IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

25 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Wiki related questions
WarWolf_1
post 13 Mar 2013, 6:13
Post #26



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 9 December 2012
Member No.: 9530



1.) Is there any objection to removing the units' descriptor term from the titles of unit pages that possess such (i.e. Crusader Tank, Kodiak Tank, Nighthawk Stealth Bomber)?

2.) What are thoughts on what the Unitbox template's "Role" should describe? Should it possess the unit's descriptor term (i.e. "Main Battle Tank", "Helicopter Gunship", "IFV", "Bomber", etc.) or individual functions/ roles (i.e. "Anti-Infantry", "Anti-Air", "Detector", "Transport", etc.)?

My opinion thus far is that it possess individual functions/ roles. The descriptor term can be placed underneath the unit's render [as an in-game quote can reside with the unit's in-game screenshot].
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Serialkillerwhal...
post 13 Mar 2013, 6:48
Post #27


Orcinius Genocidalus
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2362
Joined: 11 July 2012
From: North Vancouver
Member No.: 9223
No, you move.



Personally, I'm against it. The terms help describe them better
and for role, Main Battle Tank, Heavy Tank, Super Heavy Tank, IFV, Reconnaissance Vehicle Strategic/Tactical Bomber Fighter and so on

This post has been edited by Serialkillerwhale: 13 Mar 2013, 6:48


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WarWolf_1
post 13 Mar 2013, 17:01
Post #28



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 9 December 2012
Member No.: 9530



But does the name not "describe them" specifically enough, while isn't having the term in the title and Unitbox template redundant? [Again, couldn't the descriptor term be captioned under the unit's render?]

It would also seem that using such in the "Role" section might also not do the best job at defining the unit, as to say that a unit is a "Helicopter Gunship" doesn't mean the same for every Gunship [the Comanche compared to the Viper for example, so far the only thing both have in common is anti-personal/ anti-light vehicle capability).

Thus I am for only having unit's name in the title, in my opinion that makes category pages cleaner.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SpiralSpectre
post 13 Mar 2013, 18:09
Post #29



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1079
Joined: 24 December 2011
Member No.: 8905
Loves guessing games



The thing is having the unit's descriptor term in it's name sometimes makes it easier to navigate in some category pages, specially for new people. Like only having names like "Lynx" or "Pandur" in the "ECA" or "Light Vehicles" category page might confuse someone about what that unit is. But if the descriptor term is there he would know what it is without actually having to go to that unit's page to find out what it exactly is.

Again yeah having only the names might help make the category pages cleaner. So I actually don't mind either way.

BTW MARS did once tell to add descriptor terms to some ECA units which initially didn't have descriptor terms in the names of their pages - like Leopard, Lynx etc (feeling to tired to dig that up and quote now but I am pretty sure he did). So they probably should stay.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Serialkillerwhal...
post 15 Mar 2013, 9:47
Post #30


Orcinius Genocidalus
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2362
Joined: 11 July 2012
From: North Vancouver
Member No.: 9223
No, you move.



Calling them by "Anti-infantry" or such gets overly pointless.
They're helicopter gunships. it means they shoot missiles and stuff.
We don't need overly pointless terms like Anti-infantry. It already has the info right when we play when it says "Strong against X" and "Weak against Y"


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Karpet
post 15 Mar 2013, 19:07
Post #31


Comrade Bear
Group Icon

Group: Dev. Team
Posts: 954
Joined: 3 February 2013
Member No.: 9722
Projects: Deep Impact



QUOTE (Serialkillerwhale @ 15 Mar 2013, 10:47) *
Calling them by "Anti-infantry" or such gets overly pointless.
They're helicopter gunships. it means they shoot missiles and stuff.
We don't need overly pointless terms like Anti-infantry. It already has the info right when we play when it says "Strong against X" and "Weak against Y"


Agree.

Put description terms such as MBT in, that's what I'm for.

Maybe someone wants to find APCs for a comparison.
Description terms make it easier to find the vehicles you want.


--------------------
Your feeling of helplessness is your best friend, savage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WarWolf_1
post 16 Mar 2013, 4:46
Post #32



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 9 December 2012
Member No.: 9530



QUOTE (SpiralSpectre @ 13 Mar 2013, 12:09) *
The thing is having the unit's descriptor term in it's name sometimes makes it easier to navigate in some category pages, specially for new people. Like only having names like "Lynx" or "Pandur" in the "ECA" or "Light Vehicles" category page might confuse someone about what that unit is. But if the descriptor term is there he would know what it is without actually having to go to that unit's page to find out what it exactly is.

