Liquipedia is the brand new TeamLiquid Strategy Wiki. It currently contains over 300 pages of content ranging from the Gundam rush through to the use of Magic Boxes. More content is being added on a daily basis. As Liquipedia grows, so does it usefulness, and any player who is just starting out will find Liquipedia an invaluable resource. But even C- players should be able to get something out of Liquipedia - even if it is just learning the build order for their off race. In addition to the in game aspects of Starcraft, Liquipedia also has a list of common 3rd Party Applications (such as Chaos Launcher, ReXplorer and SCM Draft) so you will always be able to find just the right tool for the job.
What does Liquipedia look like?
Here is an example of what Liquipedia looks like - this is the build order for the Gundam Rush.
This is what the page for Tau Cross looks like
Who can edit Liquipedia?
Everybody will be allowed to edit Liquipedia. If you are caught abusing Liquipedia, your ability to edit pages will be removed.
How can Liquipedia give accurate strategy advice?
There is always a chance that information you read on a wiki is wrong, this is especially true when dealing with subjective content matter. For this reason we have installed a number of extensions which allow us greater control over which edits are accepted - hence reducing the chance what you're reading is wrong. However, there will be times where there is a mistake, and if you happen to notice it please correct it. Remember, the strength of a wiki depends on it's user base, and seeing as TL has one of the strongest communities around we are confident Liquipedia will soon flourish.
What is the future of Liquipedia?
Over the coming month, the Liquipedia team will be focusing its efforts on introducing a number of elements from the world of Progaming into Liquipedia. The planned expansion includes - Player bios - Information about current and past leagues - Team Histories (including name changes) - Battle Reports for matches (where available) Indeed Liquipedia will become an even more useful resource as more information is added. Once Liquipedia goes live, feel free to add content to any of the above areas in addition to Strategy.
I'm excited! When can we use Liquipedia?
Liquipedia will go online for you to access in approximately 36 hours
Liquipedia has been a project that has been worked on by Teamliquid for the past 20 months. It has taken longer than any other project to complete to date. There are a number of forum veterans who were absolutely essential to the completion of Liquipedia - these users will be rewarded with a Liquipedia Icon to replace their regular unit icon. They are: - Aesop - cgrinker - GHOSTCLAW - Mikeymoo
On behalf of the Teamliquid staff I would like to thank you for the countless hours you have put into Liquipedia over the past months. In addition to those four users, a number of other users have contributed and they are; - fusionsdf - Highways - Kwark - littlechava - -orb- - Ver - AttackZerg - Oystein
Thank you also for the huge amount of work you have put into the project. Liquipedia is a long overdue upgrade to TL's Strategy section and I'm sure you'll all make the most of it when it goes live.
God, I remember when this beast first started. I was not man enough to reel her in. Without Plexa, this project never would have moved forward towards completion. It looks 10x better than I ever imagined it could, and has 50x the content I thought it would. I remember telling Plexa not to bother because it would never be finished.
We've had a secret subform dedicated to this for months with very little staff involvement. The guys working on this have dealt with lots of MiR delays and have worked like true champions even through their frustration. They all deserve huge huge props for making this dream come alive!
Very nice I really have to congratulate everyone who worked on this. Especially since they're only giving props to 4 members in particular, then that means they especially did a lot of the work. Split that out over 20 months. Damn... Great job you four!
OH MY GOD! How long did it took you guys to make something AS OMFG HUGE AS THIS - over 300 pages? (This is not even Sparta, this is TEAMLIQUIIIDDDD! - yeah i know, 50 years old joke :\ )
On June 06 2009 02:24 Kaniol wrote: OH MY GOD! How long did it took you guys to make something AS OMFG HUGE AS THIS - over 300 pages? (This is not even Sparta, this is TEAMLIQUIIIDDDD! - yeah i know, 50 years old joke :\ )
These four men were the gods. You guys will never know how painstakingly hard they worked on this project and how they remained positive even when things got rough.
Back story, at one point this project was heading for the scrap pile, because it was just so huge and to do it right takes times. These 4 men were the foundation that made it work. Everything from content and formating ideas to contacting people for help.
/bows before the greatness!
Cheers!
OH MY GOD I FORGOT TO SAY , ALSO MAKE SURE YOU LOVE PLEXA FOREVER. He was the only MIR who really stuck with it, despite r/l.
Plexa is being way too modest in his op. He was one of the key guys who pushed the project forwards and kept it going. He deserves more thanks than most the people in his op for his unrelenting efforts, despite his insane TL and real life commitments.
I really want to have a starcraft progaming history lesson in Liquipedia. Especially the maps and team, and of course the players. I feel this is good idea.
On June 06 2009 02:52 JWD wrote: I can just see the talk pages now......thank god TL has proven moderation skills, otherwise they could get out of control....
Keeping Liquipedia devoted to strategy will limit controversy but may also be difficult to do.
On June 06 2009 02:52 JWD wrote: I can just see the talk pages now......thank god TL has proven moderation skills, otherwise they could get out of control....
Keeping Liquipedia devoted to strategy will limit controversy but may also be difficult to do.
there should be a minimum post count requirement. not big enough to restrict too many people, but enough to prevent random TL-hating trolls to screw up things
On June 06 2009 03:40 goldenkrnboi wrote: there should be a minimum post count requirement. not big enough to restrict too many people, but enough to prevent random TL-hating trolls to screw up things
I agree with this personally. Even though it could potentially prevent some good contributions, it will definitely limit trolling. Mods can make exceptions for some people with low post count too if they are trustworthy. Just a thought.
Good job TL. It's things like these that make me proud to be part of the community
Edit: Thanks a lot for giving me another method of wasting time
Also, from the OP this looks like the most awesome comprehensive Starcraft compendium thing ever. Massive massive props and thanks to the contributors.
Also, can we program Konadora to translate all of it to Korean?
He probably has the time
anyone who actually knows korean would probably be able to learn more from watching the vods and listening to the people who are paid to talk about the game.
