For some time now a lot of different users, beginners and experienced players alike, argued about the currently documented strategy resources of this page. Apparently a lot of the sticked threads and Liquipedia I articles are not up to date. While some of the advice given is timeless, especially builds and mechanics drastically changed. Hence this project. Help updating it. You really should, if you care about Brood War, as we desperately need new players. The easier new players can enter the game, the more chances we have to keep a healthy community.
How to Contribute: Beginners, No-Time-People
Let's see this topic as more than a simple discussion. The point is, everyone can help, regardless of experience or rank. Even and especially beginners might give some insights regulars miss.
I'm a beginner
If you're a beginner, you can share your experiences. You can post here by answering the following questions:
Did you find help easily?
Was there misleading advice?
Did you find the resources in time?
What could be done better?
Was the information too basic or too specific?
Keep in mind we're talking either about the strategy forum sticked threads or the strategy sections on Liquipedia.
I don't have a lot of time
If you already or actively read strategy articles on Liquipedia, you most likely already found broken or halfway filled articles like Zerg Counter to 14 CC. Let's show with this example what you can do without having to spend more than three minutes of your time. Log in on Liquipedia, click the EDIT tab and enter one of these:
{{Strategy-stub}} -> tells us there's information missing (so we can expand it)
{{cleanup}} -> it's written in horrible English (you don't understand the sentences at all, because some drunk Russian wrote it while fighting a bear)
{{evidence}} -> if the article suggests that a lot of forum articles discussed the strategy/build, but nothing is linked
{{delete}} -> if the article makes no sense whatsoever; be careful though, this won't happen too often. The only example I could come up with, would be an article how to open with a 5 Pool on Island maps
This is already a tremendous help!
How to Contribute: People with more time
That's best. Let's assume you have time and motivation, but little to no idea where to start. There are a few things to help out the TL.net crew and Liquipedia.
Strategy Forum
Re-read the recommended Guide sticky. Go through them, post here what you find still good advice, post here if you think something is missing. It's fairly easy, even beginners can help with that.
Also, some of the guides listed in the sticky often have a really good OP and even more helpful posts later on. You could write a short summary for the OP and give links to the posts, so a beginner doesn't have to read a one year old post with 40 pages to only find help in the OP and three other posts. This could look a bit like this (it's a fairly silly example):
Note: you get links to a post by pressing the "#" symbol on top of the post you want to link. The new url can be copy/pasted from the browser search bar thing.
Futhermore, you can scout the strat forum in between today and 2009 for good guides, which aren't in already.
Also, if you're experienced, you could write an article yourself. Just like Nina's ZvP Guide.
Liquipedia
Let's start with the idea that you have no idea how to edit Liquipedia. The first step is quite easy. Log-in on Liquipedia. Hooray, you can do work.
A somewhat helpful approach would be to randomly read over existing articles and correct the spelling and typos. You can add the templates listed in the short paragraph for people without time. That's already some help.
Some articles have exemplary VODs linked. Some of these VODs are entries from the TLPD. Click the links and check if the correct VOD is indeed linked. Usually it's not. At least in some cases. If you find a broken VOD link, find the right VOD and replace the existing link with the correct one.
If you find utter bullshit on an Liquipedia article, which might be the case, thanks to the vandalizing edits done by Shade, feel free to erase the information and replace with a better explanation. As this only needs text-input the editing shouldn't be too hard.
If you find utter bullshit and you're not entirely sure if you're correct or not, click the Discussion Tab instead of the Edit Tab and comment on the article. Explain what you think is wrong, paste URLs to forum discussions or VODs if you have any. Add "--~~~~" at the end of your comment, so we know who you are.
Theoretically, if this project finds more helpers, you can also target broken, badly phrased or incomplete articles. Whenever some adds the "Strategy Stub", "Evidence needed" or "Clean Up" template, the pages will automatically be displayed in these categories:
Find guides (TL.net Forums) to source the statements, or VODs or Replays
The last point is a bit difficult. You can add sources by either linking them, which is done like this:
[http://google.com Google Com] first is the target url, second will show as VODs This is a direct link
Or via references. References are the small numbers in blue, which look a bit like this: ². These link to the bottom of a page. Creating References is done like this:
5 Pool is great <ref name=5PoolGreat>[http:google.com Gecko on 5 Pools]</ref>
and give out this: 5 Pool is Great²
Please note, that References need this at the bottom of the page to be displayed:
==References== {{Reflist}}
If not, you'll get an error.
Moreover, regardless of how experienced you are, Liquipedia II (the SCII one) has a new "Build Order Box". For now a build order in Liquipedia I is written like this:
==Build Order==
*8/9 Pylon *10/17 Gateway
This only displays a bullet point list. It's good enough, but the Liquipedia II BO Box has a "?" Symbol, looks nicer and links to an article explaining a beginner on how to read a build order. Since almost all Liquipedia I articles only have bullet points, you can help us making strategy pages better by using (replacing) the old bullet points with the new box. To do it, you simply need to code it like this:
That's only two lines of text, but could make a difference for a beginner. It helps you to get coins as well for your contributions.
This brings me almost to the last point. You can write on Strategy Articles if some are missing. Open an existing build order guide and copy it all. Replace the text and simply edit the templates, the way you want them to be. It's fairly straight forward, not really complicated and saves you a bit of time. If you need a place to experimentate with your page, click on your nick after you logged in. That's your sandbox. You can write anything there and nobody will edit it but you. (Unless you write gross stuff and propagate something which might kill eSports).
Lastly, I tried to re-write the Help:Reading Build Orders section (which the ? of the Strat Box will link you to) from the SCII Wiki. The original wasn't really fitting for BW, hence this. If you disagree, start editing. Please.
How do you check for quality?
Yes, Chef and others once told me they don't feel like editing, because there could be morons out there to troll their posts by editing bullshit in. Please, for the love of god, don't let that stop you. If you're a really experienced player and want to help, post in this thread. If you have a good rank, know what you're talking about and are not braindead, we could use you simply for doulbe checking the content of edits. Enter discussions, feel free to question anything that's on LP or the Strat Forum. Your voice matters. The less you participate, the higher the chances for trolls trolling the people wanting to make LP a better place.
Damn. Thanks Gecko for doing this for the community. Would it be okay to add builds of pro players? Just copy their build and post em raw?
Also, I really really really highly suggest having a SINGLE SEPARATE page for all new modern builds and strategies. There are simply too many sections for newcomers to know where to look, go, navigate, and if many of the sections are jumbled with old and new info, people will just be even more confused.
Also, if there was a single page for new modern 2013 BW strats that we could work on, then our energy and focus can be better spent. My 2 cents.
Keep the old info of course! But tag them as OLD.
On November 25 2013 07:43 iHirO wrote: Here's another relevant thread that discuss this issue recently.
1. Nobody will volunteer, because they're hoping someone else will do it. 2. A bunch of arrogant noobs will start writing material. 3. People will just start adding a bunch of very flawed build orders to liquipedia. For example:
On November 25 2013 13:34 Golgotha wrote: Damn. Thanks Gecko for doing this for the community.
I haven't done anything yet. Don't fall in the gratitude trap, this project was longer discussed, 2pac and Epoxide had influence as well, I just made a random topic. For now.
Would it be okay to add builds of pro players? Just copy their build and post em raw?
If you add some info. E.g. where it's from, which match up, etc, it'd be better than nothing and for sure and a good starting point.
Also, I really really really highly suggest having a SINGLE SEPARATE page for all new modern builds and strategies. There are simply too many sections for newcomers to know where to look, go, navigate, and if many of the sections are jumbled with old and new info, people will just be even more confused.
Please elaborate. I'll go through this text bit by bit. I don't think a page with only Build Orders would be very good, nor would it help you to keep an overview. I agree, that the navigation right now might be confusing, especially if you go to the Liquipedia Main. This is being changed soon hopefully either way, unrelated to this project and much thanks to the efforts of Mewka, itsjustatank and Quirinus. This might make finding strategy overviews for P, T and Z easier to find, as well as a beginner's section. We'll have to wait and see. Furthermore, we could add categories, e.g. "old" <-> "new" <-> "basic" builds. By clicking the categories you'd see a list of all articles belonging in one of the categories. We could also change the list a bit. Not sure, definitely something we can think about.
Also, if there was a single page for new modern 2013 BW strats that we could work on, then our energy and focus can be better spent. My 2 cents.
Keep the old info of course! But tag them as OLD.
Yes, definitely. But we need a list of articles first. When I got a list, I could set up some sort of talk page or designated post in this thread and link it in the OP. For now all I got are the lists tagged by the templates - the broken, inclompete and badly phrased ones. We definitely need more input.
On November 25 2013 07:43 iHirO wrote: Here's another relevant thread that discuss this issue recently.
..that is SC2.[/QUOTE] Thanks. It's about BW here though. I read the thread, it has a few ideas, but sadly only shows other wikis fight the same problem. Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful for the other wikis, a lot of their templates really helped the BW part!
Especially snipealot2. Anyone (including myself) might write down build orders from that stream, since, its live and build are contemporary.
Ifu.Pauline recently posted Vods for zerg; Tbh i don' t know how this project is gonna work. I mean i tought myself about how could liquipedia be updated, but if people are not doing it, it means its not gonna work. Maybe some new site or blog could work for this project. People like new spaces to breed new ideas
Currently there are simply too many resources (a lot of them outdated), that are all over the place. Some are stickied here, posted on Liquipedia, and the modern ones are lost in these forums after a week. Tragedy. What is even worse is that most of the outdated stuff you find will not help you in the most efficient manner possible. It'll confuse you because it talks about strats and ideas from years past. That is not something a newcomer will understand. However, a build order...anyone can understand this and nearly anyone can copy it. Yes, I a raw build order is not helpful, but that is why there are such things as build order notes that explain why you do this and etc. But we do not need to explain to every newcomer how modern ZvP became this way and why we play in this fashion. We have older articles for that. What we lack and what newcomers can most benefit from is learning build orders like robots.
When I first came here and asked for help, this was everyone's answer: "Learn a standard build order until it becomes automatic for you."
Also, build orders are easy stuff to contribute, for volunteer projects like this it has to be easy to get things rolling. Stuff like Nina's ZvP guide, that's just not going to happen (often).
If we are worried about the quality of the build orders, have a strict requirement of FPVOD examples and build order notes.
Oh and please make sure that this new project you are working on is a completely separate page that has CURRENT taped on it. And separate the build orders even further by standard play and non-standard. We should also focus on standard play, the gimmicks and cheesing, people can find out on their own.
I was looking through the stubs section and the first 400 'stubs' are all maps. It's cool that there's so many on liquipedia, but do maps really need to be more than stubs? Lots of them seem to be Blizzard maps that there's not a lot to say about, as well.
EDIT: With that in mind, does anyone mind if I un-stub all the non-proleague maps? I first went to stubs to see what I could help with, and removing all the blizz maps at least would make searching through it a bit easier.
On November 26 2013 01:13 Capricis wrote: I was looking through the stubs section and the first 400 'stubs' are all maps. It's cool that there's so many on liquipedia, but do maps really need to be more than stubs? Lots of them seem to be Blizzard maps that there's not a lot to say about, as well.
EDIT: With that in mind, does anyone mind if I un-stub all the non-proleague maps? I first went to stubs to see what I could help with, and removing all the blizz maps at least would make searching through it a bit easier.
The easy one first. I apologize for forgetting the [ wiki ] tags in the OP. It's fixed now. Generally speaking, a page marked with {{stub}} (hence a stub) is a page with incomplete information. There are dozens of completely unrelated stubs, you apparently found the maps. These are not the point of this project, or at least a very minor one. I completely agree, that there are dozens of pages for which you can't possibly add more info. However, the decision whether or not these stubs should be removed should be done by the Liquipedia staff. They have their reasons I guess. Maybe not, who knows? Again, not too interesting for us.
Let's focus on the strategy stubs. These you can find here: Category:Strategy stubs (This should narrow down the stub-hits a lot)
On November 25 2013 23:40 Golgotha wrote: Currently there are simply too many resources (a lot of them outdated), that are all over the place. Some are stickied here, posted on Liquipedia, and the modern ones are lost in these forums after a week. Tragedy. What is even worse is that most of the outdated stuff you find will not help you in the most efficient manner possible. It'll confuse you because it talks about strats and ideas from years past. That is not something a newcomer will understand. However, a build order...anyone can understand this and nearly anyone can copy it. Yes, I a raw build order is not helpful, but that is why there are such things as build order notes that explain why you do this and etc. But we do not need to explain to every newcomer how modern ZvP became this way and why we play in this fashion. We have older articles for that. What we lack and what newcomers can most benefit from is learning build orders like robots.
When I first came here and asked for help, this was everyone's answer: "Learn a standard build order until it becomes automatic for you."
Also, build orders are easy stuff to contribute, for volunteer projects like this it has to be easy to get things rolling. Stuff like Nina's ZvP guide, that's just not going to happen (often).
If we are worried about the quality of the build orders, have a strict requirement of FPVOD examples and build order notes.
Oh and please make sure that this new project you are working on is a completely separate page that has CURRENT taped on it. And separate the build orders even further by standard play and non-standard. We should also focus on standard play, the gimmicks and cheesing, people can find out on their own.
I think I see the problem you are describing. I have a few problems and a few ideas. First off, the re-organizing should wait a bit. I wrote in the OP that the Liquipedia main page will be re-constructed soon-ish. We're bugging the crew and the crew bugs us. With that in mind, the entire scheme will be a little different.
The current Strategy Portal) is gobshite in terms of overview. With what the guys plan, it's going to be obsolete either way and hard to find, if you don't look for it. Instead, the Main Page might offer four different giant buttons, which will link to four different portals. Most likely these:
Generally speaking, the race specific portals are not too bad. They should offer some general information about the race and further links to Match Up Guides (!= Build Orders, something like Nina's Guide) and a list of build orders. I think right now the overview could be better, but it's not the problem you adress.
I completely agree that something like the Match Up specific Build Order sections for each race are confusing and not helpful.