Again yeah having only the names might help make the category pages cleaner. So I actually don't mind either way.

BTW MARS did once tell to add descriptor terms to some ECA units which initially didn't have descriptor terms in the names of their pages - like Leopard, Lynx etc (feeling to tired to dig that up and quote now but I am pretty sure he did). So they probably should stay.


Well I suppose to keep the names as the same as the unit's in-game one makes the most sense. A derp on my part haha.


QUOTE (Serialkillerwhale @ 15 Mar 2013, 3:47) *
Calling them by "Anti-infantry" or such gets overly pointless.
They're helicopter gunships. it means they shoot missiles and stuff.


Pointless? Referring back to my last post, not every helicopter gunship is the same. Yes, such helicopters may shoot missiles, but anti-air or anti-tank might be something a newer player wants to know.


QUOTE (Serialkillerwhale @ 15 Mar 2013, 3:47) *
We don't need overly pointless terms like Anti-infantry. It already has the info right when we play when it says "Strong against X" and "Weak against Y"


If you're going to make the point of information being present in game, then I'd might as well rest my entire case [as why would there need to be a wikia? All the basic info, excluding lore, is in-game...].


QUOTE (Karpet @ 15 Mar 2013, 13:07) *
Maybe someone wants to find APCs for a comparison.
Description terms make it easier to find the vehicles you want.


There are categories for that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Serialkillerwhal...
post 16 Mar 2013, 13:56
Post #33


Orcinius Genocidalus
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2362
Joined: 11 July 2012
From: North Vancouver
Member No.: 9223
No, you move.



Anti-Infantry and such are the absolute worst idea i've ever heard.

Both a pathfinder and a toxin tractor are "Anti Infantry".
Both a Superweapon and a claymore are "Anti-Building".

See?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TheCeLL
post 19 Mar 2013, 3:43
Post #34


Dangerous Eukaryote
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 866
Joined: 6 June 2012
From: CANADA :D
Member No.: 9173
More awesome than an imploding star and a burning car combined



._. what?
if you don't have anti-infantry then infantry would own everything.

That's like saying we shouldn't have Anti-tanks.
Both missile launchers and anti-tank guns are "anti tank"


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
X1Destroy
post 19 Mar 2013, 6:17
Post #35


Guardsman
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2020
Joined: 22 October 2012
From: Terra
Member No.: 9379
Armageddon is here..............



For things that kill both infantry and tanks, the term anti-surface would be the most accurate.

Superweapon should be in it's own term, not in any anti- thing.



--------------------
We Die Standing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SpiralSpectre
post 20 Mar 2013, 9:53
Post #36



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1079
Joined: 24 December 2011
Member No.: 8905
Loves guessing games



^As far as I know Superweapons are already classified as "Superweapons". Some people keeps classifying anti-surface units (to be more precise they classify the Shock Trooper) as "siege" for some reason. I keep them "anti-surface" though.
QUOTE (InsurgentCell @ 19 Mar 2013, 8:43) *
._. what?
if you don't have anti-infantry then infantry would own everything.

That's like saying we shouldn't have Anti-tanks.
Both missile launchers and anti-tank guns are "anti tank"

I think he meant classifying units as "anti-infantry" is pointless, not that having anti-infantry units is pointless.

Anyway how about mentioning both the descriptor term and the unit's role in the role section? Like Shock Troopers can be "anti-surface infantry", Pathfinders can be "anti-infantry infantry", you get the point.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SpiralSpectre
post 23 Mar 2013, 18:34
Post #37



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1079
Joined: 24 December 2011
Member No.: 8905
Loves guessing games



Pardon the double post. Someone added "FB-40 "Aurora" Bomber" as Griffon's exclusive unit. Does Aurora still have that designation?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Serialkillerwhal...
post 23 Mar 2013, 19:35
Post #38


Orcinius Genocidalus
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2362
Joined: 11 July 2012
From: North Vancouver
Member No.: 9223
No, you move.



FB-40?
Makes no sense to me.
FB would indicate Fighter-Bomber.

Good luck dogfighting in a aurora.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MARS
post 23 Mar 2013, 21:58
Post #39



Group Icon

Group: Project Leader
Posts: 5854
Joined: 2 June 2009
Member No.: 10



As far as I'm concerned, we can use that designation, assuming it did actually pop up in an update. As for the reasoning, the update consciously acknowledged that its service history was a total disaster due to inappropriate combat roles. There was a literal political/military scandal about this after the GLA War, so giving it this odd designation as a fighter-bomber was a conscious choice to highlight the oddness. Additional meta-explanation: While the designation 'B-40' would be more appropriate for a pure bomber plane, people would sub-consciously associate that kind of designation with big bombers like the B2, B1 and B52 which are reserved for General Powers. Since this plane is not only buildable but also considerably smaller, we gave it another designation to draw a clearer distinction.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SpiralSpectre
post 24 Mar 2013, 4:20
Post #40



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1079
Joined: 24 December 2011
Member No.: 8905
Loves guessing games



That guy added "FB" before Aurora's name while only added "bomber" after it's name. I got no real idea if that can be done but sounds incorrect to me.