On June 06 2009 03:40 goldenkrnboi wrote: there should be a minimum post count requirement. not big enough to restrict too many people, but enough to prevent random TL-hating trolls to screw up things
I agree with this personally. Even though it could potentially prevent some good contributions, it will definitely limit trolling. Mods can make exceptions for some people with low post count too if they are trustworthy. Just a thought.
Good job TL. It's things like these that make me proud to be part of the community
Edit: Thanks a lot for giving me another method of wasting time
well, we don't prevent low post count people from posting links, or from anything else on tl.net. On here, the punishment for a low post count user should be the same as a high post count user if the posts are equally bad.
If a low post count user is making bad edits, or something similar, the punishment should be equal to that of a high post count user. Same philosophy.
On June 06 2009 03:14 Pokernubz wrote: Sounds great, even though i've been following the scene since Giyom days, still love reading about the past in print with all the facts straight.
This should be fun. i'm excited
you're the kind of person who we want to get involved, so that we can have all of the history of starcraft written down (and editable). We're nowhere near that point yet. Right now it's just a strategy wiki, and will probably stay that way until we can get everything down.
On June 06 2009 02:08 micronesia wrote: Wow... I remember making like one tiny edit a year and half ago.... finally out lol.
haha, I remember spending like a week just fixing grammar and crap because I was too noob to help with anything else. Completely forgot about this, but I'm glad to see it's out, good job guys
Personally a pet project of mine are the metagame topics. I love those but as a Protoss only player I can't write more than a one sided approach to how to exploit the metagame. I'm very much looking forward to seeing how they evolve when people with different experience to mine start editting.
On June 06 2009 03:40 goldenkrnboi wrote: there should be a minimum post count requirement. not big enough to restrict too many people, but enough to prevent random TL-hating trolls to screw up things
I agree with this personally. Even though it could potentially prevent some good contributions, it will definitely limit trolling. Mods can make exceptions for some people with low post count too if they are trustworthy. Just a thought.
Good job TL. It's things like these that make me proud to be part of the community
Edit: Thanks a lot for giving me another method of wasting time
well, we don't prevent low post count people from posting links, or from anything else on tl.net. On here, the punishment for a low post count user should be the same as a high post count user if the posts are equally bad.
If a low post count user is making bad edits, or something similar, the punishment should be equal to that of a high post count user. Same philosophy.
It's like you guys can read my mind. For the longest time, I have found TL to be a fantastic website but the only section that was kind of disorganized and hard to use was the strategy section.
Damn this is fucking legit. I will visit TL even more now, thanks to everyone who has contributed!
It's been mentioned in the op, but I'd like to stress again that Liquipedia as a strategy resource is only the beginning. The hope is too make it much more than that.
With the previous post and all the guessing games going on, I was affraid the secretive deliverable would not live up to the hype. Boy, was I wrong! Amazing job!
On June 06 2009 04:48 KnightOfNi wrote: Is this going to eventually replace the TLPD?
no way. Name: TLPD - teamliquid progaming database
Name: Liquipedia - Teamliquid Wiki
database vs wiki. Want to find a specific game? go to tlpd. Want to look to see why the progamer used the strategy on that map? (hopefully) go to the wiki.
On June 06 2009 04:48 KnightOfNi wrote: Is this going to eventually replace the TLPD?
no way. Name: TLPD - teamliquid progaming database
Name: Liquipedia - Teamliquid Wiki
database vs wiki. Want to find a specific game? go to tlpd. Want to look to see why the progamer used the strategy on that map? (hopefully) go to the wiki.
There will be connections between these though. For example we can currently pull map informations like playercount, starting positions, tileset etc from TLPD. It is also planned to share map images, but I haven't found the time to do that.
On June 06 2009 04:48 KnightOfNi wrote: Is this going to eventually replace the TLPD?
no way. Name: TLPD - teamliquid progaming database
Name: Liquipedia - Teamliquid Wiki
database vs wiki. Want to find a specific game? go to tlpd. Want to look to see why the progamer used the strategy on that map? (hopefully) go to the wiki.
There will be connections between these though. For example we can currently pull map informations like playercount, starting positions, tileset etc from TLPD. It is also planned to share map images, but I haven't found the time to do that.
Yes, all the information that you see on the right of the tau cross page should be pulled from tlpd. It will make more sense once you actually start working with liquipedia.
Hah, you know, this thing could be a huge resource for the SC2 devs at Blizz - I doubt they have the deep knowledge of how strategies and maps have developed for SC that fans of the scene do, so it could provide them a lot of insight into balance and audience appeal.
On June 06 2009 04:05 Kwark wrote: Personally a pet project of mine are the metagame topics. I love those but as a Protoss only player I can't write more than a one sided approach to how to exploit the metagame. I'm very much looking forward to seeing how they evolve when people with different experience to mine start editting.
Do you understand what metagame means? If so, please expand this thought.
On June 06 2009 04:05 Kwark wrote: Personally a pet project of mine are the metagame topics. I love those but as a Protoss only player I can't write more than a one sided approach to how to exploit the metagame. I'm very much looking forward to seeing how they evolve when people with different experience to mine start editting.
Do you understand what metagame means? If so, please expand this thought.
Metagame's tough to express, especially since we're really trying to help players get from D/D- to C+/C/C-.
It would be nice to get some of those high level articles in, but quite frankly, if they're of high quality and written by one person, make it a TLFE (example: Day[9] and the T Revolutionist). http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=80595
In other words, none of the people working on liquipedia really felt like they were qualified to write anything more than an introductory piece on the matter of metagame. I doubt that you'll find anything that enlightening in our work.
On June 06 2009 06:54 prOxi.Beater wrote: My first article: 5 Pool, you'll never guess how!
Interestingly enough, you (and all the other zerg players) probably have the most interesting work to do, as we had the least number of zerg players working on this (zerg is too hard to play and explain ^^).
On June 06 2009 04:05 Kwark wrote: Personally a pet project of mine are the metagame topics. I love those but as a Protoss only player I can't write more than a one sided approach to how to exploit the metagame. I'm very much looking forward to seeing how they evolve when people with different experience to mine start editting.
Do you understand what metagame means? If so, please expand this thought.
For example, we might or might not have an article about the concept of "Threat". For Protoss players, this means stuff like "Shuttles loaded with Reavers" or "DTs roaming freely across the map", to give you some Threat to play with. Might look different for other Races.
Congrats on such an amazing feature. I never thought I could love TL anymore. But I just started loving it a bit more. OOOOOOH YEA!!! (No I did not climax - I should have but I didn't).
On June 06 2009 04:05 Kwark wrote: Personally a pet project of mine are the metagame topics. I love those but as a Protoss only player I can't write more than a one sided approach to how to exploit the metagame. I'm very much looking forward to seeing how they evolve when people with different experience to mine start editting.
Do you understand what metagame means? If so, please expand this thought.
A simple example would be mutalisk openings ZvT. I am aware that Zergs use mutalisks to influence the Terran's timing, when he pushes, when he expands etc all by moving them around to create threat and get in the Terran players head. But I'm not aware of how they know when to do what and why.
Whoa! This is truely awesome, I admit I've been a lurker on this fantastic forum for quite a while now, but I simply have to express my respect to the people who made this possible! You all deserve a SC2 beta key for this IMO
On June 06 2009 04:05 Kwark wrote: Personally a pet project of mine are the metagame topics. I love those but as a Protoss only player I can't write more than a one sided approach to how to exploit the metagame. I'm very much looking forward to seeing how they evolve when people with different experience to mine start editting.
Do you understand what metagame means? If so, please expand this thought.
A simple example would be mutalisk openings ZvT. I am aware that Zergs use mutalisks to influence the Terran's timing, when he pushes, when he expands etc all by moving them around to create threat and get in the Terran players head. But I'm not aware of how they know when to do what and why.
That's not what metagame means. I think that's just more of a history of the matchup. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you.
On June 06 2009 03:40 goldenkrnboi wrote: there should be a minimum post count requirement. not big enough to restrict too many people, but enough to prevent random TL-hating trolls to screw up things
I agree with this personally. Even though it could potentially prevent some good contributions, it will definitely limit trolling. Mods can make exceptions for some people with low post count too if they are trustworthy. Just a thought.
Good job TL. It's things like these that make me proud to be part of the community
Edit: Thanks a lot for giving me another method of wasting time
well, we don't prevent low post count people from posting links, or from anything else on tl.net. On here, the punishment for a low post count user should be the same as a high post count user if the posts are equally bad.
If a low post count user is making bad edits, or something similar, the punishment should be equal to that of a high post count user. Same philosophy.
well, yes the punishment should be just as bad as high post members if the post is bad. but that wasn't what i was getting at.
say in about a month or 2 after it becomes accessible, TL wiki is fully operational and there's been loads of nice contributions to the wiki, and everybody on TL's and people who lurk TL are happy. but say there's a group of people who've been influenced by this fool or for whatever reason really really hate TL. It would be as easy as simply registering a new ID on TL, and since it's accessible to everyone, after several minutes, several pages are replaced with "ROFLFUCKINGTLNOOBS. GET THE FECK OUT", and everyone's displeased and readers will have to wait until the proper content is back up (probably spending the time by seeing how fast the haters get banned)
Now, I'm assuming that the mods have already thought about this and implemented a system where they can just retrieve the old content easily and repost it, and it'd be over in a couple of minutes.But it'd still be nice if that situation can be avoided in the first place.
On June 06 2009 03:40 goldenkrnboi wrote: there should be a minimum post count requirement. not big enough to restrict too many people, but enough to prevent random TL-hating trolls to screw up things
I agree with this personally. Even though it could potentially prevent some good contributions, it will definitely limit trolling. Mods can make exceptions for some people with low post count too if they are trustworthy. Just a thought.
Good job TL. It's things like these that make me proud to be part of the community
Edit: Thanks a lot for giving me another method of wasting time
well, we don't prevent low post count people from posting links, or from anything else on tl.net. On here, the punishment for a low post count user should be the same as a high post count user if the posts are equally bad.
If a low post count user is making bad edits, or something similar, the punishment should be equal to that of a high post count user. Same philosophy.
well, yes the punishment should be just as bad as high post members if the post is bad. but that wasn't what i was getting at.
say in about a month or 2 after it becomes accessible, TL wiki is fully operational and there's been loads of nice contributions to the wiki, and everybody on TL's and people who lurk TL are happy. but say there's a group of people who've been influenced by this fool or for whatever reason really really hate TL. It would be as easy as simply registering a new ID on TL, and since it's accessible to everyone, after several minutes, several pages are replaced with "ROFLFUCKINGTLNOOBS. GET THE FECK OUT", and everyone's displeased and readers will have to wait until the proper content is back up (probably spending the time by seeing how fast the haters get banned)
Now, I'm assuming that the mods have already thought about this and implemented a system where they can just retrieve the old content easily and repost it, and it'd be over in a couple of minutes.But it'd still be nice if that situation can be avoided in the first place.
This happens on all wikis, the page will get reverted back to the last version when it's noticed, and the person gets banned. It's not as bad as it seems.
On June 06 2009 03:40 goldenkrnboi wrote: there should be a minimum post count requirement. not big enough to restrict too many people, but enough to prevent random TL-hating trolls to screw up things
I agree with this personally. Even though it could potentially prevent some good contributions, it will definitely limit trolling. Mods can make exceptions for some people with low post count too if they are trustworthy. Just a thought.
Good job TL. It's things like these that make me proud to be part of the community
Edit: Thanks a lot for giving me another method of wasting time
well, we don't prevent low post count people from posting links, or from anything else on tl.net. On here, the punishment for a low post count user should be the same as a high post count user if the posts are equally bad.
If a low post count user is making bad edits, or something similar, the punishment should be equal to that of a high post count user. Same philosophy.
well, yes the punishment should be just as bad as high post members if the post is bad. but that wasn't what i was getting at.
say in about a month or 2 after it becomes accessible, TL wiki is fully operational and there's been loads of nice contributions to the wiki, and everybody on TL's and people who lurk TL are happy. but say there's a group of people who've been influenced by this fool or for whatever reason really really hate TL. It would be as easy as simply registering a new ID on TL, and since it's accessible to everyone, after several minutes, several pages are replaced with "ROFLFUCKINGTLNOOBS. GET THE FECK OUT", and everyone's displeased and readers will have to wait until the proper content is back up (probably spending the time by seeing how fast the haters get banned)
Now, I'm assuming that the mods have already thought about this and implemented a system where they can just retrieve the old content easily and repost it, and it'd be over in a couple of minutes.But it'd still be nice if that situation can be avoided in the first place.
yes, there's a method in place to prevent that sort of stuff.
anyone can make revisions, but they have to be approved by the liquipedia staff first. this prevents unwanted tampering with articles. i would elaborate more, but there's a section within liquipedia itself that explains it in full.
On June 06 2009 04:05 Kwark wrote: Personally a pet project of mine are the metagame topics. I love those but as a Protoss only player I can't write more than a one sided approach to how to exploit the metagame. I'm very much looking forward to seeing how they evolve when people with different experience to mine start editting.
Do you understand what metagame means? If so, please expand this thought.
A simple example would be mutalisk openings ZvT. I am aware that Zergs use mutalisks to influence the Terran's timing, when he pushes, when he expands etc all by moving them around to create threat and get in the Terran players head. But I'm not aware of how they know when to do what and why.
That's not what metagame means. I think that's just more of a history of the matchup. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you.
My understanding of metagame is the part of the game played out in the heads of the players, rather than the tactics or strategy. Take July's 5 pool against BeSt in Game 1 of the OSL finals, establishing the psychological upper hand and throwing BeSt off balance. The 5 pool itself was an in-game strategy but the "I'm July and we're gonna play this my way and I'm going to win" mentality it created was a metagame strategy.
On June 06 2009 03:40 goldenkrnboi wrote: there should be a minimum post count requirement. not big enough to restrict too many people, but enough to prevent random TL-hating trolls to screw up things
I agree with this personally. Even though it could potentially prevent some good contributions, it will definitely limit trolling. Mods can make exceptions for some people with low post count too if they are trustworthy. Just a thought.
Good job TL. It's things like these that make me proud to be part of the community
Edit: Thanks a lot for giving me another method of wasting time
well, we don't prevent low post count people from posting links, or from anything else on tl.net. On here, the punishment for a low post count user should be the same as a high post count user if the posts are equally bad.
If a low post count user is making bad edits, or something similar, the punishment should be equal to that of a high post count user. Same philosophy.
well, yes the punishment should be just as bad as high post members if the post is bad. but that wasn't what i was getting at.
say in about a month or 2 after it becomes accessible, TL wiki is fully operational and there's been loads of nice contributions to the wiki, and everybody on TL's and people who lurk TL are happy. but say there's a group of people who've been influenced by this fool or for whatever reason really really hate TL. It would be as easy as simply registering a new ID on TL, and since it's accessible to everyone, after several minutes, several pages are replaced with "ROFLFUCKINGTLNOOBS. GET THE FECK OUT", and everyone's displeased and readers will have to wait until the proper content is back up (probably spending the time by seeing how fast the haters get banned)
Now, I'm assuming that the mods have already thought about this and implemented a system where they can just retrieve the old content easily and repost it, and it'd be over in a couple of minutes.But it'd still be nice if that situation can be avoided in the first place.
yes, there's a method in place to prevent that sort of stuff.
anyone can make revisions, but they have to be approved by the liquipedia staff first. this prevents unwanted tampering with articles. i would elaborate more, but there's a section within liquipedia itself that explains it in full.
Sorry for not having read 15 pages of brilliance while being drunk out of my mind in one of the best evenings I've ever had, but I just have to say this is so so so fucking amazing! I really love this, the people who make it happen (plexa? who the f are you, you are probably a petite genious) and the thoughts behind the project - this is a small revolution in a 12 (?) year old game just as the sequel is just coming, does it get any better? No. I love you, I love you, I love you all the way from Norway, through Brussles and through the desire and urge to play, the love of watching, hearing and reading. I love you all and it feels good
On June 06 2009 03:40 goldenkrnboi wrote: there should be a minimum post count requirement. not big enough to restrict too many people, but enough to prevent random TL-hating trolls to screw up things
I agree with this personally. Even though it could potentially prevent some good contributions, it will definitely limit trolling. Mods can make exceptions for some people with low post count too if they are trustworthy. Just a thought.
Good job TL. It's things like these that make me proud to be part of the community
Edit: Thanks a lot for giving me another method of wasting time
well, we don't prevent low post count people from posting links, or from anything else on tl.net. On here, the punishment for a low post count user should be the same as a high post count user if the posts are equally bad.
If a low post count user is making bad edits, or something similar, the punishment should be equal to that of a high post count user. Same philosophy.
well, yes the punishment should be just as bad as high post members if the post is bad. but that wasn't what i was getting at.
say in about a month or 2 after it becomes accessible, TL wiki is fully operational and there's been loads of nice contributions to the wiki, and everybody on TL's and people who lurk TL are happy. but say there's a group of people who've been influenced by this fool or for whatever reason really really hate TL. It would be as easy as simply registering a new ID on TL, and since it's accessible to everyone, after several minutes, several pages are replaced with "ROFLFUCKINGTLNOOBS. GET THE FECK OUT", and everyone's displeased and readers will have to wait until the proper content is back up (probably spending the time by seeing how fast the haters get banned)
Now, I'm assuming that the mods have already thought about this and implemented a system where they can just retrieve the old content easily and repost it, and it'd be over in a couple of minutes.But it'd still be nice if that situation can be avoided in the first place.
One of the extension we've installed does exactly this. A regular user will not have their edits show up immediately. Their edit must first be reviewed by a liquipedia staff member and approved (most of the time this will be the case, but it just prevent people from vandalizing liquipedia). For users who make lots of good contributions they will be promoted to "Trusted User" status, where their edits will be automatically approved. This should minimize inconveniences in the future for good contributors.
On June 06 2009 04:05 Kwark wrote: Personally a pet project of mine are the metagame topics. I love those but as a Protoss only player I can't write more than a one sided approach to how to exploit the metagame. I'm very much looking forward to seeing how they evolve when people with different experience to mine start editting.
Do you understand what metagame means? If so, please expand this thought.
A simple example would be mutalisk openings ZvT. I am aware that Zergs use mutalisks to influence the Terran's timing, when he pushes, when he expands etc all by moving them around to create threat and get in the Terran players head. But I'm not aware of how they know when to do what and why.
That's not what metagame means. I think that's just more of a history of the matchup. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you.
My understanding of metagame is the part of the game played out in the heads of the players, rather than the tactics or strategy. Take July's 5 pool against BeSt in Game 1 of the OSL finals, establishing the psychological upper hand and throwing BeSt off balance. The 5 pool itself was an in-game strategy but the "I'm July and we're gonna play this my way and I'm going to win" mentality it created was a metagame strategy.
Your understanding is wrong.
The meta-game is referring to the cutting edge practices in pro gaming that alter the choice of the game.
Example; terran is going 1factory/starport against zergs 12hat/11pool/10gas on destination.
The meta-game on that map dictates that zerg must scout the sides of the map and behind his natural with overlords to avoid all of the possible proxies, along with making sure that an scv isn't mining out the patch. Now terran must also prepare against the current zerg vs wallin/fastgas on destination, which involves a den before lair and anywhere from 2 to 8 hydralisks with or without rang, which can potentially bust open the wall and delay any factory/starport timing harasses. So terran must be prepared to scout throughly enough so that he can potentially revert to fast tank/siege -> expo but at the same time he must make sure he has an ebay AND an armory up fast enough to not die to the all so common muta switch, which results in a deadly muta/hydra combo.
This is meta-game because it is 'cutting edge' and is used at the highest level of play. Six months ago it didn't exist and in six months it will not longer exist.
I didn't even go into all of the meta-game for zvt factory vs 2hat/gas, just a very simple one, but that entire metagame dynamically changes constantly as new early-earlymidgame trends emerge and then disperse.
Another example is 8rax -> mech, that dynamically altered the metagame on all 2 player maps forever, since living threw the 8rax and keeping your expo doesn't mean that 1 vulture won't sneak by and ruin your economy un-alterably, the way this affects zergs metagame is that they no longer can say "ok I lived with drones and lings Ez no sunken" , now zerg must sunken regardless because of the threat, also zerg must now scout all corners of the map, while trying not to overextend too far and letting a vulture in.
These things weren't a part of the meta-game zvt 1 year ago at all.
On June 06 2009 04:05 Kwark wrote: Personally a pet project of mine are the metagame topics. I love those but as a Protoss only player I can't write more than a one sided approach to how to exploit the metagame. I'm very much looking forward to seeing how they evolve when people with different experience to mine start editting.
Do you understand what metagame means? If so, please expand this thought.
A simple example would be mutalisk openings ZvT. I am aware that Zergs use mutalisks to influence the Terran's timing, when he pushes, when he expands etc all by moving them around to create threat and get in the Terran players head. But I'm not aware of how they know when to do what and why.
That's not what metagame means. I think that's just more of a history of the matchup. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you.
My understanding of metagame is the part of the game played out in the heads of the players, rather than the tactics or strategy. Take July's 5 pool against BeSt in Game 1 of the OSL finals, establishing the psychological upper hand and throwing BeSt off balance. The 5 pool itself was an in-game strategy but the "I'm July and we're gonna play this my way and I'm going to win" mentality it created was a metagame strategy.
From how I understand it, if July believed that Best had a tendency to scout late, or he was abusing some other piece of knowledge about the map, or current state of protoss trends, he would be metagaming. What you are describing just seems like mind games.
Thinking about it now, I don't understand the term as well as I thought, so I could be entirely wrong about this.
I am really impressed with teamliquid, it's inspiring how powerful the sense of community and helpfulness is that people will work on something like this for 20 months. Good job to all the people who contributed and increased the power level of teamliquid! This will be so good for SC and the best for SC II. I think it will help the game develop and also help keep skill levels as high as possible. This means a lot more than most of us would think! Good job everyone, next, The Pentagon!
On June 06 2009 04:05 Kwark wrote: Personally a pet project of mine are the metagame topics. I love those but as a Protoss only player I can't write more than a one sided approach to how to exploit the metagame. I'm very much looking forward to seeing how they evolve when people with different experience to mine start editting.
Do you understand what metagame means? If so, please expand this thought.
A simple example would be mutalisk openings ZvT. I am aware that Zergs use mutalisks to influence the Terran's timing, when he pushes, when he expands etc all by moving them around to create threat and get in the Terran players head. But I'm not aware of how they know when to do what and why.
That's not what metagame means. I think that's just more of a history of the matchup. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you.
My understanding of metagame is the part of the game played out in the heads of the players, rather than the tactics or strategy. Take July's 5 pool against BeSt in Game 1 of the OSL finals, establishing the psychological upper hand and throwing BeSt off balance. The 5 pool itself was an in-game strategy but the "I'm July and we're gonna play this my way and I'm going to win" mentality it created was a metagame strategy.
From how I understand it, if July believed that Best had a tendency to scout late, or he was abusing some other piece of knowledge about the map, or current state of protoss trends, he would be metagaming. What you are describing just seems like mind games.
Thinking about it now, I don't understand the term as well as I thought, so I could be entirely wrong about this.
I missed your post.
You are 100% correct in everyway, my post went to great lengths to say what yo usaid simply.