I don't know how the process for the work should be, I only know how a solution could look like. These kind of pages are made automatically by the information from the Info Boxes. These comes in handy, but generates a list like in the example. Hence, that's not what we're going for. Instead we could link to a page, which lists the builds orders, but shows something like this:
Exemplary Concept of ZvP Builds
General Openings
The following Build Orders dictate the first few minutes of the game and can be used as basic opening. Usually, a player uses them to transition into a more complex or exotic build order later on. (or some other random explanation)
9 Pool
9 Pool Speed
11 Pool
[...]
Current Popular Standard Build Orders
The following Build Orders are still used in most of the games and support standard play. Standard in this context means a basic Build Order which tries to either reach the late stages of a game safely or with a slight economic advantage.
6 Hatch Hydra
6 Hatch Lurker
3 Base Spire into 5 Hatch Hydra
(or similar, I'm totally out of the loop)
Current Popular Exotic Build Orders
The following Build Orders try to enable the Zerg to take down the Protoss in the earlier stages of a game or kill off the opponent with a prepared timing attack before the late stages. If the Zerg performs badly or his opening doesn't deal enough damage, the game is most likely over. (or similar, replace exotic with a more fitting term)
5 Pool
6 Pool
3 Hatch Hydra All-In
Outdated Build Orders
Outdated Build Orders are not frequently used anymore, either due to changed global strategies or because they were designed for outdated maps. In some rare scenarios these Builds can still be used.
Ursadon Rush
9 Hatch Queen Parasite Attack
(I have no clue, I'm not a Zerg)
End: Exemplary Concept of ZvP Builds
So, please keep in mind, that I'm not in the loop of current meta games and strategies and used to play Protoss only in most 'serious' games. Hence, I need input. If you can come up with a better concept, please tell.
If you like it, please tell. If you like it and think it's the optimal solution, go and read over the builds in the categories. Rate them in different terms:
Popular vs. unpopular Standard vs. All-In Can still be used vs . hopelessly outdated*
*=we won't delete articles, regardless of how outdated these are. It's still history. We will move it out of the strategy section though, so no worries.
For the end: I agree, we need some external page to keep the overview at some point. For now, I tried to summarize the current first two days (lul) of the project on my sandbox: User:GeckoXp/Strategy
I always felt liquidpedia fragmented contributors too much, made the credit gained for putting in tonnes of work lost, and killed discussion completely. The other shitty thing about liquidpedia is people editing things to be wrong.
There's like 10 people that sometimes look at this forum. Maybe I will take a minute to do something useful that people might be interested in, but it won't be wasting my time updating liquidpedia.
Yeah. that is good gecko. those are small changes but that simplification and organization will go a long ways for editors and newcomers. itll make a big difference. big huge icons for links that make navigation easier are good too. most of the other stuff, you do not need.
edit: and this is just my opinion but the http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Zerg_Strategy site is unnecessary information. Larva management, muta micro, backstabbing surrounding, yeah it is all good and dandy but I'd rather have the first page to "Zerg Strategy" be filled with current BOs in regards to the current meta game.
Most people will come from a BW or SC2 background and know how Zerg works, or they will learn about muta micro and backstabbing later. But that should not be their focus when they start. They should learn a BO.
Basically, there should be a completely different new page with the example you described of the Zerg strat page.
On November 26 2013 12:44 Golgotha wrote: Yeah. that is good gecko. those are small changes but that simplification and organization will go a long ways for editors and newcomers. itll make a big difference. big huge icons for links that make navigation easier are good too. most of the other stuff, you do not need.
edit: and this is just my opinion but the http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Zerg_Strategy site is unnecessary information. Larva management, muta micro, backstabbing surrounding, yeah it is all good and dandy but I'd rather have the first page to "Zerg Strategy" be filled with current BOs in regards to the current meta game.
Most people will come from a BW or SC2 background and know how Zerg works, or they will learn about muta micro and backstabbing later. But that should not be their focus when they start. They should learn a BO.
Basically, there should be a completely different new page with the example you described of the Zerg strat page.
Build orders are not strategy, that are a component of strategy. Having the fundamentals of understanding the match-up is more important than build orders.
On November 26 2013 10:02 Chef wrote: I always felt liquidpedia fragmented contributors too much, made the credit gained for putting in tonnes of work lost, and killed discussion completely. The other shitty thing about liquidpedia is people editing things to be wrong.
There's like 10 people that sometimes look at this forum. Maybe I will take a minute to do something useful that people might be interested in, but it won't be wasting my time updating liquidpedia.
It is highly unlikely to change your mind about Liquipedia, I guess. I hope we find a few more 'good' players to help us judging whether or not edits made sense, whenever we have doubts. So far Bakuryu and Cryoc helped out 'a bit' here - especially Cryoc has some good guides on his user page already. Anyhow, please keep in mind that Liquipedia is probably one of the adresses beginners will be directed to at first, hence it should be at least a bit updated to help them out. We need these guys.
When I first read your post I was a bit angry, but that's how I am regardless of what I read, I'm German. Huge thanks for the collection so far - this post shouldn't be only about Liquipedia either way. Hopefully your collection can be expanded, I linked it in the OP. With better threads maybe there's hope this forum gets a bit more attention 8[
Yes, raw BOs are not strategy. But it is the perfect tool to explain and showcase strategy and why we play the way we do. It's like having a narration to a story or pictures to a book of just words. I think it's just good practice to put a BO alongside the strategy (like BO notes). Because to be frank, muta micro is useless without a BO, backstabbing is stupid unless you are doing a legit BO, etc.
But whatever happens I support this! Any change is good and I am sure it will be in the right direction.
Very cool initiative. Of course you don't want me editing anything because I suck, but hopefully other people step up so I'm not using outdated strategies.
On December 04 2013 13:45 Falling wrote: Very cool initiative. Of course you don't want me editing anything because I suck, but hopefully other people step up so I'm not using outdated strategies.
Pics for infoboxes as well as the box updates can be done by anyone.
I just wanted to say you've been doing a fantastic job updating all the strategy pages, Gecko! I would help but my knowledge is limited to the D-ranks so I continue doing stuff like ReplayBox VODs.
Also I noticed in a lot of Protoss openings of 1 gate core, the BO says 12 - Assimilator. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you do it correctly it should be 11 - Assimilator
On January 15 2014 06:37 traceurling wrote: Also I noticed in a lot of Protoss openings of 1 gate core, the BO says 12 - Assimilator. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you do it correctly it should be 11 - Assimilator
Ah, pardon me for asking, but do you have a source that says specifically 11 assimilator, because I know you can do 11 gas in TvP/TvT, but I've never heard anyone say 11 gas in any Protoss match-up.
On January 15 2014 06:37 traceurling wrote: Also I noticed in a lot of Protoss openings of 1 gate core, the BO says 12 - Assimilator. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you do it correctly it should be 11 - Assimilator
Ah, pardon me for asking, but do you have a source that says specifically 11 assimilator, because I know you can do 11 gas in TvP/TvT, but I've never heard anyone say 11 gas in any Protoss match-up.
