-0 using a Reversal Lucario, then it's not very interesting.
However, if it involves a clash of two experienced trainers involving extreme prediction and skill, then it will be interesting so long as it written in a legible format.

 

[Septen]

Personally I liked when people explain their strategy : why did they choose to use this move instead of this one, what are they expecting from opponent,etc...

To me, the aim of a warstory is to help other people to see a lot of strategy in action.
In smogon there's a forum where your team could be judge by others and in my opinion, a warstory is a text which allow readers to improve themselves on the battle side. Basically, it's not about pokemons, it's about the people: what are they thinking at the instant, why did they choose to use this move, etc...

The point of warstory is to enhance the battle skill of the trainer, where the RMT forum is to improve the team.

So this is why i liked comments with the log, and a little spread of funny jokes can only make the warstory better.

 

[glassbutterfly]

Part of a good warstory is the battle itself. It doesn't matter if it's humourous or not, if it's nothing but a 6-0 using a Reversal Lucario, then it's not very interesting.

i think i read that warstory somewhere before. on topic, i really enjoy warstories with good amount of humor, like firestorm's first warstory. if it's a battle log, then i probably would not bother reading it. part of a good warstory is the experience behind the battle (close, intense, etc.). having a log just defeats the whole purpose of writing a wartsory.

 

[Kumar]

I would prefer humourous stories to plain old logs as logs are boring, and repititive and are quite a pain to read if the battle goes on for a lot of turns.

 

[obi]

If I wanted to just see a battle, I could spectate someone on Netbattle. The point of the war story is to explain your thinking. For examples of this, search for some of MoP's war stories.

 

[VashTheStampede]

Well, what I like to see is one with logs of attacks and such (just those) with thoughts of the User in-between the turns, as well as some good comedy here and there. Comedy throughout the entire thing usually comes to be boring really quickly, with some exception... Something like:

Turn: 6
Salamence used Dragon Claw! (44%)
Lapras used Ice Beam! (93%)
Lapras recovered with Leftovers!

Salamence was in a pretty tight spot, and TheGuys's Lapras was pretty healthy. Too bad for him I'm running a not-so run-of-the-mill Mence, or else I would have to switch out. That Lapras has a wierd ass set of EV's... I think I should go with a gamble here and hope I get lucky. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. :|

Turn: 7
Salamence used Stone Edge!
It's a Critical Hit!
It's Super-Effective!
Lapras FAINTED!

Well you can put this to rest because the Loch-Ness monster is down and will be flown to Sea World for captive study. This Myth has been Busted! (Note: No I don't watch Mythbusters, but I think I should...)

Meh, something like that. It gives you exactly what happened in the battle, thoughts of the Trainer, and then some comedy after the KO. Learn how some people think (No, I'm not the shining example), what options can be considered, and if it worked. Light humor to keep it "entertaining."

 

[Scarlet Spyder]

Needs to be interesting, funny, and most of all, informative (directly or not).

 

[MadRhetoric]

I tend to lean towards a "fleshed out" Battle Log. While stories and humor are always entertaining, I find they get in the way of the actual battles and trainers. I like to see what happened, and what the trainer thought. I'd have to even say I prefer the actual thought process most of all. I like to see how people think and end up at certain conclusions.

I agree 100%. This is how I prefer my warstories. It's a WAR story, the battle should be the main focus. With that said, the battle itself is most important. As others have said already, close and intense battles make the greatest war stories. Everything else is just wrapping and presentation to make the battle as interesting as possible. When you gunk it up with unneeded humor or fluff it just takes away from the battle itself. A good battle can be turned into a bad story, but a bad battle can never be turned into a good story. A war story should basically convey what was happening in the battle as best as possible, supporting the intense feelings and thoughts of the fight. Of course, I don't mean the story has to be completely serious, I love to see the author's personality shine through, and humor can definitely make a story better if its used appropriately and sparingly, taking a backseat to the actual battle and pertinent discussion of the turns.

 

[Shen]

I read a warstory to get an idea of what goes through other people's heads when they choose what to do. A straight log wouldn't help with this, while a commentary along the lines of "I expected his Gyarados to Taunt, so led with Stone Edge instead of Stealth Rock" helps me understand the thought process. Humour is an added bonus provided its not too intrusive.

 

[AlleyViper]

Something like:

Turn: 6
Salamence used Dragon Claw! (44%)
Lapras used Ice Beam! (93%)
Lapras recovered with Leftovers!

Salamence was in a pretty tight spot, and TheGuys's Lapras was pretty healthy. Too bad for him I'm running a not-so run-of-the-mill Mence, or else I would have to switch out. That Lapras has a wierd ass set of EV's... I think I should go with a gamble here and hope I get lucky. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. :|

Turn: 7
Salamence used Stone Edge!
It's a Critical Hit!
It's Super-Effective!
Lapras FAINTED!

Well you can put this to rest because the Loch-Ness monster is down and will be flown to Sea World for captive study. This Myth has been Busted! (Note: No I don't watch Mythbusters, but I think I should...)

See, this is exactly the kind of stuff I dislike about write-ups. There so much from this that could be trimmed and made much more succinct. If this only happens once or twice, okay, I can deal. Some people tend to do this through an entire warstory though, and it just leads to me skipping the commentary and just reading what happens.

Seph's storys in the archive are exactly the kind of stuff I lean towards. There's play-by-play, there's simple, to-the-point commentary, and the occaisional joke tossed in when appropriate.

 

[Artix]

I like the trainer's input on the situation.
Otherwise, it feels like two computers playing each other.

A bit of humor in the input is always welcome.

Obviously, recycling the same jokes and such is just boring.

 

[VashTheStampede]

See, this is exactly the kind of stuff I dislike about write-ups. There so much from this that could be trimmed and made much more succinct. If this only happens once or twice, okay, I can deal. Some people tend to do this through an entire warstory though, and it just leads to me skipping the commentary and just reading what happens.

Seph's storys in the archive are exactly the kind of stuff I lean towards. There's play-by-play, there's simple, to-the-point commentary, and the occaisional joke tossed in when appropriate.

Comedy throughout the entire thing usually comes to be boring really quickly QFE since you missed it. Thanks for playing though!

I mostly agree with the second paragraph.

 

[Surgo]

If I wanted to just see a battle, I could spectate someone on Netbattle. The point of the war story is to explain your thinking. For examples of this, search for some of MoP's war stories.

This is the official stance.