On May 29 2009 20:04 MasterReY wrote: i would like to see a "team history" for every player. Just short line in which teams that player was and to which teams he got transfered.
like:
MBC Hero -> SKT1 -> STX Soul
(but also include old names like P&C, IS, POS and stuff)
now i read this in the op:
On June 06 2009 00:43 Plexa wrote: <center><font size='3'><b>What is the future of Liquipedia?</b></font></center> Over the coming month, the Liquipedia team will be focusing its efforts on introducing a number of elements from the world of Progaming into Liquipedia. The planned expansion includes - Player bios - Information about current and past leagues - Team Histories (including name changes) - Battle Reports for matches (where available) Indeed Liquipedia will become an even more useful resource as more information is added. Once Liquipedia goes live, feel free to add content to any of the above areas in addition to Strategy.
On June 06 2009 17:02 jtype wrote: The Metagame includes anything that takes place outside of the existing ruleset.
actually that has nothing to do with starcraft at all.
wrong.
That's where the confusion is I think. Metagame literally means beyondgame, in the same way that metaphysics means beyondphysics. That's what the word meta means which is why I mistakenly took it to mean using and exploiting factors outside of the strategic and tactical choices within the game to win. Whereas I now see I was mistaken and metagame has a quite different meaning. Is there any established term for what I meant?
On June 06 2009 17:02 jtype wrote: The Metagame includes anything that takes place outside of the existing ruleset.
actually that has nothing to do with starcraft at all.
wrong.
That's where the confusion is I think. Metagame literally means beyondgame, in the same way that metaphysics means beyondphysics. That's what the word meta means which is why I mistakenly took it to mean using and exploiting factors outside of the strategic and tactical choices within the game to win. Whereas I now see I was mistaken and metagame has a quite different meaning. Is there any established term for what I meant?
On June 06 2009 17:02 jtype wrote: The Metagame includes anything that takes place outside of the existing ruleset.
actually that has nothing to do with starcraft at all.
wrong.
Lol!! Don't 'wrong' me! That is exactly what the definition of 'metagaming' is. If you don't agree then you don't understand the word.
edit - Actually, I should expand on that. I don't mean that Metagaming is when people break the rules, as such, but rather when people go outside of the rules as prescribed by the creators of the game. The scope of this is very wide. It can include such things as trying to gain a psychological advantage with constant harassment, confusing your enemy with 'ninja' expansions, stacking units, etc.
On June 06 2009 17:02 jtype wrote: The Metagame includes anything that takes place outside of the existing ruleset.
actually that has nothing to do with starcraft at all.
wrong.
Lol!! Don't 'wrong' me! That is exactly what the definition of 'metagaming' is. If you don't agree then you don't understand the word.
edit - Actually, I should expand on that. I don't mean that Metagaming is when people break the rules, as such, but rather when people go outside of the rules as prescribed by the creators of the game. The scope of this is very wide. It can include such things as trying to gain a psychological advantage with constant harassment, confusing your enemy with 'ninja' expansions, stacking units, etc.
This is what I thought because of my literal interpretation of the word meta. However the general consensus is that the term means something else and until we get a gaming dictionary we should follow the consensus to try and avoid confusion.
On June 06 2009 17:02 jtype wrote: The Metagame includes anything that takes place outside of the existing ruleset.
actually that has nothing to do with starcraft at all.
wrong.
Lol!! Don't 'wrong' me! That is exactly what the definition of 'metagaming' is. If you don't agree then you don't understand the word.
edit - Actually, I should expand on that. I don't mean that Metagaming is when people break the rules, as such, but rather when people go outside of the rules as prescribed by the creators of the game. The scope of this is very wide. It can include such things as trying to gain a psychological advantage with constant harassment, confusing your enemy with 'ninja' expansions, stacking units, etc.
This is what I thought because of my literal interpretation of the word meta. However the general consensus is that the term means something else and until we get a gaming dictionary we should follow the consensus to try and avoid confusion.
Oh ok. Well, all the definitions that I've heard of the word are along similar lines to the one that I mentioned, but if there is a general consensus of accepting different one, then that's fair enough.
Although, it would be nice to hear a bit more of an explanation of the "correct" definition here on TL, instead of the rather insulting "wrong" that I was presented with.
Liquipedia has been a project that has been worked on by Teamliquid for the past 20 months. It has taken longer than any other project to complete to date. There are a number of forum veterans who were absolutely essential to the completion of Liquipedia - these users will be rewarded with a Liquipedia Icon to replace their regular unit icon. They are: - Aesop - cgrinker - GHOSTCLAW - Mikeymoo
On behalf of the Teamliquid staff I would like to thank you for the countless hours you have put into Liquipedia over the past months. In addition to those four users, a number of other users have contributed and they are; - fusionsdf - Highways - Kwark - littlechava - -orb- - Ver - AttackZerg - Oystein
You 12 are heroes, and deserve a parade. Annually.
On June 06 2009 17:02 jtype wrote: The Metagame includes anything that takes place outside of the existing ruleset.
actually that has nothing to do with starcraft at all.
wrong.
Lol!! Don't 'wrong' me! That is exactly what the definition of 'metagaming' is. If you don't agree then you don't understand the word.
edit - Actually, I should expand on that. I don't mean that Metagaming is when people break the rules, as such, but rather when people go outside of the rules as prescribed by the creators of the game. The scope of this is very wide. It can include such things as trying to gain a psychological advantage with constant harassment, confusing your enemy with 'ninja' expansions, stacking units, etc.
Actually I play starcraft, I have starcraft related conversations with people who actually use the terms correctly.
When applied to starcraft you are completely wrong. I did wrong you, you have no idea what your talking about. So lol at the forum rookie acting like he isn't ignorant. Sorry bro, when applied to starcraft the meaning has always been different, you could even say 'incorrectly' used but it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.
On June 06 2009 17:02 jtype wrote: The Metagame includes anything that takes place outside of the existing ruleset.
actually that has nothing to do with starcraft at all.
wrong.
Lol!! Don't 'wrong' me! That is exactly what the definition of 'metagaming' is. If you don't agree then you don't understand the word.
edit - Actually, I should expand on that. I don't mean that Metagaming is when people break the rules, as such, but rather when people go outside of the rules as prescribed by the creators of the game. The scope of this is very wide. It can include such things as trying to gain a psychological advantage with constant harassment, confusing your enemy with 'ninja' expansions, stacking units, etc.
This is what I thought because of my literal interpretation of the word meta. However the general consensus is that the term means something else and until we get a gaming dictionary we should follow the consensus to try and avoid confusion.
Oh ok. Well, all the definitions that I've heard of the word are along similar lines to the one that I mentioned, but if there is a general consensus of accepting different one, then that's fair enough.
Although, it would be nice to hear a bit more of an explanation of the "correct" definition here on TL, instead of the rather insulting "wrong" that I was presented with.
Also I went ahead and defined the meaning in length and then furthered it by quoting somebody who put it simplier then me.
The build order explanation just looks so amazing and concise. I can't wait to just lurk liquipedia all night long. Not sleeping till I glance over all 300 pages of win.
On June 07 2009 13:56 gamecrazy67 wrote: The build order explanation just looks so amazing and concise. I can't wait to just lurk liquipedia all night long. Not sleeping till I glance over all 300 pages of win.
it's 300 web pages of content, so probably not as much as you're thinking. That being said, I personally have made something like 800 edits so far, for something like 1k characters changed every time. Not sure how much work that translates out to though.
hey guys, want to let you know that we're aiming for after these proleague games or maybe after GOM. Don't f5! Go watch some starcraft! (Or get to sleep like me)
300 hundred pages? Really??? I thought it was gonna be something like 2 or three BO's for each race at the start. Holy shit. I am even more pumped for this, hope I can wake up to liquipedia tomorrow
On June 07 2009 14:02 mikeymoo wrote: hey guys, want to let you know that we're aiming for after these proleague games or maybe after GOM. Don't f5! Go watch some starcraft! (Or get to sleep like me)
On June 07 2009 12:51 AttackZerg wrote: Actually I play starcraft, I have starcraft related conversations with people who actually use the terms correctly.
When applied to starcraft you are completely wrong. I did wrong you, you have no idea what your talking about. So lol at the forum rookie acting like he isn't ignorant. Sorry bro, when applied to starcraft the meaning has always been different, you could even say 'incorrectly' used but it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.
Lol! Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that my post count makes you feel that your superior somehow, but you are, in fact, wrong. Just because you have a bunch of friends who might support the same invalid applications that you do, it doesn't mean that your ideas are right.
The definition of Metagaming is as I, and every other source that I've seen, confirmed. If you believe otherwise, then you are sadly mistaken.
Also, good job on backing up your arguments. You really made your point well.
jtype's take on it is what i primarily think of when i see the word. it seems perfectly reasonable - what is so offensive about it? please don't be so aggressive and condescending about these definitions, especially to new members.
edit: id8 wanna buy an icon off of me for many $$$$$s?
On June 07 2009 16:45 intrigue wrote: for me, jtype's version is what i primarily think of when i see the word. it seems perfectly reasonable - what is so offensive about it? guys, please don't be so aggressive and condescending about these definitions, especially to new members.
OK, I will back down now, as trying to argue the point will get me nowhere. I know it seems like I'm being stubborn about it, but honestly, if I could be given some reasonable explanations about this, I would certainly be willing to readjust my perspective on this.
I am really grateful for the work everyone's done on the Liquipedia project (including you AttackZerg) and am really looking forward to benefiting from the experience of all you guys. It's an amazing undertaking and one that will even further advance TL above all other SC communities.
On June 07 2009 18:08 GHOSTCLAW wrote: Interestingly enough, I think the concept of metagame deserves it's own strat forum thread. If anyone is willing to take the time to make a good op...
I would need idra,ret and artosis's help since they have an actual finger on the pulse of the meta-game while my level of play and understanding isn't high enough.
On June 07 2009 18:08 GHOSTCLAW wrote: Interestingly enough, I think the concept of metagame deserves it's own strat forum thread. If anyone is willing to take the time to make a good op...
I would need idra,ret and artosis's help since they have an actual finger on the pulse of the meta-game while my level of play and understanding isn't high enough.
Oh man. Our eventual conclusion was to divide metagame (a technical term for what you mean) with meta-game (a literal word meaning beyond or outside the game). You mean metagame :p. This is going to get confusing.
On June 07 2009 15:19 Danka wrote: hasnt it been 36 hours yet ??
Ya it has. We have a few last minute coding things to tie up and then we're good to go!
TL.net and delays = tradition. Same as Blizzard and soon
Most people prolly already got used to it that's why we see no 5000 posts "omg you are late" (only few such posts :p) or anything. Too bad that there was no counter, which would like stop at 5 seconds, that would be soooo classic :D
As much as I'm sure you're all waiting for this the technical delays are making liquipedia significantly better imo. Yesterday we all rallied for a last burst of content completion before we made it public. It's still not public and that burst is still going on. The threat of it opening is getting stuff done.
Sad confession: Was browsing TL and all of a sudden it wouldn't load the next page of whatever I was reading, first thing I though was OMFG LIQUIPEDIA! Turns out my browser just crashed. (((((((
The word metagame has two uses so you're both right. What jtype is saying is correct - decisions based on information from outside of the rules structure of the game is called metagaming. The Starcraft community (and other gaming communities) often refer to this as "mindgames".
However metagame as a noun certainly has another very widely used meaning - it describes the state of the commonly employed strategies of the players of the game as a whole. For example the current TvZ pro metagame involves a lot of wraith builds, mech builds, and valkyrie-bionic builds. That is what AttackZerg is referring to, and I think that is the more common use of the word when it is applied to StarCraft.
If you guys had read the wikipedia article for the word you'd see it mentions both.
Another game-related use of Metagaming refers to operating on knowledge of the way a game is played within a particular geographic region or tournament circuit. This local or circuit-specific context is often referred to as the metagame.
Just replace "particular geographic region or tournament circuit" with "the current pro scene".
On June 07 2009 23:01 Gustav_Wind wrote: @ jtype and attackzerg
The word metagame has two uses so you're both right. What jtype is saying is correct - decisions based on information from outside of the rules structure of the game is called metagaming. The Starcraft community (and other gaming communities) often refer to this as "mindgames".
However metagame as a noun certainly has another very widely used meaning - it describes the state of the commonly employed strategies of the players of the game as a whole. For example the current TvZ pro metagame involves a lot of wraith builds, mech builds, and valkyrie-bionic builds. That is what AttackZerg is referring to, and I think that is the more common use of the word when it is applied to StarCraft.
If you guys had read the wikipedia article for the word you'd see it mentions both.
Another game-related use of Metagaming refers to operating on knowledge of the way a game is played within a particular geographic region or tournament circuit. This local or circuit-specific context is often referred to as the metagame.
Just replace "particular geographic region or tournament circuit" with "the current pro scene".
actually, I think both definitions are the same, just worded differently. The "current state of the metagame" is just that. People are using what they know from outside the game (what strategies people are using, build orders, etc.) instead of just the given "rules" (build marines from barracks.)
Players don't use corsairs PvT not because the game rules don't allow it, but because what you know about the game says that it's dumb.
On June 07 2009 23:01 Gustav_Wind wrote: @ jtype and attackzerg
The word metagame has two uses so you're both right. What jtype is saying is correct - decisions based on information from outside of the rules structure of the game is called metagaming. The Starcraft community (and other gaming communities) often refer to this as "mindgames".
However metagame as a noun certainly has another very widely used meaning - it describes the state of the commonly employed strategies of the players of the game as a whole. For example the current TvZ pro metagame involves a lot of wraith builds, mech builds, and valkyrie-bionic builds. That is what AttackZerg is referring to, and I think that is the more common use of the word when it is applied to StarCraft.
If you guys had read the wikipedia article for the word you'd see it mentions both.
Another game-related use of Metagaming refers to operating on knowledge of the way a game is played within a particular geographic region or tournament circuit. This local or circuit-specific context is often referred to as the metagame.
Just replace "particular geographic region or tournament circuit" with "the current pro scene".
actually, I think both definitions are the same, just worded differently. The "current state of the metagame" is just that. People are using what they know from outside the game (what strategies people are using, build orders, etc.) instead of just the given "rules" (build marines from barracks.)
Players don't use corsairs PvT not because the game rules don't allow it, but because what you know about the game says that it's dumb.
No, there are two separate concepts of metagame. We're wording them metagame and meta-game. Just wait til you can read the artice on liquipedia. :p
On June 06 2009 02:11 Kennigit wrote: We've had a secret subform dedicated to this for months with very little staff involvement. The guys working on this have dealt with lots of MiR delays and have worked like true champions even through their frustration. They all deserve huge huge props for making this dream come alive!
Lol Plexa I just read this and got giddy with laughter in my chair. Thanks for everything!
On June 07 2009 23:01 Gustav_Wind wrote: @ jtype and attackzerg
The word metagame has two uses so you're both right. What jtype is saying is correct - decisions based on information from outside of the rules structure of the game is called metagaming. The Starcraft community (and other gaming communities) often refer to this as "mindgames".
However metagame as a noun certainly has another very widely used meaning - it describes the state of the commonly employed strategies of the players of the game as a whole. For example the current TvZ pro metagame involves a lot of wraith builds, mech builds, and valkyrie-bionic builds. That is what AttackZerg is referring to, and I think that is the more common use of the word when it is applied to StarCraft.
If you guys had read the wikipedia article for the word you'd see it mentions both.
Another game-related use of Metagaming refers to operating on knowledge of the way a game is played within a particular geographic region or tournament circuit. This local or circuit-specific context is often referred to as the metagame.
Just replace "particular geographic region or tournament circuit" with "the current pro scene".
actually, I think both definitions are the same, just worded differently. The "current state of the metagame" is just that. People are using what they know from outside the game (what strategies people are using, build orders, etc.) instead of just the given "rules" (build marines from barracks.)
Players don't use corsairs PvT not because the game rules don't allow it, but because what you know about the game says that it's dumb.
No, there are two separate concepts of metagame. We're wording them metagame and meta-game. Just wait til you can read the artice on liquipedia. :p
this sure beats google and looking at the reccommended threads (cuz they dont have everything I am looking for).
its better at school too cuz they dont block wikipedia in it
EDIT: I just googled liquipedia. I found it but its asking for a password and stuff EDIT: OMG THATS NOT SC LIQUIPEDIA THATS SOMETHING ELSE LOL..... i still cant wait. its like TLPD and Strat section doing a DBZ style fusion... except its not gonna fail!
On June 08 2009 05:30 Sonu wrote: oh lord...can u get better than this?
this sure beats google and looking at the reccommended threads (cuz they dont have everything I am looking for).
its better at school too cuz they dont block wikipedia in it
EDIT: I just googled liquipedia. I found it but its asking for a password and stuff EDIT: OMG THATS NOT SC LIQUIPEDIA THATS SOMETHING ELSE LOL..... i still cant wait. its like TLPD and Strat section doing a DBZ style fusion... except its not gonna fail!
shouldn't this be up by now? I believe that more than 36hrs passed? xD I cant wait! This is the biggest thing ever! Thanks to all the hard working staff that made it possible
Chill guys it's not like we're sitting around eating chocolate laughing at your demise! We may be waiting on Sonuvbob, but we're still working on polishing/adding/fixing pages in the meantime anyways.
On June 08 2009 09:55 -orb- wrote: Chill guys it's not like we're sitting around eating chocolate laughing at your demise! We may be waiting on Sonuvbob, but we're still working on polishing/adding/fixing pages in the meantime anyways.
Oh ok cool.. I guess I'll just be patient. Gosu stuff like that take a while
EPT
![[image loading]](/staff/Plexa/Liquipedia/samplepage.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/Plexa/Liquipedia/taupreview.jpg)
I really have to congratulate everyone who worked on this. Especially since they're only giving props to 4 members in particular, then that means they especially did a lot of the work. Split that out over 20 months. Damn... Great job you four!![[image loading]](http://209.85.62.26/html/emoticons/wub.gif)
TL
![[image loading]](http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/8263/lotr11.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://ringtrilogy.tripod.com/lotr/lotr-11.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/8263/lotr11.jpg)
