Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Wiki related questions
SWR Productions Forum > SWR Projects > Rise of the Reds
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
SpiralSpectre
Okay so got some questions about the wiki. Could use some opinions/directions on these,

Should all the Fortification add-ons be on the same page like this or do they look too crowded and some of them need separate pages?
Fortification

Does the Troop Crawler page need an overhaul after the last patch or is it too early for it?
Troop Crawler

Is it okay to update pages based on the info in this thread?
http://forums.swr-productions.com/index.php?showtopic=4439

What would be a suitable name for the category of primary resource gatherers like Osprey, secondary gatherers like Hackers or resource gatherers in general?
MARS
Fortification upgrades should be on the same page as the Fortification itself IMO. Feel free to update the TC page as well. As for the third question, you can do so but make sure that the information is only taken from statements that sound certain and definitive.
SpiralSpectre
Thanks. On a related topic - should the Russian Component Tower add-ons be on the same page as well or should they be on different pages?
MARS
Yes. Generally speaking, I'd like to see units/structures that only truly become distinct and fully-functional when upgraded on the same page.
TheCeLL
I wouldn't put predictions on the wikia... the wikia is kind of like an information portal...
but i guess it might be okay if you make an article about everyone's predictions and named it something like "Rise of the Reds 2.0: fan predictions" or something like that.

For the fortifications... maybe we could make an article that links all the upgrade pages... like maybe
VARIATIONS
_________________________________________

The ECA Fortifications can be upgraded into many variations. These include:
The Medic Outpost (which is a link, that links another article about the medical outpost)
etc
SpiralSpectre
QUOTE (InsurgentCell @ 1 Mar 2013, 7:56) *
I wouldn't put predictions on the wikia... the wikia is kind of like an information portal...
but i guess it might be okay if you make an article about everyone's predictions and named it something like "Rise of the Reds 2.0: fan predictions" or something like that.

Naturally I was talking about updating based on what MARS and other team members said on that thread, not based on all the amusing predictions made there.
Spejjarn
The C&C RA3 Paradox mod has a very well-developed wiki. You could probably get inspired by their design. They use a rather clever system to describe the relationships between the factions: the ROTR wiki needs something similar IMHO.
MARS
Fine with me, although it'd be nowhere near as elaborate as on Paradox:

USA relations:
ECA - Friendly
Russia - Hostile -> At War
China - Allied (The PPA may have failed, but factually, China is the closest thing to America's long-standing military ally, as stated by Thorn)
GLA - Hostile

ECA relations:
USA - Neutral (The Americans may want to normalise their relations with the ECA but the Euros still hold a few grudges)
Russia - At War
China - Friendly (They have to be friendly because they still have to repay their debts)
GLA - Hostile

Russia relations:
USA - Neutral -> At War (Russia didn't really pursue an active rivalry with the United States beyond pragmatic interests in Africa)
ECA - At War
China - Hostile (Ethnic tensions in the Far-East district)
GLA - Hostile

China relations:
USA - Allied
ECA - Neutral (No longer friendly since the ECA asked the PLA to withdraw from Europe. It's noteworthy that China hasn't made any real statements in favour of Europe at any point)
Russia - Hostile (Relationships permanently damaged due to Suvorov's policies)
GLA - Hostile

GLA relations:
USA - Hostile
ECA - Hostile
Russia - Hostile
China - Hostile
Svea Rike
QUOTE (MARS @ 1 Mar 2013, 17:52) *
GLA relations:
USA - Hostile
ECA - Hostile
Russia - Hostile
China - Hostile


Poor GLA; they're like the little kid in school who nobody liked yet were hiding great power.
SpiralSpectre
QUOTE (Joakim @ 1 Mar 2013, 22:36) *
The C&C RA3 Paradox mod has a very well-developed wiki. You could probably get inspired by their design. They use a rather clever system to describe the relationships between the factions: the ROTR wiki needs something similar IMHO.

Making something like the Paradox mod wiki would be awesome but right now the ROTR wiki needs to focus on the basics. I've already said this before and to repeat myself but it's all going to a dead end unless some members help out by writing the usage, counters, pros, cons etc of the units. A lot of the pages need these basic stuff added.
QUOTE (swedishplayer-97 @ 2 Mar 2013, 1:07) *
Poor GLA; they're like the little kid in school who nobody liked yet were hiding great power.

More like the kid who was a dick and went around causing everyone trouble and now they all hate him. mindfuck.gif

BTW is it okay to add the Generals pages to the Lore category?
TheCeLL
QUOTE (SpiralSpectre @ 1 Mar 2013, 14:26) *
Making something like the Paradox mod wiki would be awesome but right now the ROTR wiki needs to focus on the basics. I've already said this before and to repeat myself but it's all going to a dead end unless some members help out by writing the usage, counters, pros, cons etc of the units. A lot of the pages need these basic stuff added.


Well, I'm not always sure of myself when it comes to tactics and stuff, but I guess I can try.
SpiralSpectre
Anyone knows if this guy is correct or not?

QUOTE
Excuse me, but unitbox says it has 20-mm minigun... Is that a mistake (because this Hind seem to have YakB .50-cal minigun) or that's supposed to be?


Hind page
MARS
I'd say change it to a '12.7mm gatling gun'. That's the closest thing the Hind has in RL. Also, as a general rule, avoid the term 'minigun'. That isn't actually a catch-all term, but a very specific model of a US-made gatling cannon that fires 7.62mm rounds. Spell it out as 'gatling' for all non-Chinese weapons of this type and 'Gattling' for the Chinese themselves.
SpiralSpectre
BTW what to do with this page now that the Railgun Kodiak is obsolete according to that thread? Should it be totally deleted?

T-80R_Kodiak
Karpet
QUOTE (SpiralSpectre @ 6 Mar 2013, 21:27) *
BTW what to do with this page now that the Railgun Kodiak is obsolete according to that thread? Should it be totally deleted?

T-80R_Kodiak


I don't think it should. In the Generals and ZH wiki, concepts and stuff liek dat weren't deleted.
MARS
Put it in a new category called 'scrapped content' or something for the sake of continuity.
Red Alert
This seems outdated http://wiki.falloutstudios.org/wiki/Rise_of_the_Reds

Shockwave has its own manual and that's been very helpful.
Comr4de
As stated we no longer support that wikipedia as we have moved away from Fallout Studios eons ago. We will be making our new wiki sometime this year, now dubbed "The Vault". The Vault will provide our fans with an official-run wiki to go to, although we already have a fan-made one that is awesome I8.gif and will do so until we start up our own to create mentioned manuals and so on.
Massey
So is it still worth making pic's for the Wiki then?
MARS
QUOTE (Comr4de @ 7 Mar 2013, 0:52) *
As stated we no longer support that wikipedia as we have moved away from Fallout Studios eons ago. We will be making our new wiki sometime this year, now dubbed "The Vault". The Vault will provide our fans with an official-run wiki to go to, although we already have a fan-made one that is awesome I8.gif and will do so until we start up our own to create mentioned manuals and so on.


I've actually discussed this with The_Hunter at some point. Once the fan-wiki is complete and up to quality standards, we'll simply declare it the official one. No point in investing even more precious time on making yet ANOTHER wiki from scratch when we already have dedicated people working on a suitable replacement.
n5p29
QUOTE (MARS @ 7 Mar 2013, 12:38) *
I've actually discussed this with The_Hunter at some point. Once the fan-wiki is complete and up to quality standards, we'll simply declare it the official one. No point in investing even more precious time on making yet ANOTHER wiki from scratch when we already have dedicated people working on a suitable replacement.

at least can it be moved to our own domain? because wikia sux. D:
TheCeLL
I dont know if we should port the wikia... it already has a LOT of articles on it. If someone's willing to do it, no one is stopping them though
Serialkillerwhale
QUOTE
(No longer friendly since the ECA asked the PLA to withdraw from Europe. It's noteworthy that China hasn't made any real statements in favour of Europe at any point)


Didn't the Tsing Shi Tao state that he supports their choice of using neutron weaponry?
MARS
How does the personal opinion of a retired PLA General equal the official opinion of the Party government?
Serialkillerwhale
I thought that they didn't censor it, which is more or less taciturn agreement.

Could be wrong though.
WarWolf_1
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].
Serialkillerwhale
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
WarWolf_1
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.
SpiralSpectre
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.



Serialkillerwhale
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"
Karpet
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.
WarWolf_1
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.
Serialkillerwhale
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?
TheCeLL
._. 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"
X1Destroy
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.

SpiralSpectre
^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.
SpiralSpectre
Pardon the double post. Someone added "FB-40 "Aurora" Bomber" as Griffon's exclusive unit. Does Aurora still have that designation?
Serialkillerwhale
FB-40?
Makes no sense to me.
FB would indicate Fighter-Bomber.

Good luck dogfighting in a aurora.
MARS
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.
SpiralSpectre
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?
MARS
- 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.
SpiralSpectre
Is the Helix a KA-50? Apparently some say it is, some say it isn't.
X1Destroy
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
X1Destroy
Wait? How come Charles is going to get a Centurion Tank? Wasn't it supposed to be a Challenger?
MARS
Wat?
Charles is getting the Challenger instead of the Leopard. The GLA Scorpion is technically a Centurion though.
X1Destroy
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?
Serialkillerwhale
Old names.

Just like the basilisk being the T28 in shockwave.
MARS
Not a mistake. The new Scorpion will actually be renamed into 'Cheetah' once the old Scorpion is re-added for Yusuuf.
X1Destroy
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.
MARS
Yusuuf's Scorpion might end up being lighter and even faster than the Cheetah.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.