|
On August 09 2011 07:05 barrykp wrote:
I would contribute, but the attitude here is generally that only contributions (to debate for example) from people with high ratings are valued. TL is an elitist place, and I guess I've bought into that - I wouldn't be confident in something I might add to a wiki, even though I've watched enough pro games and analysis to be able to pass that on, even if I don't necessarily live up to it myself ingame.
/shrug
Actually, you can go ahead and make your own pages, and simply sharpen them over time. I started making pages when I was still Diamond, more for general play styles than specific BOs, and it worked out pretty well. Essentially, this is the way I see it - if I create the page, then people can get a good idea of what the build is about, and know the general timings/relative timings, but not specific supply based timings. If I don't create the page, they would not learn anything at all.
It is better for them to learn a build without much detail/really high level analysis, than it is for them to not learn it all.
|
On August 09 2011 07:08 salle wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 06:33 Baseic wrote:On August 09 2011 06:31 Iranon wrote:On August 09 2011 06:24 Baseic wrote:
I am not contributing because I don't consider myself to be good enough. Ditto. Basically every [G] thread could/should be a Liquipedia page, but where Brood War is so down-to-a-science that you literally can write a strategy encyclopedia, the huge flaw with Liquipedia II is the current volatility of SC2. I would suggest that new Liquipedia entries include references to dates and patch numbers. I know in the few months after release, I had the Protoss Strategy page prominently in my shortcut bar, but now I barely ever check it because some of the builds are no longer viable (for whatever reason, e.g. patch changes, metagame shifts, etc.), and there's no way to tell which are which. For example, the PvZ 3 Gate Sentry Expand page makes no reference to the fact that it's basically dead at the highest level of play due to Losira-esque timing attacks, which is sort of a crucial bit of information if I'm looking for details on the build. This, the game is evolving really fast and builds are not regularly being checked for viability. I did start to make a template just for the purpose of reviewing a strategy per patch basis, I'll finish it up and it'll hopefully help a bit.
Good, this a a very important step in the right direction.
But seriously, the zerg section needs a sick cleanup, especially ZvZ builds.
Are builds checked by any official after posting?
|
While we're at it, I see that some people have been cleaning up already, slapping merge tags on MANY builds, this is exactly what LP needs, but no one seems to do anything with the merge tags, I don't know how to do it (Only admins can do it perhaps?). But just doing this would help alot already.
I see that there is a part for: Aggressive pool, Eco pool etc. Same for hatch first.
If these tagged pages are cleaned up the strat sec will look so much better already!
|
This really is a crowdsourcing project. There are fantastic review guidelines in place, so if you find anything that's wrong, on any page, feel free to fix it.
As to builds being critiqued or 'solved' or made out-of-date, it is better to have a page detailing a build and an explanation of the situations that invalidate it than no page at all.
There are also strategy portal pages that can be updated constantly, making sure that only the best builds are highlighted at any given time.
tldr: it's better to have a page for every build than not to.
|
Hungary11305 Posts
On August 09 2011 07:24 Wren wrote:
This really is a crowdsourcing project. There are fantastic review guidelines in place, so if you find anything that's wrong, on any page, feel free to fix it.
As to builds being critiqued or 'solved' or made out-of-date, it is better to have a page detailing a build and an explanation of the situations that invalidate it than no page at all.
There are also strategy portal pages that can be updated constantly, making sure that only the best builds are highlighted at any given time.
tldr: it's better to have a page for every build than not to.
Excellently put. Couldn't have said it better myself.
|
I honestly feel like I can't help write down a build because there aren't really any predefined builds to do. Disregarding the fact that any build eventually adapts and changes to specific ways. There are just so many ways that my speciality (zerg) plays out a game.
The amount of sentries a toss has changes everything. When he gets his gas. Scouting for pylons and what units he's making. To do a good complete thing would be such a pain. I feel like I don't do builds, I have an idea, and reactions to what they do. And then I am for my idea but I don't just plain go for it.
For example you can go muta ling, and aim for it. But if toss scouts you and 6 gates you, you can't just play that out without being behind. Or building ALOT of spine crawlers in which case you invest alot of money in static defense that is useless later game.