Well the timing works out perfectly for me, when I open 1 Gate Core I go 8 - Pylon 10 - Gate 11 - Assimilator And you don't have to cut probes I also seem to remember reading/hearing it somewhere in addition to personal experience
On January 15 2014 06:37 traceurling wrote: Also I noticed in a lot of Protoss openings of 1 gate core, the BO says 12 - Assimilator. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you do it correctly it should be 11 - Assimilator
Ah, pardon me for asking, but do you have a source that says specifically 11 assimilator, because I know you can do 11 gas in TvP/TvT, but I've never heard anyone say 11 gas in any Protoss match-up.
Well the timing works out perfectly for me, when I open 1 Gate Core I go 8 - Pylon 10 - Gate 11 - Assimilator And you don't have to cut probes I also seem to remember reading/hearing it somewhere in addition to personal experience
I wasn't asking for your build order, I meant besides your specific experience, what other sources do you have of pro-games with 11 gas or specific advice from a top foreigner/semi-pro/pro gamer that would advocate a particular change in game play?
On January 15 2014 06:37 traceurling wrote: Also I noticed in a lot of Protoss openings of 1 gate core, the BO says 12 - Assimilator. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you do it correctly it should be 11 - Assimilator
Ah, pardon me for asking, but do you have a source that says specifically 11 assimilator, because I know you can do 11 gas in TvP/TvT, but I've never heard anyone say 11 gas in any Protoss match-up.
Well the timing works out perfectly for me, when I open 1 Gate Core I go 8 - Pylon 10 - Gate 11 - Assimilator And you don't have to cut probes I also seem to remember reading/hearing it somewhere in addition to personal experience
I wasn't asking for your build order, I meant besides your specific experience, what other sources do you have of pro-games with 11 gas or specific advice from a top foreigner/semi-pro/pro gamer that would advocate a particular change in game play?
Because it doesn't slow down your probe production or mining at all, and allows you to get gas a couple seconds faster. If someone has a reason to build Assimilator at 12 please tell me so I can fix my build.
On January 15 2014 06:37 traceurling wrote: Also I noticed in a lot of Protoss openings of 1 gate core, the BO says 12 - Assimilator. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you do it correctly it should be 11 - Assimilator
Ah, pardon me for asking, but do you have a source that says specifically 11 assimilator, because I know you can do 11 gas in TvP/TvT, but I've never heard anyone say 11 gas in any Protoss match-up.
Well the timing works out perfectly for me, when I open 1 Gate Core I go 8 - Pylon 10 - Gate 11 - Assimilator And you don't have to cut probes I also seem to remember reading/hearing it somewhere in addition to personal experience
I wasn't asking for your build order, I meant besides your specific experience, what other sources do you have of pro-games with 11 gas or specific advice from a top foreigner/semi-pro/pro gamer that would advocate a particular change in game play?
Because it doesn't slow down your probe production or mining at all, and allows you to get gas a couple seconds faster. If someone has a reason to build Assimilator at 12 please tell me so I can fix my build.
Nobody said "fix your build". As Probetoss, you will be using all minerals until your cybernetics core finishes, so it would make more sense to not rush for gas. If you have good results with 11 gas, great. I'm not saying to change anything, but I wouldn't change all the strategy guide build orders because one person prefers to go 11 gas.
On January 15 2014 06:37 traceurling wrote: Also I noticed in a lot of Protoss openings of 1 gate core, the BO says 12 - Assimilator. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you do it correctly it should be 11 - Assimilator
Ah, pardon me for asking, but do you have a source that says specifically 11 assimilator, because I know you can do 11 gas in TvP/TvT, but I've never heard anyone say 11 gas in any Protoss match-up.
Well the timing works out perfectly for me, when I open 1 Gate Core I go 8 - Pylon 10 - Gate 11 - Assimilator And you don't have to cut probes I also seem to remember reading/hearing it somewhere in addition to personal experience
I wasn't asking for your build order, I meant besides your specific experience, what other sources do you have of pro-games with 11 gas or specific advice from a top foreigner/semi-pro/pro gamer that would advocate a particular change in game play?
Because it doesn't slow down your probe production or mining at all, and allows you to get gas a couple seconds faster. If someone has a reason to build Assimilator at 12 please tell me so I can fix my build.
Nobody said "fix your build". As Probetoss, you will be using all minerals until your cybernetics core finishes, so it would make more sense to not rush for gas. If you have good results with 11 gas, great. I'm not saying to change anything, but I wouldn't change all the strategy guide build orders because one person prefers to go 11 gas.
Hm...I guess Ill try 12 assimilator for a few games and see how it compares
I don't think it makes a big difference, neither gas- or mineral wise. I always went 12 Assimilator on older maps, might be it has something to do with the mineral patches in the main, I don't know, I didn't do research. This detail appeared to be so minor, I completely ignored it.
I mean if you're going a gas-hungry build, great, take it at 11 if you can without cutting probes. Otherwise, it doesn't seem to be a big issue, and building it on 12 means more safety with constant probe production.
If you go goon first, you always get gas @ 11 so you can have exactly enough gas for range + goon when the core finishes, if you get it at 12 then it's slightly delayed. The only varying factors are if your split is phenomenal or your mining is faster in one location over another in which where if you have 12 supply your timing will be close to the same.
In terms of m.u this would apply to PvT and PvP where you open goon (if you pvp and do zealot first, you might as well 12 or 13 assimilator)
I am attempting to actually make a decent zerg economic management page. Does anyone disagree with the following idea I would like to know, because all the other sections in the guide are built off this. I am working on the specific wording for the steps, but I believe they are sound.
Good zerg economic strategy can by achieved by doing the following steps
1. How many units do I want to constantly make? 2. Make drones until you can produce that constant stream of units while making the minimum amount of stuff to survive 3. Repeat steps 1 and 2 in reaction to the state of the game
While this is abstract, anything else is not accurate. A concrete example...
1. I want to make hydras constantly off 5 hatches 2. Make the 34 required workers to do this while making the minimum number of lings and sunkens to defend any aggression
The second step is one of the most important and hardest things for Zerg. This is because of the 'while making the minimum amount of stuff to survive', there are two possibilities where this can go wrong. The first is that the opposing player cripples you through harassment or you lose all your buildings. The second is that you make too much defense causing you to behind economically compared to your opponent. A very common situation where the former occurs is in 3 hatch muta vs T. The zerg must make a certain number of sunkens before mutas get out, and if you make to many your 3rd hatch or you can't make 9 mutas once your spire is finished. Even at the professional level, it is not unsurprising to see the zerg get broken and instantly lose the game because of them striving to achieve the the perfect equilibrium between too much and too little.
On February 05 2014 12:27 Reuental wrote: I am attempting to actually make a decent zerg economic management page. Does anyone disagree with the following idea I would like to know, because all the other sections in the guide are built off this. I am working on the specific wording for the steps, but I believe they are sound.
Good zerg economic strategy can by achieved by doing the following steps
1. How many units do I want to constantly make? 2. Make drones until you can produce that constant stream of units while making the minimum amount of stuff to survive 3. Repeat steps 1 and 2 in reaction to the state of the game
While this is abstract, anything else is not accurate. A concrete example...
