|
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 Due to strategies evolving so fast in the new game because of balancing patches, a lot of strategy articles were outdated before they were even completed.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
|
Hyrule19184 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.
|
Hyrule19184 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 States25557 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.
|
Hungary11305 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
Strategy Article Policy
