|
Sweden5554 Posts
So two years ago cgrinker wrote a post in the Brood War Strategy forum, called "Why haven't you edited Liquipedia yet?". It was a challenge to the community to help out with the Liquipedia strategy section and make it great. And they succeeded. It was, and still is, the best part of the wiki.
So when StarCraft 2 and Liquipedia 2 started, one might have drawn the conclusion that the strategy section of LP2 would be as great as its predecessor's. But sadly, that's not the case... yet. Due to strategies evolving so fast in the new game because of balancing patches, a lot of strategy articles were outdated before they were even completed. So there were fewer and fewer contributions to the strategy section.
This doesn't mean it's terrible or that no one uses it. In fact in the last 30 days, the three races' main strategy pages have had between 200k and 230k page views each. If you Google "Protoss/Terran/Zerg Strategies," these pages are typically the number one result. So there are a lot of people looking up strategies on LP2 but the amount of contributions to the strategy section as a whole isn't in line with say how many hits the GSL pages gets and how many people help out and contribute to better them. In fact, there are people who found TeamLiquid.net through LP and it's strategy pages.
So there are a lot of builds and strategies being written and shown off in this sub-forum. Both original strategies or ones that we've seen pros do, they're discussed and talked about, sometimes changed and improved upon.
So my challenge to you is to start writing your strategy OPs as LP2 pages. It's actually not that much harder than a forum post. And just link to it in the OP, you can even click on the history tab and get a link to a particular edit version of the page, if you want to make sure people get to see the original. And, if you want to, you can get even more involved, making the strategy section, as a whole, great.
If you want help, hints, tips etc, head on over to our irc channel, there's usually someone there who can answer your questions or point you in the right direction, if you give it a bit of time. Alternatively you can send a PM to any of the LP staff or write on their discussion page.
Thanks,
--salle
Useful Liquipedia Links:
Liquipedia Feedback Thread
PM a Liquipedia Staff Member: Aesop, Pholon, Imperator, Noam, Steeeve, TheFallofTroy, salle, tofucake
|
Hyrule19054 Posts
gogogogogo edit harder
TY to all contributors.
The rest of you need to stop slacking off.
|
I used to use LP to find new openings, later I found out that playing zerg only needs very simple builds (Hatch first or pool first). There are about 10 build orders like +1 roach expand, and I think that such builds really litter the strategy section. Such builds don't really work anymore, or have never worked.
I am not contributing because I don't consider myself to be good enough.
I would love the level of the strat section go up, but it will need some serious rules on posting strats and BO's.
|
Another thing I'd like to see is more replays and VOD's linked in the each strategy article. For me, I find those essential in conjunction with the rest of the article, and very useful when practicing the builds myself. I wouldn't suppose myself to be skilled enough to determine how "correct" a particular build is being executed, but what has traditionally been the guidelines when adding replays or vods?
|
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.
|
On August 09 2011 06:31 Iranon wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Hyrule19054 Posts
You guys don't need to be superspecialextragrandmegamasters league to contribute. You can look at the strategy forum and pick out a good build that's not in the wiki and then just go add it (examples of such builds would be iEchoic's Banshee/Hellion/Viking thingamajiggy and for a while Griffith's 4OC).
|
On August 09 2011 06:37 tofucake wrote:
You guys don't need to be superspecialextragrandmegamasters league to contribute. You can look at the strategy forum and pick out a good build that's not in the wiki and then just go add it (examples of such builds would be iEchoic's Banshee/Hellion/Viking thingamajiggy and for a while Griffith's 4OC).
2nd reason then: I play very standard macro zerg, only use a real BO at max once a week, and that one being a simple baneling bust after a failed 2rax.
(Really talking myself out of this) 
Edit: How do you feel about my comment about better moderation of aging builds?
|
So are you saying we are now past the "period" where we need to "confirm" each strategy with 2 (or 3 or something...) top level replays in significant tournaments?
For example, what if I were to post a guide, though I can't find pros doing it? Would it be distinguished from other strategies on LP2 so that readers know it might not be as solid, or is it up to the LP2 mod/admins (or however it works) to decide if a strategy is "viable" or "correct" enough or well explained enough to leave in?
Another example. For the "Sky Terran" section, I feel it is leaving out details or some of its advice/information is wrong/outdated/inaccurate, since I've had a decent amount of experience with Sky Terran now. So if I feel it is wrong or should be changed, then can I do so without worrying? And if me or someone changes something that a liquipedian doesn't like, it will just be changed back? Or will the people who maintain liquipedia check to make sure they agree?
|
On August 09 2011 06:43 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
So are you saying we are now past the "period" where we need to "confirm" each strategy with 2 (or 3 or something...) top level replays in significant tournaments?
