Talk:Enemy Unknown (EU2012)

Wiki structure discussion

Personally, this kind of structure makes sense to me. Though I'm not 100% on Air Combat. Probably under Mission Control with a link inside Aircraft pointing to it. In mine, Aircraft would include a subsection on weapons but not a separate page. I'd still provide a link to it in the front for people's awareness. Same for soldiers, all those things would be subsections of the same page. Similarly, armor and squad weapons would be subsections of the same "Equipment" page. I don't know enough about SHIVs yet to think if they'd have their own page or not. I wouldn't list out all the individual alien life forms and I can't think of any subsections I would specifically link on the main page under any of the Alien stuff really... As topics under Base Mgmt and Sit Mgmt grow, I would link the ones that I think people want to get to now (in 1 click). Same for all the stuff under Combat. So overall, everything that's indented is likely a subsection of a page rather than it's own page. The exceptions are the Situation Room and Mission Control because so much is going on in those two rooms where all the other aspects of the game are being coordinated. Ultiamtely, Gray Market would just be a paragraph or two about it, but all the prices would be listed right next to the item along with all the other info.

The hardest thing for me right now to sort in my mind is Single vs. Multi. For Tactics, I would probably put them in dedicated subsections of the same page. Have a general tactics that applies to both aspects of the game, and then a subsection for single and multi (total 3 sections) for anything that only applies to those. For squads and soldier builds, I would ask people to just identify whether the squad/soldier build is for single, multi, or both and explain the pros and cons of why. But it bugs me that would be structured different than the tactics... I feel like I need to play the game some before I figure out how the combat is structured. Oh, and I'd use the in-game neon-blue icon for XCOM and the red alien head for Aliens, then put the "vigilo confido" shield the "blue-glow faceless-squad" main XCOM image in thumbs off to the right. Robbx213 13:29, 5 October 2012 (EDT)

Just changed it based on your ideas. About Single/Multi, the idea I got from the demo is that the human classes are predefined and some perks may be absent from Multiplayer. From my previous experience with the multiplayer version of the original game, the tactics between an AI and a human opponent are very different. But it will depend on how it works out. My main concern about the columns is to have room to expand in the future on an organized manner, if this game's page gets as popular as the original one and then you need to have sections explaining the technical parts, for modders to use, plus all other sorts of miscellaneous pages like the original game has. Hobbes 14:44, 5 October 2012 (EDT)

1. Whatever you do, keep multiplayer separated from the singleplayer section. These will be completely different.
2. Regarding Sources, I strongly disagree to make them a separate page. Valid sources should be listed under a References section on the relative page as per wiki standard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources)
3. Flanking, Cover, Overwatch & Supression are not actually tactics but game mechanics. How you combine and use these, that is tactics.
4. What the heck is "Situation Management"? That is a way to general topic or description to mean anything.

--Kokkan 16:06, 5 October 2012 (EDT)

Yeah, I haven't seen a lot of MP squad building, so I don't know how many perks you get to choose. I assume that you can choose as many perks as you want, but each one costs points, so my guess is in MP you'll only really be able to pick 1 or 2 per soldier. As for expanding in the future you make a good point. I only looked at what was in EU (2012) so far and condensed from there; I didn't go back to (1994)... You know, maybe it would be better to list more specific sub-sections in the table so that people can get to them quicker without having to guess where it's been put, especially if it's a topic they think can fit elsewhere than it was put. Then it would be on us to populate links all over the place and that could unmanageable.

I don't know how different MP will be from SP at this point. There will definitely need to be some dedicated space to MP squad building and MP tactics; I was just wondering aloud if it should be a whole separate page, or if SP and MP should be subsections under a "tactics" page and a "squad building" page. I think the one that makes sense will require some game time to determine. You're right about references; but, really once the game is out the game itself is basically going to be the main reference; are we supposed to put that at the bottom of each page or will we only put references in special occassions when it comes from somehwere else? I guess "sources" is less accurate, I was really think "see also" or maybe just a place to put links to articles, videos, forums, and other stuff people might want to stumble upon. I agree about mechanics vs. tactics. That's why I'd suggest having a "mechanics" page that gives the facts and a separate tactics area; I guess a separate tactics page would be better since mechanics is actually pretty extensive and especially if one puts SP tactics near MP tactics as subsections to the same page.

Ah, "situation management". That was my attempt at a bookmark in my head for somehow capturing the idea of how you manage panic, funding, satellite coverage, aircraft... basically not base stuff (adjacencies, Uplink vs. Nexus debates, different base builds depending on play strategy for example some people might want a lot of satellites while others might try to focus on having just enough to survive the game and use the base space for labs and workshops). I would expect a lot of sub-links under base and situation management, and I wouldn't call it situation management as soon as I find a better name. Robbx213 23:34, 5 October 2012 (EDT)

I made and example of the grouping of content I find most logical. I also don't think we should list all the possible mission types in the table, by the same reason you don't list all the aliens, weapons or abilites. It could feel like spoilers for some people. --Kokkan 12:16, 6 October 2012 (EDT)

Better. The only thing missing to me is to have a subcolumn for Miscellaneous because there's a few XCOM wiki pages that are cross series, such as Making the Game Harder (one of the most viewed wiki pages), Murphy's Laws of X-COM, Known Bugs, Game Editors, Realistic Equivalents and Glossary of Terms. Probably not all of those for now but a few could be already added, like the glossary. Hobbes 12:30, 6 October 2012 (EDT)

Replaced my table with Kokkan's proposal and made a few changes. Meanwhile I had another idea for the visual aspect for the pages on the XCOM and Aliens sections. I've been making a few charts for the XCOM, HQ and Base Facilities pages like this one: (no spoilers, only confirmed game information):

What I thought would be to have, e.g. on the top of the page 'Research' the corresponding colored icon, and for all pages of that category the same, (green for Research pages, red for Alien pages, Gray for Engineering pages, etc.). Or at least on the top pages (that contain all the links) for all the topics on the first column. What do you guys think? Hobbes 15:47, 6 October 2012 (EDT)

Soldiers have to have the red colour, to match their shirts. =D It's a bit Star Trek to me, and since we don't have a theme/template for all the pages it could be a bit heavy on the upkeep for editors and mods. A wiki should look like a wiki and only change layout/style when the data requires it (yeah, call me boring). I rather say keep the focus on the content and structure of that content (or keep it to html&css colours to keep it low upkeep and simple). --Kokkan 16:14, 6 October 2012 (EDT)

The insignias remember me more of S.H.I.E.L.D actually... XCOM has the Ant Farm, they have the Flying Carrier... oh well, it's just a very military thing to have all organized into sections and each with its own insignia, but I'll just keep it to the charts. Hobbes 17:33, 6 October 2012 (EDT)

EU2012 Table

I made some further tweaking of the table, tell me what you think. Was thinking of sub-dividing Combat Tactics, but until we get the game we really don't have a clue on how to build a section like that (same goes for Multiplayer Tactics). --Kokkan 16:41, 6 October 2012 (EDT)

Yup, probably it's better to wait to see what comes up, all of our proposals are merely guesses. I'd remove the Grey Market and The Foundry since both are a part of Situation Room and Engineering. The more I think about it SHIV should go under Soldiers. And I don't like the term Economy very much but I can't think of a better one now. Hobbes 17:33, 6 October 2012 (EDT)

Yes, the Grey Market is a part of the Situation Room, just like Finances.

The Foundry is actually an stand-alone facility, we can only speculate on how dependant it is on Engineering. It seem to feature both improvements and unlocks (SHIV, Crafts).

The SHIV is tricky, since it is both a manufactured thing; and a type of soldier. But since its purpose is combat. I would group it with soldiers, or as an own section.

Some more minor tweaks on the table. --Kokkan 18:24, 6 October 2012 (EDT)

All of the items/craft produced on the Foundry can be already accessed from their respective categories and the Foundry is about manufacturing which is covered by the Engineering topic. If we include the Foundry then we should also include the OTS since it provides with additional capabilities for Soldiers the same way the Foundry does for engineering. But I think it's redundant, both facilities can be easily accessed through the Soldiers/Engineering pages and on Soldiers page there's already a description of the OTS and its effects. Hobbes 11:22, 7 October 2012 (EDT)

Yes, you are right. The Foundry can easily and logically be found under Engineering_(2012). I had not thought about the OTS, and now that I try it; I can't easily find in from any of the pages. Perhaps skip the Foundry and add the OTS to the list? --Kokkan 11:47, 7 October 2012 (EDT)

The OTS info in on the Abilities page - maybe that's not too clear? Hobbes 13:47, 7 October 2012 (EDT)

If I were to look for a Base Facility that gives global upgrades, it would not be obvious to me to look under Soldier -> Abilities (and an in-line link also). Since they are not the same facility and not really directly related to Soldiers (like the Squad Size or New Guy). With the current structure I also think we should differentiate between Soldier, Alien, Equipment and "Other" abilities. --Kokkan 14:26, 7 October 2012 (EDT)

Was wondering if we could add a "DLC" section under the Miscellaneous table to cover current and upcoming DLC. The Elite Soldier Pack is available for purchase and we can cover the known information about the "Slingshot" DLC as well. ~ Drakalu 23:56, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

Archive

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)