I'd love to contribute but honestly dont know how.
|
On August 09 2011 07:26 Pandain wrote:
I honestly feel like I can't help write down a build because there aren't really any predefined builds to do. Disregarding the fact that any build eventually adapts and changes to specific ways. There are just so many ways that my speciality (zerg) plays out a game.
The amount of sentries a toss has changes everything. When he gets his gas. Scouting for pylons and what units he's making. To do a good complete thing would be such a pain. I feel like I don't do builds, I have an idea, and reactions to what they do. And then I am for my idea but I don't just plain go for it.
For example you can go muta ling, and aim for it. But if toss scouts you and 6 gates you, you can't just play that out without being behind. Or building ALOT of spine crawlers in which case you invest alot of money in static defense that is useless later game.
I'd love to contribute but honestly dont know how.
Same story for me, playing zerg. But for toss you can have build orders, but they shoulnd't be too long. (Not as if anyone would follow a build precisely until 70 food or so).
|
I would love to contribute to LP but I dont like sharing my builds, maybe I will find a build that I cant resist sharing. :p Also I think playstyles need to be refined a bit more before we can get really good strong builds worthy of LP. ( most builds atm arent as safe as they could be )
|
I've always been a bit weary of putting down any exact information/builds due to limited game knowledge. I'm not exactly sure how the LP system works, is there any place detailing how everything goes down to avoid these fears? As it stands more me I'm more afraid of people taking my word for fact and basing opinions on that hence no real contributions
|
Will write new strat on PvZ section VERY SOON !!!
:DD
|
Sweden5554 Posts
On August 09 2011 07:16 Baseic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 07:08 salle wrote:On August 09 2011 06:33 Baseic wrote:On August 09 2011 06:31 Iranon wrote:On August 09 2011 06:24 Baseic wrote:
I am not contributing because I don't consider myself to be good enough. Ditto. Basically every [G] thread could/should be a Liquipedia page, but where Brood War is so down-to-a-science that you literally can write a strategy encyclopedia, the huge flaw with Liquipedia II is the current volatility of SC2. I would suggest that new Liquipedia entries include references to dates and patch numbers. I know in the few months after release, I had the Protoss Strategy page prominently in my shortcut bar, but now I barely ever check it because some of the builds are no longer viable (for whatever reason, e.g. patch changes, metagame shifts, etc.), and there's no way to tell which are which. For example, the PvZ 3 Gate Sentry Expand page makes no reference to the fact that it's basically dead at the highest level of play due to Losira-esque timing attacks, which is sort of a crucial bit of information if I'm looking for details on the build. This, the game is evolving really fast and builds are not regularly being checked for viability. I did start to make a template just for the purpose of reviewing a strategy per patch basis, I'll finish it up and it'll hopefully help a bit. Good, this a a very important step in the right direction. But seriously, the zerg section needs a sick cleanup, especially ZvZ builds. Are builds checked by any official after posting?
There we go, finished it up.
So if anyone wants to review already added strategies if they work for the current patch or if they definitely don't work for the current patch. Feel free to use the  Template:Patchreview you basically copy and paste this code {{Patchreview|1.3.6}} or {{Patchreview|1.3.6|outdated}} to the top of a strategy page depending on which applies.
About your question Baseic, well hmmm it depends. The staff and non staff editors try to review all pages, but there's a lack of knowledgeable reviewers for the strategy section currently, and we could probably use someone who mostly just reviews a specific race's articles. I usually ask for help from people I trust to know way more than I do to do any reviewing of the viability of a particular strategy.
|
It would be nice if there was a way for the community to upvote/downvote strategies. Rather than completely removing a page or the links to a page. For instance, featured prominently on the ZvP strategy page is "2 Hatch Hydra". That's not really a strategy that's viable any more because it was used primarily to deal with timings that are no longer possible by protoss, and hydras are a pretty risky investment now.
That's not to say that 2 hatch hydra is a "bad" strategy, or that the build is bad. Maybe if changes were made to protoss in the future, it would be viable again, or even due to metagame shift.
What would be nice would be if the 2 hatch hydra page could be kept, linked, and kept as polished as possible, but maybe it can remain downranked for as long as it's not viable in the current metagame. If the metagame shifts it could be boosted back up in popularity.