For example, what if I were to post a guide, though I can't find pros doing it? Would it be distinguished from other strategies on LP2 so that readers know it might not be as solid, or is it up to the LP2 mod/admins (or however it works) to decide if a strategy is "viable" or "correct" enough or well explained enough to leave in?
If you can't find pro's doing it, it will probably not be a solid build.
And I think there should be a mod squad or whatever it is on LP to check builds regularly if they are still viable, or to update them if stuff has changed in the universe of starcraft.
For example, I've been hearing that 7-pool is always better than a 6-pool for the last few months (I don't know why though) but there is still a build of 6-pool on the zerg page (and the build is wrong, just saw that right now as I'm looking around there).
But this is just necessary with such a new game (For example I'm pretty sure some builds are no longer viable with the terran metagame shift towards BFH).
Another example. For the "Sky Terran" section, I feel it is leaving out details or some of its advice/information is wrong/outdated/inaccurate, since I've had a decent amount of experience with Sky Terran now. So if I feel it is wrong or should be changed, then can I do so without worrying? And if me or someone changes something that a liquipedian doesn't like, it will just be changed back? Or will the people who maintain liquipedia check to make sure they agree?
You can freely change it, if the strategy section becomes active it will automatically be fixed anytime something is wrong, but I feel that if you're <Master that you must triple check if your opinion is correct.
|
There are a lot of builds that may work at masters or even high masters, but not the pro level if they are prepared, but that is what I'm wondering.
So my challenge to you is to start writing your strategy OPs as LP2 pages. It's actually not that much harder than a forum post. And just link to it in the OP, you can even click on the history tab and get a link to a particular edit version of the page, if you want to make sure people get to see the original. And, if you want to, you can get even more involved, making the strategy section, as a whole, great.
Most of the strategies I see posted are peoples' own builds they have found success at at various leagues and some of them only work in very specific situations. Are these the kinds of strategies still welcome to be put into LP2? Maybe they will just be put under stub builds unless they get pro replays? Perhaps each strategy submitted should note at what league level the build is made for or made at, unless if it is a pro strategy that has been seen before. This would let LP2 be huge, while still not being messy as long as the "pro strategies" can be found.
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
I will do my best to step up my contributions to liquipedia's strategy section. Maybe i'll get started working on some of those stubs...
|
On August 09 2011 06:56 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:There are a lot of builds that may work at masters or even high masters, but not the pro level if they are prepared, but that is what I'm wondering. Show nested quote +So my challenge to you is to start writing your strategy OPs as LP2 pages. It's actually not that much harder than a forum post. And just link to it in the OP, you can even click on the history tab and get a link to a particular edit version of the page, if you want to make sure people get to see the original. And, if you want to, you can get even more involved, making the strategy section, as a whole, great. Most of the strategies I see posted are peoples' own builds they have found success at at various leagues and some of them only work in very specific situations. Are these the kinds of strategies still welcome to be put into LP2? Maybe they will just be put under stub builds unless they get pro replays? Perhaps each strategy submitted should note at what league level the build is made for or made at, unless if it is a pro strategy that has been seen before. This would let LP2 be huge, while still not being messy as long as the "pro strategies" can be found.
My opinion is that any build not proven to work at any level should not be on LP.
|
Hungary11291 Posts
Of course not every build around here would be viable for LP. But you could, e.g. write up the build on your user page on Liquipedia and we can transfer it if the discussion proves it to be viable. Right now, however, we have rather too little up-to-date builds than too many.
edit: If you want to suggest improvements in our structure or incentives, suggestions are welcome too 
|
On August 09 2011 06:59 Aesop wrote:Of course not every build around here would be viable for LP. But you could, e.g. write up the build on your user page on Liquipedia and we can transfer it if the discussion proves it to be viable. Right now, however, we have rather too little up-to-date builds than too many. edit: If you want to suggest improvements in our structure or incentives, suggestions are welcome too
My most important suggestion at this moment is to recheck all builds for viability, and to just remove any build not in serious use, gotta be extra strict on this one.