1. I want to make hydras constantly off 5 hatches 2. Make the 34 required workers to do this while making the minimum number of lings and sunkens to defend any aggression
The second step is one of the most important and hardest things for Zerg. This is because of the 'while making the minimum amount of stuff to survive', there are two possibilities where this can go wrong. The first is that the opposing player cripples you through harassment or you lose all your buildings. The second is that you make too much defense causing you to behind economically compared to your opponent. A very common situation where the former occurs is in 3 hatch muta vs T. The zerg must make a certain number of sunkens before mutas get out, and if you make to many your 3rd hatch or you can't make 9 mutas once your spire is finished. Even at the professional level, it is not unsurprising to see the zerg get broken and instantly lose the game because of them striving to achieve the the perfect equilibrium between too much and too little.
Hello,
Great that someone tries to contribute, I really do appreciate the effort you already put in. I saw you already tried to transform your post and put it onto Liquipedia. There's ton of "broken" Code you used, which is rather easy to fix. You might want to have a look at Help:Strategy, some of the conventions and helpful styles are explained there. At Help:Formatting you'll find more basic advices (creating bullet point lists, ordered lists, headers, ...)
Now for you general idea - the content and the explanation of Zerg economy. There's a reason why I avoid working on these pages, I have no idea about it myself. Well, I do know a few rules of thumb and stuff like this, but I'm nowhere near having enough knowledge to add information. You should be aware that you picked on of the most complicated things to explain in the entire game.
A few months ago Bakuryu pointed out, that some Liquipedia advices are somewhat useless or badly written. You can see a TL;DR and a temporary solution here: Zerg Economic Management
Now, please don't take this personal, but your guide reads a little confusing and way too abstract. For starters, you tell people to build "enough Drones to power"; this advice can be given for any race in any situation a player might want to cut workers. I'm not sure how a beginner views this. It's quite... too abstract and therefore too general.
You might try to outline the idea you have a bit better and maybe discuss it with other good Zerg players. Bakuryu comes to mind, he's always very helpful when you need feedback.
Thanks for the input, the guide is currently just a straight copy paste from notepad with 30 seconds of me dicking around with formatting before I went to class. I will have no issues with the formatting once I sit down and spend the time to learn it. Well that is not really true, I won't have any issues with the technical aspect of the formatting, but I will with how I want to present my information
The guide on my page is currently revision 1.0, and the wording for many things is fucking horrible. I was expecting no one to read it when I created my user page on liquipedia, but just wanted to put it somewhere so whenever I get to a computer I could spend a little time on it. I am actually really embarrassed that you read it haha(if its wrong to put not close to completed pages on there please let me know and I will remove it). The problem I am facing is that I wish to present no inaccurate information because of the gigantic amount of useless zerg info, so I am being very very careful with my word choice. This is indeed one of the most complicated subjects in starcraft, and I know that I will never approach the skill level to have a true understanding of it. But there is so little help and information for new zerg players, I know I can provide at least a few simple and correct starting points for zergs who have to tackle with this nigh impossible to understand concept.
When I do enough for it to warrant a revision number change, I will edit this post or something like that. Until then I will be doing things like adding pictures of zergs walls to many popular maps, already have the screenshots for circuit breaker, just have to upload them.
Hey, here is a "I'm a (total BW) beginner" contribution : D
I will answer the questions in the OP but first just a few general remarks: I have a little bit experience (that's not being humble, that's really just "a little") with Starcraft 2 and reading guides over there and the main obstacle I face with getting into BW is too much information for the beginning. I find it really hard to see starting points because every guide or page on Liquipedia combines or requieres too much at once for someone who simply does not have any clue. In my opinion this has to be broken down to something like FilterSC did it with his Bronze to Masters, Improving Mechanics Guide or Apollo did with his videos (e.g. Starcraft II Heart of the Swarm - Terran Tutorial - Part1.
The second point is kind of connected to the last one and most likely is just a personal preference but nevertheless: Most of the information, especially in guides on this forum, is too text-driven. There are huge walls of text but no videos or illustrating screenshots to make the information easier accessible. Mechanics of StarCraft for example, I think this thread's OP is really good but just scrolling through is taxing.
I know especially the second point sounds really bad, because if you don't want to put work in, how can you expect to get results, right? Well since there is a lot of work ahead even if you read through all the text, I guess the time a beginner needs to spend before his first match should be kept as short as possible. And walls of text just aren't sexy to begin with.
To sum up the general remarks: In my opinion SC:BW needs some easy-going step by step tutorial for beginners. Text is fine but it should only be accompanying a video where someone talks about the neccessary steps, the why and how, maybe setting up benchmarks (though I guess you can't easily check them in BW?) and so on. I really liked Mechanics Video Series in this regard but of course it is too specific for a beginner.
Did you find help easily? Generally, yes!
If you find the BW Strategy Forum, you can easily find the Collection of Strategy Threads by Chef out of the six active(?) threads there ; ) This thread is huge and really useful, answering every question I eventually might have come up with.
What I missed in the Collection of Strategy Threads was a direct link to Liquipedia but since I'm used to TL.net I found it easily enough.
Was there misleading advice? I can't tell because I don't know enough.
Did you find the resources in time? Generally, yes but not always what I wanted to have : D (see below)
What could be done better? The problem I had after browsing through the first couple of guides in the forum is something I mentioned above (general remarks), too much information in the first place and not selective enough so that a beginner has no clue what the important points are and where to put his focus.
I quickly found my way through the main page of Liquipedia, first clicking on Beginner and then on Terran Strategy because I knew I wanted to play Terran. But the same problems continued, too much information and a lot of links to more specific information. Don't get me wrong, the information is surely important to know and you can learn a lot by reading through it but it does not get you playing.
What I really want is a section like "Getting to play Broodwar!". In Starcraft 2, the first advice I got was, if you build more stuff than your opponent, you generally win. So the focus was on building stuff. In the Broodwar-forums I often read about sticking to a build order, so I guess it's also building stuff what's important in the first place. Why not start with this? Fine-tunning can come later.
Having said that, the beginner's build order should put an emphasis on safety (e.g. walling off) and on similarity through all three match-ups. Again the goal is not to play a perfect tournament BO but to play at all and be decently successful against players on the lowest ranks.
I chose 1 Rax FE vs Z, 1 Fact FE vs T and 1 Fact FE (Siege) vs P and always placed my CC on the high ground. The BO against T and P is very similiar, that cuts the workload, and I deliberately ignored putting SCV on and off gas.
Vs Z is a prime example to put off a beginner. The Liquipedia page has a three step build order and then goes over to clarifications, adaptions and transitions. Worst of all, nothing makes sense to me. How do I scout a 12 Hatch? A 4/5/9 pool? How do I recognize a three Hatch or two Hatch play?
I again chose to ignore this all for the time being because it does not bring me any closer to actual playing and went with the 2 Rax Tech with a third barracks after the e-bay as the follow-up. I found this one the easiest to follow when coming from Starcraft 2.
So now I am here and the journey took on and off a couple of days just to figure out with what to start playing.
And this is just the beginning actually. I play on ICCup (against the computer) and don't know which maps are popular (there are so many!), so I'm a bit inefficient when playing on random maps. In the end I chose Fighting Spirit because I heard it somewhere and so I spent the first two games searching the ramp with my SCV (getting majorly supply blocked) to wall-off (which of course does not work most of the time ^^) because the mini-map is all black. Presumably this will be the same on all maps, so even worse that I don't know the popular maps.