And just to clear some things up,

Will Thorns still require the Firebase upgrade after it becomes unique to him?
Is it safe to add Yusuuf is getting old Scorpion?
Is Patriotism and/or Bunker unique to Chen?
Is it safe to add Zhukov is getting Tor?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MARS
post 24 Mar 2013, 9:14
Post #41



Group Icon

Group: Project Leader
Posts: 5854
Joined: 2 June 2009
Member No.: 10



- Thorn will have exclusive access to the Firebase and the upgrade will most likely remain as well.
- Likely yes.
- Bunkers will be available to all Chinese Generals. Patriotism will be an exclusive upgrade of Chen who starts with Nationalism by default.
- Most likely yes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SpiralSpectre
post 24 Mar 2013, 11:08
Post #42



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1079
Joined: 24 December 2011
Member No.: 8905
Loves guessing games



Is the Helix a KA-50? Apparently some say it is, some say it isn't.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
X1Destroy
post 24 Mar 2013, 11:55
Post #43


Guardsman
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2020
Joined: 22 October 2012
From: Terra
Member No.: 9379
Armageddon is here..............



QUOTE (SpiralSpectre @ 24 Mar 2013, 11:08) *
Is the Helix a KA-50? Apparently some say it is, some say it isn't.


That was me.

This is the Helix.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-27

This post has been edited by X1Destroy: 24 Mar 2013, 11:55


--------------------
We Die Standing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
X1Destroy
post 25 Mar 2013, 9:16
Post #44


Guardsman
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2020
Joined: 22 October 2012
From: Terra
Member No.: 9379
Armageddon is here..............



Wait? How come Charles is going to get a Centurion Tank? Wasn't it supposed to be a Challenger?


--------------------
We Die Standing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MARS
post 25 Mar 2013, 9:52
Post #45



Group Icon

Group: Project Leader
Posts: 5854
Joined: 2 June 2009
Member No.: 10



Wat?
Charles is getting the Challenger instead of the Leopard. The GLA Scorpion is technically a Centurion though.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
X1Destroy
post 25 Mar 2013, 9:56
Post #46


Guardsman
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2020
Joined: 22 October 2012
From: Terra
Member No.: 9379
Armageddon is here..............



http://generalsrotr.wikia.com/wiki/Fire_Su...General_Charles

It's from this page.

Who edited it?

BTW, why does the new GLA Scorpion is refered as the Cheetah in the INI?

This post has been edited by X1Destroy: 25 Mar 2013, 9:57


--------------------
We Die Standing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Serialkillerwhal...
post 25 Mar 2013, 10:06
Post #47


Orcinius Genocidalus
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2362
Joined: 11 July 2012
From: North Vancouver
Member No.: 9223
No, you move.



Old names.

Just like the basilisk being the T28 in shockwave.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MARS
post 25 Mar 2013, 10:07
Post #48



Group Icon

Group: Project Leader
Posts: 5854
Joined: 2 June 2009
Member No.: 10



Not a mistake. The new Scorpion will actually be renamed into 'Cheetah' once the old Scorpion is re-added for Yusuuf.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
X1Destroy
post 25 Mar 2013, 10:13
Post #49


Guardsman
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2020
Joined: 22 October 2012
From: Terra
Member No.: 9379
Armageddon is here..............



I see. So the old scorpion will be back with a remade model just like the paladin, isn't it? And this Cheetah will be the vanilla tank for the other 2 GLA generals.

And both the old and new scorpion will have different stats? Or just the look?

QUOTE
Just like the basilisk being the T28 in shockwave.


It didn't suprise me much, as the Basilisk is a bascially a T28, in look.

This post has been edited by X1Destroy: 25 Mar 2013, 10:14


--------------------
We Die Standing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MARS
post 25 Mar 2013, 10:38
Post #50



Group Icon

Group: Project Leader
Posts: 5854
Joined: 2 June 2009
Member No.: 10



Yusuuf's Scorpion might end up being lighter and even faster than the Cheetah.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

25 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17 August 2017 - 4:37