User:Hobbes/Sandbox page

XCOM: Enemy Unknown (2012) Kokkans suggestion on how to Structure content.
XCOM General Information XCOM Headquarters Base Facilities Mission Control Air Combat XCOM Crafts Situation Room Finances Grey Market Research Engineering Officer Training School Soldiers Classes Abilities Armour Weapons Equipment SHIV	Aliens Alien Life Forms Alien Missions UFOs UFO Components Alien Artefacts Missions Gameplay Mechanics Scouting Flanking Cover Overwatch Suppression Combat Tactics Mission Types Maps	Game Strategies Guides & Tips Beginner Guide Economy Managing Panic Building Optimization Multiplayer Maps Squad Builds Multiplayer Tactics Miscellaneous Glossary of Terms Patches Game Editors

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)

XCOM "Ant Farm" Situation Room Mission Control Air Combat Research Production Equipment Weapons Armor SHIV Gray Market Soldiers Classes Abilities & 'Perks' Aircraft Craft Armament	Aliens Alien Life Forms UFOs Artefacts	Strategy Base Management Situation Management	Combat Gameplay Mechanics Tactics Singleplayer Multiplayer Squads Soldier Builds Maps Missions	Miscellaneous Sources

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)

---

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). --Kokkan 14:26, 7 October 2012 (EDT)