Talk:Enemy Unknown (EU2012)

I've been trying to add as much information as possible as best I can, mostly by basing it off existing wiki code from other pages. So much of the data cross references and/or interacts with items in other sections (artifacts being used in research, manufacturing, grey market, etc). For now, I'm trying to do as little cross referencing as possible, unless there is already an existing page for it. At least until I become more comfortable with the process. The Wiki Tips link you added at the top of the main page was helpful. Thank you. ~ Drakalu 14:16, 25 September 2012 (EDT)

I'm dumping most of the info from the demo files, that should take a while to sort out and organize (watchout for the info on the Research since it reveals the ending) - thanks for the help :) Hobbes 14:36, 25 September 2012 (EDT)

Btw, do you think you can make a template for the topics that you're working at right now? Hobbes 14:42, 25 September 2012 (EDT)

Not sure what you mean by template. I started with a multi-level list in Word so I've been working off that just to get the data entered. So far its mostly just information on items, research, facilities, workshop projects, etc. Your table for abilities was much cleaner than what I had. I'll try to whip something up. Also, most of the data I've been entering is based off the various Press preview videos. I figure I've seen them enough that nothing in them will truly be a spoiler at this point. ~ Drakalu 16:13, 25 September 2012 (EDT)

A template is a model for pages. For instance check the original Rifle and Heavy_Plasma pages you can see that they follow roughly the same format, starting with Stats, Recommendations, Tips, etc. It's easier if you already have a format, then you can just copy paste it and people can just fill the pages - I've just made one for Equipment. About spoilers, just be careful when going through the Research because it contains spoilers about the end of the game, if you don't want to know about it. Hobbes 17:40, 25 September 2012 (EDT)

WHo keeps undoing the edits I did today? Continuing to use "Geoscape" as its own header does not fit with the actual gameplay. HQ needs to be the main headline. The base as a whole has all the facilities in it. Research is a concept encompassing both Science Labs and Laboratories. Manufacturing encompasses Engineering, Workshops, and Foundries. Gray Market will be important as people will want to go somewhere for quick price comparisons.

I did and I explained the reasons on the table's Talk:EU2012_Table page. I just reverted back all yours edits again to the previous version. Hobbes 06:59, 2 October 2012 (EDT)

Hobbes, you reverted my edits twice in an 11 hour period and then protected the table to prevent further editing. You also did not attempt to discuss with me before the final revert and protect. This is edit warring and it is not consistent with the bold, revert, discuss principle.

While you obviously have a lot of experience with XCOM and the UFOPaedia, please understand that EU 2012 is NOT the same game. Therefore, the main page is going to look different. For example, the Geoscape is no longer what it was in 1994. In '94, it was the main place to start all your actions including patrols, interdictions, and to access the base and its functions. In EU2012, the "Geoscape" is merely a blue globe in the Mission Control facility where you advance time and choose missions.

Bottom line, it makes sense for the UFOPaedia pages to resemble the flow and structure of the game. Continuing the old format will only confuse visitors, ultimately encouraging them to go elsewhere for their information.

All XCOM strategy games (EU, TFTD, Apoc, EU 2012) follow the same design/logic: you win by playing Geoscape/Cityscape and sending Interceptors and Skyrangers from there, not by managing your base(s). Doesn't matter if you have one base or more - the fact that you only have one in Enemy Unknown 2012 adds for a lot more detail the base management level of the game but your base is just one aspect of the whole game. Hobbes 11:12, 2 October 2012 (EDT)

There are two basic components to the game as you noted, but they are not Geoscape and Cityscape anymore. That was 1994.

Now the strategy layer is handled in XCOM HQ / the Base / the Ant Farm. The Geoscape, the blue rotating orb of the Earth, isn't even its own facility, it's a focal point of Mission Control. Strategy is now handled at the Base. Half of winning the game is the Base: constructing facilities, adjacency bonuses, research, manufacturing, managing panic, funding, soliders, etc. The Geoscape is really just the filling in one slice of the whole pie.