So, yeah! =D A couple of days browsing though guides and info to start playing and then experiencing that the jouney is still just about to start, is a bit off-putting. I feel this could be made simpler through beginner-tailored guides (again just to get people playing, not to get them into SSL).
Was the information too basic or too specific? Definitely not specific enough for beginners : D
That's a superb constructive criticism Chaplin. Hopefully you can work alongside some of the editors which would help us polish the articles and make an ideal getting-into-bw post for people have 0 experience with it.
On February 18 2014 21:56 Chaplin wrote: Hey, here is a "I'm a (total BW) beginner" contribution : D
[...]
First off, huge thanks for actually answering, this helps more than you might think and more than my response is going to suggest, so keep that in mind!
Most of what you said refers to guides in this forum. This topic focusses only on Liquipedia Brood War, on nothing else. Hence, most if it would be good for Chef's thread. Since you mentioned one of my tutorials (Mechanics), I'll keep that in mind if I'm going to write one again (unlikely, I'm not really active anymore). Personally, it feels a little odd to me, I was used to not have the option to use anything but text when I started out: Back then there were no replays, just to give you a random example. I also do loathe Video Guides like hell, because I have to watch all of them and it feels like a lot of wasted time, I read a lot faster than I watch. Then again, I'll definitely keep the idea to add pictures in mind.
Related to your other suggestions answering Liquipedia issues - only the Protoss Portal and the Beginner section is somewhat finished. I started the project to adress most of the issues you already mentioned. The Beginner section was written in a way to answer tons of FAQ things and very basic concepts, e.g. why the keyboard is important and how to set up hotkeys. This is drastically different in BW than in any modern RTS Games. Anyhow, that's besides the point. Back when "we" (2pac, Pholon, me, Epoxide, Nina, others) worked over and over, we tried to not get into detail. And here's why:
You mentioned that there are general guides and advices working for SCII. I have no idea, I played the WoL Beta, a few weeks on and off after the Beta, achieved some almost-Master ranking and then let it go. I was under the impression that SCII is a lot more, I don't know how to express it, unified? Identical? The workers for each race, the worker-to-army relation seems to be, on a more abstract level, equal for all three races. There are more things which matter here, for example the high ground advantage in BW, more static units like Lurkers and Siege Tanks, also the pathfinding. The games are entirely different. Now add to the equation that SCII is still being developed strategy wise, but BW underwent a decade of strategy shifts. The result are tons of strategies which soft counter each other; a strategy in BW doesn't mean that you open with Strategy A and end with Strategy A. It can very well be that you open with Strategy A, react softly, so it turns into Strategy A_1, transition into mid game Strategy B, which now is B_3, because you usually wouldn't go there but have to, only to end up in the late game with Strategy C_6. There's nothing set in stone. It's rather difficult for a regular to see the game from a beginner's perspective - that's why it's so cool you answered.
Other examples which might be easier to understand is one of the more general advices we throw at beginners: "Build Workers all the time"; this is a lot like "Build more stuff than your opponent", at least it serves the same goal and is most likely mentioned in the same breath. This does work for all Terran and Protoss Match Ups, if a Zerg player follows the advice though, he'll end up dead very soon. Zerg does skip worker all the time, their economy works drastically different from the others. Hence - in the beginner section we operated with the assumption a beginner does not really know which race he plays, at least not already. Only abstract concepts, the ones you can easily understand. I think it reads a lot better than my Mechanics guide by now, after other experienced writers read over it.
And here's another problem, the Liquipedia was written by at least decent players for above causal level players. A lot of information was left out, it wasn't meant to learn, rather than to archive strategies. The "learning effect" was reserved for those kind of players who only needed raw information and could process it without help. I realized that when I worked over the Protoss portal. The information wasn't re-written in four years, only now it slowly starts to change. Hopefully at least.
Please try to compare the Protoss Portal to the Terran one. I do not want you to play Protoss, the reason I'd like feedback there is that it's the only thing that's somewhat finished. It's completely restructured. Instead of throwing a beginner into a wide ocean of information, it only gives a brief overview of the race and links to very, very abstract techniques, which work especially well for the race.
From there on out a beginner should be able to click himself through the other parts. Ideally, he'd start reading the match up guides, gets an idea what role his race plays in each match up, what he can use to scout, but not what to look out for (because this depends on the build he is using and ideally this is explained in each build!). From the match up guides he can now navigate to actual Build Orders. Each Match Up has a new overview page which lists all existing builds, categorizes them into the schemes old/new <-> rush/macro <-> standard/exotic, or related categories.
So the idea is that a good player can go directly to a specific build order and can only read the text, watch a few example and that's it. A beginner on the other hand can go from "overview general" to "overview match up/guide" to "overview match up/build list" to "build order". I really don't know if that worked or not, but that's what I had in mind.
If that works better, I really do hope some better Zerg and Terran players will take matter into their hands and start on re-doing these pages. I have limited knowledge about these two races and would prefer it to not edit much there. I mean I could rephrase tons of their builds and most likely not mess them up, but I also might not be able to highlight the important parts. Understanding and re-writing them are sadly two different things, especially if you yourself are only an average player.
Video series are of course not feasible for every content.
What I imagined is essentially a real-time Build Order Walkthrough for all matchups (the focus should be on an easy to follow and safe beginner-BO). Maybe with some sort of Getting Started video to explain some mechanics like binding which buildings to which keys, how to cope with not being able to use any building groups or army groups greater than eight (?) in Broodwar, on which maps to play (best balance, most opponents willing to play) and such things.
The actual video would be something like going over the build while executing it (maybe repeating the bascis of e.g. a wall-off for Terrans), commenting on the scout and the important things to look out for and subsequently showing the viewer how the matchup, the BO and everything (army composition, strategic choices, ...) play out.
For me this is a much more valuable insight than just reading theoretically about build orders and matchups. I think it also helps developing the right mindset, when you hear a stronger player explaining his steps/reactions. Especially concerning transitions (a huge problem for me in Starcraft 2 ^^).
On February 18 2014 22:50 GeckoXp wrote: Please try to compare the Protoss Portal to the Terran one. I do not want you to play Protoss, the reason I'd like feedback there is that it's the only thing that's somewhat finished. It's completely restructured. Instead of throwing a beginner into a wide ocean of information, it only gives a brief overview of the race and links to very, very abstract techniques, which work especially well for the race.
The Protoss Portal is indeed easier accessible for a beginner such as me. I really like the "Internal Ressources", they are well written, give a clear overview and are easy enough to understand. Especially the guides for each matchup with their information regarding army composition, scouting and strategy are very useful and I feel, quickly applicable, too.
The same goes basically for the Build Order pages. A very clear structure and you can easily find what you look for. Sadly the issue I have here as a beginner is still the same: Where to start?
As a beginner I would like to be pointed to a build, which does not rely heavily on scouting to work (because while scouting I will most likely mess up my macro or I focus on my base and get my scout killed) and is safe enough to not lose to your everyday rush. It would be huge, if it would also work on every map and if there would be similiar builds for the other matchups, so that I don't have to spend too much time memorizing/practicing all the different build orders before I can go on ladder (meaning, playing for real).
Maybe this is asking too much, I don't know. It's just that you can safely play a reaper expand into three rax (in total) pretty safe in every matchup in Starcraft 2 (lower leagues anyway) and I feel this is great to start out laddering. With some practice you end up in Gold league () without knowing :p
I would really like something similar in Broodwar, just to get going.
Hotkeys: Don't let people sell you some sort of keyboard layout some pro uses. Develop an own system. It's like in billard, you don't select a cue off the characteristics of a professional, but what suits you best. As long as you use one, you're fine. This is a typical thing BW "veterans" and know-it-alls will suggest you, along with how high your APM has to be. It's nonsense, it won't matter for 99% of the players.
What you suggest is already there, at least somewhere hidden. Sayle did some shows on Build Orders together with Kaspra, some Lithuanian beginner. Most people loved it, I thought it was a dangerous thing. I pointed out earlier, it's rather hard to actually go through with one Build Order in Brood War. As Zerg you can open vs. Terran with a two Hatch Muta Build, but that doesn't mean it ends there. Usually, you can pick an opening, follow it through for seven minutes and are then forced to adapt. Each opening has at least three different follow ups for "standard" play, some more against the various types of all-ins and exotic things you face every so often. It's a really, really versatile game.
The Kaspra show was good for beginners, when they wanted to get some overview, but also misleading up to a point. This is an unresolvable issue, since beginners always hope there'd be this one build, which helps them to win in any situation, or at least enables them to dodge a clear defeat. This is not possible, for no Build Order. Hence the advice "pick a Build Order and learn it". The goal is to just play it often and test out all possible mid game follow ups. As long as you train your opening and try to just freestyle once you reached the point where you're clueless, but follow the patterns written in the more general guides, you'll be somewhat fine. Brood War offers a lot of free styling, at least on the lower levels; after about 12 minutes it's more like rough timings you can do, but nothing you can easily phrase in words.
<!-- unrelated to the things above, check out Kaspra Show at YouTube and/or Hacklebeast's Behind The Curtain. In Behind the Curtain (few episodes) Hackle analyzes some games with very good players (e.g. Pro7ect). Also, the old Day[9] Dailies are often recommended, although I only know Ep. 100
(Kaspra)
(Behind the Curtain, sadly no playlist) -->
The next days I'll have a look at the Protoss portal again and see what I could do to link beginners to special openings (then again, which would that be? :[ ). Also, not sure if you noticed, but there's a (?) symbol on top of each Build Order Box in the new articles. This links to an article, which tells beginners how to read and understand a Build Order. It's basically the same I already told you, along with explanation of the basic notation (8/9 Pylon, @100% Lair - Spire, etc.).
Right from the top of my head, I could imagine we could make the (?) symbol more obvious in the template, e.g. add a line / cell somewhere with a written link: "how to read and judge Build Orders", so it's easier to find.
On February 19 2014 02:46 GeckoXp wrote: Hotkeys: Don't let people sell you some sort of keyboard layout some pro uses. Develop an own system.
My point was not really about selling the one-and-only keyboard layout but going over several issues mainly for players, who started with Starcraft 2 (building groups, army groups). Whoever would make such a video could also just go over the various methods and let the viewer pick the one he seems fit (taking hotkeys for the first three CCs and rax and then switching to camera hotkeys maybe). But overall I feel it's important to discuss this at least from an experienced standpoint.
On February 19 2014 02:46 GeckoXp wrote: This is an unresolvable issue, since beginners always hope there'd be this one build, which helps them to win in any situation, or at least enables them to dodge a clear defeat. This is not possible, for no Build Order.
No, I'm sorry, it seems I was unclear. I don't want the one BO to rule them all : D I want a starting point. Reaper expansion into three rax only carries you so far, too, but it's a good starting point because it involves some build order timing and requieres to constantly build workers and later marines. It requieres decent macro without being too hard to execute (in my opinion). And with some minor changes you can start with it in every matchup - at least on lower levels.
That's what I'm looking for in Broodwar. But just picking one randomly seems horribly inefficient because I don't know enough about the gameplay or the matchups in Broodwar and reading all the different BOs and how they transition, when and where they are good and so on takes a really long time just reading about a game, which I actually wanted to play ^^
(Mainly Terran considerations incoming) Can I aim for a fast expansion in every matchup while staying decently safe? (I already experienced that walling-off is harder than in Starcraft 2) Can I always build my expansion in my main base to be safe or does flying it over cost too much time (for low levels)? Since mining is faster in Broodwar compared to Starcraft 2, isn't it? Can I always build a bunker in front of my natural (on lower levels) to be safe or is it also too cost inefficient since I can't salvage it (compared to Starcraft 2)? The same question applies to the amount of marines, I should make. In the BOs is often mentioned I should check how my opponent plays but as a beginner I'm not good in scouting and I also don't know the expansion timings for the different races. Can I play 2 Rax Tech with a third rax after the e-bay in TvZ, despite the Zerg going three hatch? (Knowing that it might not be optimal but also knowing that an opponent on my level will most likely does not execute it properly, resulting in a build order win) I also read quite often "weak/strong on this or that map", so I would like a BO, which is suitable for almost every map or I need to know which are the most played maps at least (although Fighting Spirit seems to have been a good guess).
All this combined with a somewhat similarity in the BOs brought me to chosing 1 Rax FE into 2(3) Rax Tech (vZ), Siege Expand (vP) and 1 Factory FE (vT). But that took a couple of days to read through all the info and drawing conclusions mainly from playing Starcraft 2 and until then I didn't play one single game.
I would have liked a guide (best such a Build Order Walkthrough) from a stronger player just saying, we're doing this now and this is how it'll pan out. One place for all (most of) the relevant information. It's way more efficient because I save time and know at the same time that this strategy/BO works because it is shown to me directly.
Of course later you will have to evolve as a player but telling the beginner from the start that you'll have to know three follow-ups for each build order is overburding, I think - it's not beginner-level anymore then. You have to break it down to start somewhere and being accompanied by a stronger player helps in knowing you are on the right path.
On February 19 2014 02:46 GeckoXp wrote:Also, not sure if you noticed, but there's a (?) symbol on top of each Build Order Box in the new articles. This links to an article, which tells beginners how to read and understand a Build Order. It's basically the same I already told you, along with explanation of the basic notation (8/9 Pylon, @100% Lair - Spire, etc.).
I didn't notice ^^ It's a good explanation! I would also make it easier to find, though, because for someone who hasn't played a single game of Starcraft this is indeed much needed information.
Most of these will hopefully explained if / when somebody re-writes/re-structures the Terran section. This goes for a lot of questions, like "can I always Fast Expand?". In my opinion (regardless of race), Fast Expanding is always an option, in most cases even the standard way to play the game. However, that's where the anon-ladder players come in; the second somebody 5 Pools, you can't.
The trade off we have to do when adding Build Orders (mind you Build Orders, nothing else), is to add as much information as needed, not more, not less. There's not way to write every possible outcome. If we add too much, it's too confusing, if we leave out important things, it's not helpful either.
