Use of the Wiki

General out-of-character discussion among players of Cantr II.

Moderators: Public Relations Department, Players Department

User avatar
Sho
Posts: 1732
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 4:05 am

Postby Sho » Wed Aug 17, 2005 3:25 pm

The wiki has its own discussion pages. Personally, I'd rather not have to switch back and forth between the forums and the wiki (I'd rather not have to come here at all; I haven't been on the forums in a year).

Wikis do require oversight. A wiki can't function without active administration at a level above the collaborative editing of the masses - decisions need to be enforced, spambots need to be banned, and cruft needs to be deleted.

If all we wanted out of the wiki was a newbie guide, we could have done that on the forums - we did do that once, I think. Setting up a big, powerful MediaWiki and then saying, "No, you can't put detailed data on it - it's just for general concepts and broad knowledge" seems a bit inefficient. I don't say that argues for allowing detail (we shouldn't do things just because we can), but I don't see the purpose of the wiki otherwise - PBWiki would have been an equally effective solution, and not taken up the server and human resources that the current wiki is using.
User avatar
Anthony Roberts
Posts: 2578
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 11:45 pm
Location: Chatham, Ontario, Canada

Postby Anthony Roberts » Wed Aug 17, 2005 3:34 pm

The only information I edit is inaccurate and uninformed information.

Stating that "A bike might hold more than a bike cart" is something I'd remove. The word "might" shows that the author isn't sure. The Wiki is for factual information, not for guesses. Guesses don't educate someone on the "correctness" of something. At least, that's my opinion on a Wiki.

You don't go through Wikipedia seeing "Well, I THINK this means..." - It's facts and figures. Logically shown for the reader to understand.

Other, better information, I've not removed. For example, Nick Roberts had added what boats dock to what (Well, what boats CAN dock to the boat your viewing, at least. But that's something, thanks Nick!), and it's still there. I'm not going to remove something because "It doesn't fit with how I view the format.". I'm going to remove it if it's a guess, or incorrect. If the latter, I'd probably correct it.

As for vehicle sizes, I really doubt any player could give an accurate answer/exact value. You'd need a lot of time on your hands to find out, to the exact gram, what can fit in that vehicle. But if anyone wants to throw up there the size, go for it, it's going to be up there sooner or later, aparently.
-- Anthony Roberts
AngelSpice
Posts: 475
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 5:28 am

Postby AngelSpice » Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:00 pm

These are some numbers from a note one of my charries found.

(I assume with only one charrie on vehicles able to hold two)

bike 7000g
tricycle 7500g
dirt motorcycle 8860g
walking 15000g
rickshaw 69820g
tandem 76820g
User avatar
Anthony Roberts
Posts: 2578
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 11:45 pm
Location: Chatham, Ontario, Canada

Postby Anthony Roberts » Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:03 am

Which are wrong.

But very close, none the less.
-- Anthony Roberts
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 3606
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 8:27 pm
Location: Halifax, Canada

Postby Nick » Fri Aug 26, 2005 10:49 pm

How bluntly does it need to be put that the GAC removed the find out in game rule?
I mean before you really could have argued misinterpretation of what Jos was saying, but I think Jos has made it quite clear that detail is allowed in the Wiki. I understand you don't fully agree with this change Anthony, but the decision has been made.
Snake_byte
Posts: 2134
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 7:12 am
Location: Quebec, Canada

Postby Snake_byte » Fri Aug 26, 2005 11:08 pm

Well Nick that doesn't obligate him to answer all and any question about the game.
He seems to be a firm believer in the old and now dead "find out in game rule" so he most likely won't.
That's his choice...
Image
My old banner ;)
User avatar
Savanik
Posts: 207
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 5:53 am
Location: Missouri, USA

Postby Savanik » Thu Sep 01, 2005 11:58 am

AngelSpice wrote:These are some numbers from a note one of my charries found.


Anthony Roberts wrote:Which are wrong.

But very close, none the less.


Which brings up an interesting point. How close will they have to be before you say they're no longer a guess and delete them? :) I saw the same figures in-game and figured they were pretty good for comparison purposes - but how good is 'pretty good'?

One of my characters is a mapmaker, he's been assembling things from pieces of encylopedias he's been finding, and believe me, I know how BAD information can get. :) But at some point, I have to say, 'It's *probably* fairly close' even if there's blank spots in my information. Just wondering if 'pretty close' cuts it, or if it's going to have to be spot-on to stick.