It does not make sense to format the main page in a way that is inconsistent with the game's presentation. The game presents you the entire base and you choose each facility from there to manage the strategy. The Wiki should be presented consistent with the game so that people click on links that logically flow the same way as the game. Therefore, the main page should go to the over-arching XCOM HQ page and list out major functions under that like the whole of Base Facilities, the major concepts of Research and Manufacturing... I also think a quick link to the Gray Market will help since it will be an oft used page. Details of each facility, like the fact that Mission Control contains the Geoscape, should be embedded further in when you go to the HQ page or subsequent Base Facilities and Mission Control pages. --Robbx213 11:40, 2 October 2012 (EDT)

I don't want to abuse my position as an administrator but: a) You changed the table from the format followed for all XCOM game tables on this wiki. b) I reverted and placed a notice on the page's Talk page. c) You reverted and didn't check the talk page. Since I don't want to get into a war of edits I protected the table. The other administrators can and should intervene if it's necessary but what I did was to keep wiki consistency and prevent the main table from being constantly edited. Hobbes 11:35, 2 October 2012 (EDT)

I'm new and obviously struggled at first to understand the Table that was somehow separate from the page it was embedded in, as well as the Discussion tab up to the left but all the help pages refer to "Talk". There's an obvious disagreement about content here, so that's what we need to focus on. "Consistency" is not a valid reason to maintain the old format. The game is different, its format and presentation is different, therefore the Wiki should be different such that it's more in-line with the new game's structure. EU (2012) is not Terror From the Deep; a simple re-skin. If you want this wiki to be the go-to place, you're going to have to simplify it by making it flow the same way the game does. There are many other wikis already forming; people will go where it's simple and easy to understand. If this wiki's format differs from how the game is presented, people will get confused, they will get grumpy about having to click around and mine information, and ultimately the community's enjoyment of both will suffer. --Robbx213 11:52, 2 October 2012 (EDT)

I'm sorry to disagree but if you really feel that you cannot compromise and follow what has been considered 'consistency' (and pretty much official policy) by the 2K developer team and this wiki's regular users then do what you feel you must. If you check Wikipedia's article on Enemy Unknown you'll see the strategic element being called 'Geoscape' and Jake Solomon and 2K have also used the term frequently and on their site. Hobbes 12:14, 2 October 2012 (EDT)

You meant this Wikipedia article. They do say Geoscape; and they too describe it inaccurately. (P.S. those few contributors do not constitute 'official policy') The game's strategy element is confined to the global view called the "Geoscape"... Strategy is not confined to the Geoscape, strategy is the whole Base. Keep reading and they actually say this in the same sentence, contradicting themselves in the process: ... where the player keeps track of the situation ... conducts resource and personnel management ... directing research ... and production, interacting with the governments ... ordering their aircraft ... and dispatching their soldiers... The Geoscape, inside the Mission Control facility, can order aircraft and dispatch soldiers. That's it. 'Situation' is in the Situation Room, personnel are in places like Barracks & Infirmary, research is Sci Labs and Labs, production is Engineering Workshop & Foundry, Funding Council is inside the Situation Room... Geoscape is not the strategy layer, the entire base is the strategy layer. The Geoscape is like the Funding Council: it's an important part of the game, but it's not even the name of the facility in which it resides.

When Jake and other 2K people refer to the Geoscape, they mean the blue globe. They do not mean the whole base nor the whole strategy layer. If the whole strategy layer could be controlled from the Geoscape (again, inside Mission Control) then the Ant Farm would not even exist. Watch this and this (with Jake himself manning the helm) for a clear visual of how the Geoscape is not the base and therefore not the entire strategy layer, rather only a feature of the Mission Control facility. Watch this to see how Jake describes the evolution of the strategy layer and how his & Sid's prototypes are really the fore-runner of the Situation Room, not the Geoscape (inside Mission Control). So, Jake himself does not consider the Geoscape to be the "strategy layer". They don't even really call it the Geoscape, they call it the Globe. There are tons more videos throughout YouTube.

If you want consistency, make it consistent with the new game rather than consistent with 1994's game format. I think the game's format, which has actually been witnessed in video and described during interview, should be taken as the 'official policy' rather than taking the old game's structure. If the old game's structure were 'official policy', Jake et al. would not differentiate this game from the old by avoiding calling it a pure remake or reboot. It's different, they say so, therefore the wiki needs to evolve away from 1994 and match the new game. Also, you can't just randomly call something 'official policy' to make it sound more important. If you want official policy, read the articles and watch the videos from this 2K Forum Post. When 2K Greg stickies it, that probably means it's 'official policy'.

{{subst:drn-notice}} Robbx213 14:01, 2 October 2012 (EDT)

I know that topic quite well I wouldn't call a sticked thread made by a user 'official policy'. But by going through the list of features on the first has a strategic category that englobes Funding Council, Missions, Satellite cover and base management. Zero reference to HQ being the strategic layer. And his division is how the majority of players from the original games will look at it.

