Difference between revisions of "Talk:Technology tree"

Revision as of 20:01, 12 November 2013

I removed most of the table while attempting to add the "Research Required" column. I did this because i was using an image to make the changes, but i found differences between the table and the tech tree image, so hopefully someone could re-add the rest of the table according to the actual tech tree, and maybe finish my column while doing it, otherwise i'll come in and finish what i started.
Toa Aerrow ~ Toa of Nature (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC+08:00)

Table looked mostly correct. Note that 0.22 is now out, additions and corrections should be based off the ingame tech tree, and not the prerelease image that was floating about. Specific corrections are of course welcome. The research required column has been readded with placeholders where appropriate. --MaulingMonkey (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2013 (CDT)

I'll be sure to look at the in game tech tree for reference from now on. Thanks!
Toa Aerrow ~ Toa of Nature (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC+08:00)

Tech tree node articles

Hi, recently Start (Tech Tree Node) was created and I'm wondering if we need additional tech tree nodes. I would say that we don't need them, because everything to say about is already said in the table. Although the article about the first node is somewhat justified, as it has some special properties. Also I wouldn't add “(Tech Tree Node)” to all articles about the node, only if it is ambiguous. The name of the articles about the parts like LV-N Atomic Rocket Motor don't have a (Part) suffix (LV-N Atomic Rocket Motor (Part)).

Of course what may/should be done, is to create at least redirects from the tech tree node names like Basic Rocketry to this article. — xZise [talk] 11:38, 29 October 2013 (CDT)

Also if we add additional node pages change the category to Category:Tech tree nodes and add this page with the sorting value of a space, like Category:Ladders or similar? — xZise [talk] 11:46, 29 October 2013 (CDT)

The problem with colon-prefixes is that they are not included in search unless the user goes to advanced search and adds them manually. When you want prefixes, you should rather use slash-prefixes (Tech tree/Basic Rocketry) --Crush (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2013 (CDT)

I never wanted to add prefixes. Quite the opposite: I wanted to get rid of the suffix, because the name itself should be in most cases unique like Basic Rocketry instead of Basic Rocketry (Tech Tree Node). — xZise [talk] 11:25, 30 October 2013 (CDT)

Another reason, why I think we don't need articles for the tech tree nodes is that I was thinking about designing a infobox for tech tree nodes prior to 0.22 (and prior to this article). But I didn't finished or published anything, because I noticed, everything I would add to the infobox (science requirement, required technologies, unlocking technologies and parts) would be everything what could be said about the tech tree node. And we have already enough articles which are basically only a infobox (most part articles in Category:Stubs, okay they also have a quote (not relevant for the performance of a rocket) and a version history). — xZise [talk] 05:05, 30 October 2013 (CDT)

Okay I removed the suffixes of all tech tree node articles. I also add a little note on the Start node that the article is about the node and not the start of the wiki. I also renamed the category (like this article) to Category:Technology tree nodes. I've changed also the red-links in this article to italic text. — xZise [talk] 14:01, 12 November 2013 (CST)

I consider tech tree node articles to be useful and believe that they should be more than just info-boxes. They allow to not just list the facts but also allow to write something about their practical relevance. For example what new gameplay features they unlock and what new designs they allow. --Crush (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2013 (CDT)

About “I […] believe that they should be more than just info-boxes.[…]”, my intent was never to have only infobox articles but instead that I didn't know what there could be written which wouldn't be already in the infobox. So “I […] believe that they can be more than just info-boxes.[…]” would reflect my opinion correctly. I also noticed that you added some text to some nodes, and if there can be meaningful text found which is special about a node, it's fine with me then. — xZise [talk] 11:25, 30 October 2013 (CDT)