Maybe make a meta section, with builds that fit really well into the current meta.
|
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
|
Sweden5554 Posts
On August 09 2011 06:33 Baseic wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
I did create quite a few pages for Terran when I was playing it, but as Zerg there's not really many specific BOs that you can create(they are mostly based off of relative timings). We can cover most of the aggressive/timing attacks but besides that... it's pretty much impossible to create a zerg BO.
|
I don't edit it at all because I don't want to write something wrong. the forums are a much less concrete reliable resource than Liquipedia, so I don't mind posting in the forums and risking being wrong, but I'm not fucking with liquipedia :S
|
|
|
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.
|
Hungary11291 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!!
|
I guess I can add my/tester's Voidray/Mothership PvZ to the wiki
|
Because I'm LAZY. I have no excuse. I'll start contributing more to Liquipedia. If I don't have a little bronze coin thingy by the end of August I will ask for a temp ban.
|
On August 09 2011 13:05 Probe1 wrote:
Because I'm LAZY. I have no excuse. I'll start contributing more to Liquipedia. If I don't have a little bronze coin thingy by the end of August I will ask for a temp ban.
I'm holding you to this for sure, even though I can't enforce it 
|
How do I translate a page? I'd like to contribute, but I'm a bad player and I don,t think I can add anything to strategy, so if I could translate a few pages I would feel more accomplished.
|
Just create a new page with the translated header(6 pool -> 6 fosso), and translate section by section.
|
Israel2209 Posts
On August 09 2011 14:09 JeanBob wrote:
How do I translate a page? I'd like to contribute, but I'm a bad player and I don,t think I can add anything to strategy, so if I could translate a few pages I would feel more accomplished.
We've compiled a list of instructions and guidelines: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Liquipedia:Translations
|
Tell you why i'm not contributing, and why i think many others arent- i suck. Im plat zerg and i think the strats i put are dumb and bad and someone else can write 10x better ones. so i refrain from doing so. Please reply if you feel the same
|
Sweden5554 Posts
On August 09 2011 09:46 Kalingingsong wrote:
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?
Part of this would be helped by normal users going 'round and putting up Template:Merge on the pages that overlap too heavy. Or be a person who merges two pages into one. (no you don't have to be an admin to do this by the way, just choose one name over the other, or a third new one, copy over all the information from both you wish to keep and make the empty/remaining ones just be redirect pages to the merged page.
Another thing would be to rework the way that the race strategy portal pages displays the different strategy pages. Pholon is working on something for them currently and can use help and feedback, User:Pholon/Terran Strategy.
For the reactions named as builds you can go into the discussion page and request that they should be moved to a name that much more fits the article.
Also helping out with reviewing pages and writing which pages you think should be removed from the race strategy portal page on it's discussion page.
Ask for new templates or changes to current one to increase the general organization.
There's a lot of things you can do to help out with the general organization, but these were the only ones I could think of right now.
|
Well actually im kinda new in TL but i have been playing since Bw, and beta sc2. At the start i used to check the LP2 toss section but then I realized something.
As a community we wanna make SC2 dinamics explainable and clear just like it was in BW (LP1), but actually SC2 have a lot of things that do not work like BW. So if we insist about trying to explain SC2 like you used to explain BW i think we might be getting a problem.
It has the : "what's my opponent's gonna get" thing and the psicological factor so much highlighted that im starting to think that there are no "recipebook" builds like they where in BW.
Please correct me if im wrong but i think the reason of the lack of Strat Posting in LP its due to game dynamics change and the way wer trying to post these "builds". We still dont get the full story, even developers are 100% aware of them.
|
Hyrule19054 Posts
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
Eh? Look at salle. Something like 350 of his posts are in the LP staff board. TL is elitist in some regards, but nobody has ever turned away help or contributions because of a low post count.
|
Hyrule19054 Posts
Ok, so after having read through all the replies now I've seen a common mindset which, fortunately for LP, is wrong (though this being in the strategy forum is a bit misleading). You don't have to be good to contribute. There are lots of ways!
Ways to contribute and be superawesomesexy:
1. Fix typos, grammar, layout, design, etc
2. Design new layouts and pages (the GSL statistics and Player Progress pages were both made by random people!)
3. Create and/or update pages for fanclubs, shows, tournaments, players, maps and other things. We really appreciate it.
4. Add/edit strategies
5. Create/edit templates
6. Translate the crap out of something
And there's more that can be done too.
Don't be fooled. Adding strategies is only one way to contribute.
|
Ok I will start buffing the hell out of the Terran section. Too depressed to do Aiur though, may my protoss past rest in peace (until a buff ^^).
edit - Buffing Blue Flame Hellion Drop Timing first since I have played the hell out of this build recently.
|
Zurich15328 Posts
To everyone wondering how they can contribute even though they are not star players: Transport over the existing stuff!
There are so many guides in the forum that really should be on Liquipedia. You really can just straightforward copy them into a new Liquipedia article. Similarly, watch existing guides on LP and update them should there be changed in the corresponding guide thread in the forums.
Just do a Strat forum search for "[G]" and take it from there. Not everything needs to be in LP, but I am sure you will find plenty that should be there!
|
On August 09 2011 13:52 MonsieurGrimm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 13:05 Probe1 wrote:
Because I'm LAZY. I have no excuse. I'll start contributing more to Liquipedia. If I don't have a little bronze coin thingy by the end of August I will ask for a temp ban. I'm holding you to this for sure, even though I can't enforce it
Don't worry it was reposted and there's no fuck way I can get out of it. I'm already scrambling to learn how to contribute and I have a whole month to work.
|
On August 09 2011 21:59 EtherealDeath wrote:
Ok I will start buffing the hell out of the Terran section. Too depressed to do Aiur though, may my protoss past rest in peace (until a buff ^^).
edit - Buffing Blue Flame Hellion Drop Timing first since I have played the hell out of this build recently.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
|
On August 09 2011 23:16 tehemperorer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 21:59 EtherealDeath wrote:
Ok I will start buffing the hell out of the Terran section. Too depressed to do Aiur though, may my protoss past rest in peace (until a buff ^^).
edit - Buffing Blue Flame Hellion Drop Timing first since I have played the hell out of this build recently. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Wut? Already did initial buffing, now to buff the mid game standard followups.
|
I think many people are kinda off with writing in the LP for Starcraft 2 because WoL is patched so often and many things is getting outdated quite quickly. And on top of that we have 2 more expansions to go so even more things will be out of date. But at the same time, it would be a big shame to just sit around and wait for the final expansion (like 2012 or 2013?) and make the LP2 awesome for the "final game" and update small things if they are getting patched.
|
Well, for those of you who would like to contribute, I have a few ways. Firstly, you can look at the builds that aren't accepted as good and clean them up in terms of writing(make it clearer) and help to iron out the timings, etc. For example, my +1 Mech For Protoss Build IS an effective build up until the low Master's level. For those of you who play T and are above low Master's, you can help by playing through this build and helping to clean up the timings/tighten the build up. For those of you who are below Master's you can help by improving the actual guide on the build - I am not very good at writing, so it's hard for me to get the point across cleanly. So you can make sure that the people who read the build will be able to understand the point it makes.
EDIT: And yes, this is selfish. I do need someone to help me with the build quite a bit.
|
On August 09 2011 06:12 tofucake wrote:
gogogogogo edit harder
TY to all contributors.
The rest of you need to stop slacking off.
TT;;; I tend to steal strategies from Liquipedia, so I never have anything to contribute that isn't already in there. Sorry! I'll add something cool if I ever get the chance to actually come up with something good on my own.
|
perhaps strategy pages should be listed from newest or newest edited to oldest
that way players would know whether a strategy is up to date or if it might be outdated and useless
edit:
Wait so I can write a strategy, and then it is a draft. Then it must be reviewed by people (who?) and if there's enough positiveness then it will show up as a strategy? or a stub strategy?
I looked at the +1 Mech vs Protoss page and saw that it was not in the list of terran strategies. So how would you get to these draft strategies?
just asking cus i think i will write a guide for air terran vs P soon xD
|
On August 09 2011 16:47 firehand101 wrote:
Tell you why i'm not contributing, and why i think many others arent- i suck. Im plat zerg and i think the strats i put are dumb and bad and someone else can write 10x better ones. so i refrain from doing so. Please reply if you feel the same
I feel the same.
I think that most other players are too lazy. Its way easier to just post here than to set up a liquipedia page, which has to follow certain rules.
|
Sweden5554 Posts
On August 11 2011 06:59 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
perhaps strategy pages should be listed from newest or newest edited to oldest
that way players would know whether a strategy is up to date or if it might be outdated and useless
edit:
Wait so I can write a strategy, and then it is a draft. Then it must be reviewed by people (who?) and if there's enough positiveness then it will show up as a strategy? or a stub strategy?
I looked at the +1 Mech vs Protoss page and saw that it was not in the list of terran strategies. So how would you get to these draft strategies?
just asking cus i think i will write a guide for air terran vs P soon xD
A draft is a page that has not yet been reviewed, it'll have a small sign showing that it is yet to be reviewed, any edits anyone makes to it will directly be shown.
When a page is being reviewed the reviewer might think you've done a acceptable job and will just click reviewed as acceptable and it'll pass, if it's not then it'll be given a stub or need copy edit or some other form of box thing at the top, perhaps a note in the editing notes (can see these when you view the history of a page) or if something longer is needed on the discussion/talk page for the article to outline what's wrong with the page in it's current iteration.
Once a page has been reviewed there's two versions of it, a reviewed version and a draft version. You can keep making changes to the draft version as much as you like, but for these to be displayed in the reviewed version, someone must review the changes you've made.
It's not certain that even if a page is reviewed it'll be added to the race's strategy overview page. You might have to do that yourself.
Anyhow you can make a page at any time, if you want to work on it for a bit before you "publish", you might want to do it within your userspace (ie User:Yoshi Kirishima/+1 Mech (vs Protoss)). You don't have to you can make it directly as well. Copy the basic code from the StrategyTemplate and paste it into the new page, and fill out the different sections (remove or add sections as you see fit by looking at other strategy pages, but try and keep the basic structure that is in place as that makes the strategy easier for people familiar with other strategy pages to interpret yours.)
|
On August 11 2011 08:25 salle wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2011 06:59 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
perhaps strategy pages should be listed from newest or newest edited to oldest
that way players would know whether a strategy is up to date or if it might be outdated and useless
edit:
Wait so I can write a strategy, and then it is a draft. Then it must be reviewed by people (who?) and if there's enough positiveness then it will show up as a strategy? or a stub strategy?
I looked at the +1 Mech vs Protoss page and saw that it was not in the list of terran strategies. So how would you get to these draft strategies?
just asking cus i think i will write a guide for air terran vs P soon xD A draft is a page that has not yet been reviewed, it'll have a small sign showing that it is yet to be reviewed, any edits anyone makes to it will directly be shown. When a page is being reviewed the reviewer might think you've done a acceptable job and will just click reviewed as acceptable and it'll pass, if it's not then it'll be given a stub or need copy edit or some other form of box thing at the top, perhaps a note in the editing notes (can see these when you view the history of a page) or if something longer is needed on the discussion/talk page for the article to outline what's wrong with the page in it's current iteration. Once a page has been reviewed there's two versions of it, a reviewed version and a draft version. You can keep making changes to the draft version as much as you like, but for these to be displayed in the reviewed version, someone must review the changes you've made. It's not certain that even if a page is reviewed it'll be added to the race's strategy overview page. You might have to do that yourself. Anyhow you can make a page at any time, if you want to work on it for a bit before you "publish", you might want to do it within your userspace (ie User:Yoshi Kirishima/+1 Mech (vs Protoss)). You don't have to you can make it directly as well. Copy the basic code from the StrategyTemplate and paste it into the new page, and fill out the different sections (remove or add sections as you see fit by looking at other strategy pages, but try and keep the basic structure that is in place as that makes the strategy easier for people familiar with other strategy pages to interpret yours.)
Ok thanks a shit ton that clears up like all my questions and confusedness
|
Someone add INFESTOR LING STYLE :D HAHAHAH!
|
I really think that there should be dates added to all the posts. Having dates would allow for new players (like me) to determine if a build is still viable and is worth trying to pursue. I know there's a "outdated" section, but I feel that there are probably outdated builds on the main page that aren't in the appropriate section. Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
On August 11 2011 15:32 Intensity wrote:
I really think that there should be dates added to all the posts. Having dates would allow for new players (like me) to determine if a build is still viable and is worth trying to pursue. I know there's a "outdated" section, but I feel that there are probably outdated builds on the main page that aren't in the appropriate section. Just my 2 cents.
yep just what i said, and this way you don't have to move them to the outdated page, people can judge for themselves
|
On August 11 2011 07:40 00Visor wrote:
I think that most other players are too lazy. Its way easier to just post here than to set up a liquipedia page, which has to follow certain rules.
There are plenty of rules here too... have you seen how many threads the mods close?
|
Then, of course, Liquipedia is way more than strategies. If you're not feeling "elite" (for lack of forum posts) enough, or knowledgeable enough (for lack of being in Masters or Grandmasters), there's lots of stuff to do. One could, for instance, go to the special pages and check out the list of orphaned pages (at Special:LonelyPages) and make sure they're not orphaned anymore (by editing another page where they naturally belong). Alternately, you can take a look at them and improve them, because orphaned pages have often been neglected for a long time and could need some work.
Then theres the page Special:WantedPages for Wanted Pages. This is a list of links all over Liquipedia that point to pages that do not exist. So why not throw together something? Most of those pages are Player pages, so try to find out a little about those players and do a quick write-up. Hint: If you press the link "What links here", you will get a list of all articles linking to the page that doesn't exist, which is actually a nice list of that player's accomplishments! See, it's almost like the page is writing itself! All you need to do is fill out the words.
Another great way to find stuff to do, is just browse around and look for missing info. For instance, did you know that the page for the Challenge mission Opening Gambit doesn't actually exist? All you need there is to count the units you start with, write a little text and provide a good build order. Take a look at the other Challenge missions Challenge Missions to see the general layout. Or did you know that there are Country-specific articles (well, stubs) for Norway, Denmark and Finland, but notSweden? How silly ain't that.
Then, of course, there are loads and loads of small tournaments that have no pages whatsoever on Liquipedia.
Just to underline my point: All this is coming from a guy who has only a little more than 100 posts (definitely not elite), hasn't finished his Placement matches (definitely not a pro) and who has never written a strategy page, but hey, I'm nearing that silver coin
|
|
|
What I'm sorely missing as a Wikipedia editor is something akin to Wikipedia's Village Pump. A central wiki page on Liquipedia where people can discuss anything related to the wiki (Let's call it The Cantina!).
For instance, I'd like to edit the Korean player's articles to include current and past GSL standings, but I'm certainly not going to do all the effort without knowing whether such a change would be supported by the Liquipedia regulars. Yet there's no place on the wiki where I can ask the Liquipedia regulars anything, or make suggestions that involve change a large number of articles, etc. Basically, what's missing is some sort of community feature on-wiki.
|
|
|
Hyrule19054 Posts
This doesn't deserve page 12.
Come on guys, edit harder! You know you want those coins.
|
What's the point of this thread? I added some notes under marines pointing out how Combat Shields is generally stronger than stim and cited evidence - it was in good concise English and it was deleted a few days later??
|
I don't edit because i don't consider myself good enough.
|
I might hop on and do some assistance with player pages etc, some could use some more content.
I'll check out the wanted pages too and see what I can help with. I'll leave strategy to the masters
|
Hyrule19054 Posts
On September 01 2011 08:12 BioTech wrote:
What's the point of this thread? I added some notes under marines pointing out how Combat Shields is generally stronger than stim and cited evidence - it was in good concise English and it was deleted a few days later??
Really? It's still there, and was never deleted.
|
DID YOU CONTRIBUTE?
I did. I even got this icon to show that I tried!
Do you have an icon?
Go feel guilty while editing liquipedia.
Now.
|
I agree. When it comes to strategies, I think part of the problem is people don't want to post builds that are one time deals. People only post builds that are entirely stable and "complete" so to say. So maybe someone could add a section for builds only seen once in a pro replay and another section for common or cool in-game decisions like timings (both attack timings and macro timings like when to throw down 2 engineering bays.) Overall, I feel that liquipedia is too inflexible and lacks infrastructure for any casual player to post, resulting in very few strategies that aren't common in the metagame.
|
On August 09 2011 06:11 salle wrote:
Why haven't you edited liquipedia recently?
Because the last five times I changed Artosis's name to Dan 'Penis' Stemkoski I got a temp ban.
|
Hyrule19054 Posts
On September 04 2011 04:35 MUirbeqU wrote:
I agree. When it comes to strategies, I think part of the problem is people don't want to post builds that are one time deals. People only post builds that are entirely stable and "complete" so to say. So maybe someone could add a section for builds only seen once in a pro replay and another section for common or cool in-game decisions like timings (both attack timings and macro timings like when to throw down 2 engineering bays.) Overall, I feel that liquipedia is too inflexible and lacks infrastructure for any casual player to post, resulting in very few strategies that aren't common in the metagame.
Strategies are only about 20% of Liquipedia. Most of it is players, teams, and tournaments.
|
|
|
Huks pvp should be on there. Just covered in the wed. Daily. Dt FE more or less
|
On April 07 2012 14:30 9-BiT wrote:
Huks pvp should be on there. Just covered in the wed. Daily. Dt FE more or less
Do you have a good source on it? A solid build order or VOD? Also, you can try adding it yourself. Just copy the strategy template and get at her.
|
I'm thinking about. There Is a whole day9 episode about it. I'm not sure about the amount of replays unfortunately. There is at least one. But I think writing an article would further my understanding of the build, so I'll take a crack at it today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