Right now though, the only option is to have individuals arbitrarily decide what strats are good and what strats are bad, and rearrange them or remove them. If you could have a more collaborative system where you maybe upvote or downvote strats then it doesn't land on one person's shoulders, and you don't have edit wars where one person thinks a strat is viable and another thinks it shouldn't be featured.
|
Just been reading some of the Terran stuff and understand now what you guys mean. There's a lot of just missing information even in the most basic of places. Just very simple outlines instead of the more indepth stuff you would expect.
|
On August 09 2011 08:10 zeidrichthorene wrote:
It would be nice if there was a way for the community to upvote/downvote strategies. Rather than completely removing a page or the links to a page. For instance, featured prominently on the ZvP strategy page is "2 Hatch Hydra". That's not really a strategy that's viable any more because it was used primarily to deal with timings that are no longer possible by protoss, and hydras are a pretty risky investment now.
That's not to say that 2 hatch hydra is a "bad" strategy, or that the build is bad. Maybe if changes were made to protoss in the future, it would be viable again, or even due to metagame shift.
What would be nice would be if the 2 hatch hydra page could be kept, linked, and kept as polished as possible, but maybe it can remain downranked for as long as it's not viable in the current metagame. If the metagame shifts it could be boosted back up in popularity.
Right now though, the only option is to have individuals arbitrarily decide what strats are good and what strats are bad, and rearrange them or remove them. If you could have a more collaborative system where you maybe upvote or downvote strats then it doesn't land on one person's shoulders, and you don't have edit wars where one person thinks a strat is viable and another thinks it shouldn't be featured.
Loving the sound of a voting system! That would really help fixing the strat section.
Vote wipes should be requestable aswell though.
|
Sweden5554 Posts
On August 09 2011 08:13 Baseic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 08:10 zeidrichthorene wrote:
It would be nice if there was a way for the community to upvote/downvote strategies. Rather than completely removing a page or the links to a page. For instance, featured prominently on the ZvP strategy page is "2 Hatch Hydra". That's not really a strategy that's viable any more because it was used primarily to deal with timings that are no longer possible by protoss, and hydras are a pretty risky investment now.
That's not to say that 2 hatch hydra is a "bad" strategy, or that the build is bad. Maybe if changes were made to protoss in the future, it would be viable again, or even due to metagame shift.
What would be nice would be if the 2 hatch hydra page could be kept, linked, and kept as polished as possible, but maybe it can remain downranked for as long as it's not viable in the current metagame. If the metagame shifts it could be boosted back up in popularity.
Right now though, the only option is to have individuals arbitrarily decide what strats are good and what strats are bad, and rearrange them or remove them. If you could have a more collaborative system where you maybe upvote or downvote strats then it doesn't land on one person's shoulders, and you don't have edit wars where one person thinks a strat is viable and another thinks it shouldn't be featured. Loving the sound of a voting system! That would really help fixing the strat section. Vote wipes should be requestable aswell though.
The way wikipedia deals with articles is by having votes in the discussion page, where you cast your vote by writing a comment and signing it saying you're for or against something. It could be used today. Perhaps a template stating that there's a vote going on, could be made to make people aware of the vote though.
|
it's tough because strategies are constantly going in and out but it's nothing like the bible that was liquipedia for bw.
|
I contributed the 10 gate tech build and I got a new PvT one cooking, stay tuned!
|
The main strategy pages seem kinda disorganized (with builds that overlaps and certain reactions named as "builds"), is there anything we can do to just help sort out the general organization rather than dealing with something extremely specific?
|
At least from the Zerg perspective, I think the whole thing should be more modular.
Openings:
15 hatch
14 gas 14 pool
11 overpool 18 hatch
7 pool
Etc
The openings section should have transitions out and variations.
Then have a mid-game section, which is mostly about relative timings for when to get gas, upgrades, a third,etc and unit composition.
Eg: roach-hydra-corruptor vP, Idra style muta-ling-bane vZ, etc.
Finally a late game section which is mostly about unit composition, engagement strategy, harrassment options, etc.
Eg: broodlord infestor vZ and vP, nydus sauron zerg with 90+ drones, ultra-crackling-bane vP, etc
Only the first category would have "build orders" per se but the mid and late game sections would be very valuable IMO
|
On August 09 2011 06:12 tofucake wrote:
gogogogogo edit harder
TY to all contributors.
The rest of you need to stop slacking off.
Hahaha, affirmative man I support you! We gotta get more action going guys, where is the nerdpassion!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