I do see the point you have a hard time to pick what you should be doing, or where to go first. The question I'm asking myself now whether or not this can be realized on Liquipedia, and if it can, where to put it. Most of your questions depend on the race you play (Terran in your case), so it should be somewhere in the race strategy articles.
Would it help if we added a line/box on top of each race overview page (e.g. Protoss Portal), which reads something like:
Articles with the -smiley are important for beginners!, see also: Category: Protoss Beginner Articles?
And on some other pages (e.g. Build Overview), you'd see like
Ultimate Terran Guide
How to win with Zerglings
Controlling Corsair/Reaver
In these, there'd be a sum-up of the most important techniques (including articles like Scouting_vs_Zerg_(Terran) , or Wall-in_(Terran) ), two Builds per match up which are considered 'standard' and stuff like this. It's just an idea though. I could really do with more people trying to actively help code/content wise on the Wiki.
On February 19 2014 06:43 GeckoXp wrote: Would it help if we added a line/box on top of each race overview page (e.g. Protoss Portal), which reads something like:
Articles with the -smiley are important for beginners!, see also: Category: Protoss Beginner Articles?
And on some other pages (e.g. Build Overview), you'd see like
Ultimate Terran Guide
How to win with Zerglings
Controlling Corsair/Reaver
In these, there'd be a sum-up of the most important techniques (including articles like Scouting_vs_Zerg_(Terran) , or Wall-in_(Terran) ), two Builds per match up which are considered 'standard' and stuff like this. It's just an idea though. I could really do with more people trying to actively help code/content wise on the Wiki.
I think these are great ideas! Everything that cuts down the time needed to play an "informed" first game of Broodwar is a step in the right direction, I guess : )
Just wanted to bump this. I'm currently searching people to help to tag articles in the Terran/Zerg section. I worked over the Build Order Table and added symbols / a few sentences on the Protoss Portal though.
The PVP page has a PVP picture named PVZ Build Orders. It is very confusing.
Copy & Paste error, my bad. Thanks for fixing this, the ridiculously stupid 2on2 bullshit Shade posted and the add-ons to the Goon article. Refreshing to see good contributions by a first time editor. Really appreciated!
On July 31 2014 22:44 13Julia wrote: The point of writing anything when somone with d level knowledge of the game will come and change it.
Well, usually I'd reply that if you were to edit the page, I'd watch out that nobody else would vandalize it. This already is the thing I try to do for stuff Cryoc edited. But, it's you. I can't possibly take you seriously, sorry.
On August 01 2014 00:23 13Julia wrote: How can you get high level players to write if you don't take them seriously?
Cryoc, vOddy, Bakuryu and DraW helped out re-designing and reviewing some older and newer content already. Saying we'd (I) ignore their input and feedback is just wrong. All of those four however did contribute, while all you did in the past was whining about Protoss in general, bitching about your opponents and about lag. If you want to be taken seriously you should think about changing the way you present yourself. If you continue like that you shouldn't complain about being the clown of the scene. A simple case of quid pro quo.
That is great that you share your deep thoughts, let me share mine too, I consider you a lame and uneffective admin. But is that fact interfering with us talking? Nope. Do I write shit like you? Nope, I expect the same, else you want to see my personal views on you too...
Julia, I don't understand why you are posting in this thread. This obviously has nothing to do with you and you do not have anything positive to contribute. Stop criticizing hard work done by other people. We haven't seen you contribute anything.
all you did in the past was whining about Protoss in general, bitching about your opponents and about lag
And about people who win vs you vs you map hacking.
When I was contacted about helping out with this project, my word was like the word of god. I could write an entire article and have it submitted word for word. I could go through articles and edit anything I wanted.
Since I am not the best player outside of Korea, I was careful with this power. But my point is, that saying it's "by newbies for newbies" is factually incorrect, since I assume other players like dRaW were given the same kind of power. And dRaW is pretty good, although he claims Protoss is underpowered, which I don't condone.
The page also linked to this thread: www.teamliquid.net/forum/bw-strategy/91389-bgh-megathread I was happily surprised to come across this great in-depth resource buried in the forums that could be incorporated into Liquipedia where it might be read by more people? One downside: many of the pictures don't load anymore
2on2 has always been a weak spot in this project for several reasons:
- hard to find players willing to share - hard to phrase the dynamics of 2on2 in words, especially as there are other maps being used (e.g. Hannibal)
The only person I remember adding things was some random ... ... well. Let's say there was only garbage being put online. If you ever stumble upon some really idiotic things still hidden in the main space, please let us know.
As for BGH goes: There ARE strategies, but I have no clue about BGH whatsoever and so does the majority of the public battle.net; getting the very basics correctly (use hotkeys), having a feel for wallings and micro already makes you better than the average joe. Nonetheless, 2pac put up the articles you linked and had this project set aside for every other month. I think we talked at least thrice about that during the initial phase of this project. You should bump him for old pictures and strategies, I bet he can link hundreds of articles, vods and replays going into details I sadly can't provide.
If you find anything useful, feel free to start editing pieces to the wiki!
I've been searching for it but I think that there are no guides in another language, specifically spanish. Im bilingual and I absolutely love SC sadly all the good guides are in english so there is almost no way to help new players in getting better, so If there is interest to have translated guide I would be more than glad to help. (With time I could even help translating tournaments or certain matches)
I hope this is the right place for this, i didnt found another thread about it in the search bar. ♥
On May 05 2020 01:42 alexisXcore wrote: I've been searching for it but I think that there are no guides in another language, specifically spanish. Im bilingual and I absolutely love SC sadly all the good guides are in english so there is almost no way to help new players in getting better, so If there is interest to have translated guide I would be more than glad to help. (With time I could even help translating tournaments or certain matches)
I hope this is the right place for this, i didnt found another thread about it in the search bar. ♥
Hi,
this is something we would love to do eventually, but we simply don't have the framework to support multiple languages at the moment. This does not mean we will never do it, but at the moment we cannot.
I have updated a few articles to use the "build order" template. The changes are purely aesthetic, with some minor edits to the Build Orders themselves for legibility or clarity.
You can click on the "Pending changes" button at the top of each page to see and approve the changes.
Hard to edit some of the old stuff when you get minus points for it. Even after knowing it and even testing yourself multiple times ingame for the sake of absolute reality. Not like the liquipedia admins go over it in months either, at least when i looked at my last edit xd, which is sad. I would guess players around A or better should edit articles, the rest the other stuff. Though in reality if you are around that level you dont have time nor much interest to edit the juicy stuff, you would probally write your own article and that would be that.
There's no such things as minus points, and if the reviews are taking too long you're more than welcome to join the Liquipedia discord server at https://discord.gg/liquipedia where you could ask for a review to happen.
I think there are a lot of paid tutorial videos which have replaced liquipedia for non-beginner players. Sharing those videos is of course not in good faith, however writing new generation builds like Terran's 1-1-1 or Zerg's 2.5 hatch build out on liquipedia would be a good start
Some sources for build orders: - English: SCWes' spreadsheet - English: The "Bag of Buids" discord - English/Korean: KhalaTV - Korean: Namu.wiki -- when Chrome translates this for me it's pretty legible. The builds tend to be a little old but still mostly newer than what's on Liquipedia.