Geoscape is a classic term from the series to refer to both the world globe and the Strategic level and that remained throughout the series and that both Jake Solomon and the 2K team keep using even if the term is not present in the game. The HQ base (which I love) is how you access both the strategic layer (through the Situation Room) and the world globe (through Situation Room and Mission Control) but by itself it's not the strategic layer because it's not where the center of the action is. If you put HQ as the strategic category up there it seems that the strategy involves mainly running your base and projects, which is not strategy. Strategy is determining objectives and goals based on your needs and current resources - that is separate from actually putting the strategy into place, which is what you do with base and soldier management, to allow you to achieve those goals.

Now, what I've been thinking so far with all of this discussion: should the strategic layer have another name? Possibly, I'm not a zealot of keeping everything from the old game. One thing for sure would be to move up the links for Mission Control and Situation Room to replace the current Geoscape link (and if the game has a new name for it, rename the page). It may even be that XCOM HQ is the best term but there needs to be a clear separation between base management and the rest of the strategic layer of the game. Hobbes 14:47, 2 October 2012 (EDT)

I've asked at 2K's and the wiki's forums about names from the strategic layer and the responses have been: Geoscape, Ant Farm, Basescape, Strategic Layer and The Base, the closest to your suggestion of XCOM HQ. I've been also looking at the demo files and 'Geoscape' appears on the demo code to refer to the world globe, which makes it a game term. Hobbes 10:45, 3 October 2012 (EDT)

"... there needs to be a clear separation between base management and the rest of the strategic layer of the game ..." I fundamentally disagree. I believe base management is part of strategy, not separate. I agree that "Strategy is determining objectives and goals based on your needs and current resources..." But I do not see that as "separate from actually putting the strategy into place..." To me, executing the strategy is part of the strategy. I think we're agreeing that 'base management' is choosing facilities, choosing research, choosing production, choosing/promoting soldiers. But to me, that is all part of the strategy. Good base management, aka good strategy, sets you up for success in tactical combat. For example, let's say I choose a strategy of research & manufacturing at the expense of satellite coverage. I accomplish that across the base by building more labs, foundries, and workshops and at the same time building fewer uplinks / substituting Nexus (Nexi?) / focusing the satellites I do launch over high-paying / high-panic countries / enough countries not to trigger 'doomsday'. So let's assume the game still calls the Globe the Geoscape; to me, the Globe is just one piece of strategy; actually, I think the Situation Room is a better strategy tool than the Globe. To me, the Globe has very little strategy use. Basically, you pick which mission you're going to accept. Panic, satellites, aircraft, funds, gray market... I can access all that together in the Situation Room. To me, all of that is 'managing global sentiment (& funding)', which is only a portion of the overall strategy to manage sentiment long enough to get the soldiers, euqipment, and progress to go win the game. Anywho, I've found another avenue so rather than reiterate the same points to each other over and over, let's just move on and leave it as you wish. You win.

All right chaps, break it up. I am normally very lenient and let things slide, but I feel the need to intervene as this entire discussion is starting to be counter productive. Both sides have valid points, but it seems over-enthusiasm and an unwillingness to be patient is getting the better of everyone even before we all have the retail copy of the game. If the fallout results in a mess on the wiki with redundant pages, it will be very upsetting indeed.

We can all agree that this game is very different from the original and perhaps some break in tradition is required to emphasise the basescape (I joked about it, but you know I think I'll adopt it for a while). UFO, TFTD, Apocalypse and Interceptor all followed the same noun-scape and tactical segment formats, but this form certainly wouldn't work for e-Mail X-Com or Enforcer (Enforcer had its upgrade purchase intermission screen, but that doesn't count).

If you really must do things your way for now, and experiment with different ways to structure the pages, my recommendation is use a sandbox page for each page (like this [[EU (2012)/Heliocentric]] or [[EU (2012)/Geocentric]]) and create the new page to your hearts delight. We can all look at them later on an decide on how best to format the main page from there. -NKF 02:16, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

May I also suggest that in the interest of a well structured wiki-site; You keep your sandbox projects under your own profiles. That would be User:Hobbes/Sandbox page and User:Robbx213/Sandbox page, making it absolutely clear it's a sandbox/draft page and related to that user (hence you will probably not get unwanted edits).--Kokkan 05:47, 4 October 2012 (EDT)