Savanik
User avatar
cpkangaroo
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:16 pm
Location: Mighty Imperial Headquarters

Postby cpkangaroo » Thu Sep 01, 2005 1:39 pm

With as many vehicles running around as there are, I'm surprised there isn't more detail about vehicle carry on weights. It's not that difficult to check.
User avatar
Anthony Roberts
Posts: 2578
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 11:45 pm
Location: Chatham, Ontario, Canada

Postby Anthony Roberts » Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:37 pm

Nick wrote:How bluntly does it need to be put that the GAC removed the find out in game rule?
I mean before you really could have argued misinterpretation of what Jos was saying, but I think Jos has made it quite clear that detail is allowed in the Wiki. I understand you don't fully agree with this change Anthony, but the decision has been made.


Nick, as I've said a million times over (Once more, just for you!), I will release the values UPON COMPLETION OF THE VEHICLES TO PARTS. This project is to help balance the vehicles. Right now, they are so WACK, that if the values were released, you'd see an influx of particular vehicles. I don't want these values to be abused, as to why, for the time being, I've chosen not to release them. Yes, I understand Jos's decision completly, and I'm glad that things can be explained, however, -for the time being- I don't want these numbers to be known.

It's kind of like revealing where the best places to settle are, based on how close they are to food and Iron/steel baring materials. That's unbalancing and uncool. It's not the exact situation, but please understand my decision for the time being.

Be patient.
-- Anthony Roberts
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 3606
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 8:27 pm
Location: Halifax, Canada

Postby Nick » Tue Sep 06, 2005 4:01 am

But you're only repeating yourself, Anthony.

YOU don't want them to be released. I think you've made that clear.

But Jos and the GAC want them to be released. I think that carries some weight.
User avatar
Jos Elkink
Founder Emeritus
Posts: 5711
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 1:17 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Contact:

Postby Jos Elkink » Thu Sep 08, 2005 7:26 pm

If I understand correctly, Anthony is saying that the information he could make available will soon be invalid due to changes he is working on in the RD. If that is his argument, that's a good reason not to release them, to avoid that people start creating vehicles for reasons that are soon to be outdated, which is not nice ...

Or do I understand you wrong, Anthony?
User avatar
kroner
Posts: 1463
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2003 4:39 pm
Location: new jersey...

Postby kroner » Thu Sep 08, 2005 10:36 pm

perhaps the RD should directly post the information in the wiki. this way it stays accurate and up to date. it doesn't make sense for players to have to do research in the game so that they can ooc spread the information that's supposed to be public.
DOOM!
olaf
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 4:54 am

Postby olaf » Fri Sep 09, 2005 8:32 am

Jos Elkink wrote:If I understand correctly, Anthony is saying that the information he could make available will soon be invalid due to changes he is working on in the RD. If that is his argument, that's a good reason not to release them, to avoid that people start creating vehicles for reasons that are soon to be outdated, which is not nice ...


But surely that's nicer than us creating vehicles that are horribly unbalanced because we assume something from the name that turns out later to be a wasted effort?

This was where I was coming from - my char was going to make a bike cart, because it sounds like these can carry lots. No, it turns out a tandem bike carrying a single person is far more effective for this. My char would have been quite disappointed with his bike cart, I can tell you!
User avatar
Jos Elkink
Founder Emeritus
Posts: 5711
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 1:17 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Contact:

Postby Jos Elkink » Fri Sep 09, 2005 1:59 pm

It's also a substantial amount of work - to make a nice overview of all vehicles - which the RD could better devote to actually implementing their ideas with vehicles and *then* update the Wiki ... otherwise is double work ...
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 3606
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 8:27 pm
Location: Halifax, Canada

Postby Nick » Fri Sep 09, 2005 7:35 pm

The templates for veichles already seem pretty well done. All that would need to be done is replace the descriptive caption in the "capacity" part with an actual value.

And if you think that people who build the boats that are overefficient now will be disappointed, maybe put a footnote on the wiki saying that these figures will be changed.

What I don't like, however, is saying we have to wait until a major change in Cantr happens. I remember years ago people 'demanding' tiredness and degradation. While I do appreciate progress the staff makes with this game, I think we can agree it is no more than moderate paced.

See, I doubt we'll even have to wait for Anthony to be done splitting up veichles into parts before we have the info on the wiki. I am capable of finding the info for a *few* veichles, and I'm sure many others are as well. Some veichles have detailed capacity info already, and I imagine they all will before too long. I just didn't see why we had to go through the tiresome process of calculating weight on a boat, when it probably isn't that hard for Anthony to go in and check how much veichles can carry.

*shrug*

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest