Difference between revisions of "Talk:Planned features"

Revision as of 00:48, 24 September 2015

Archives
Threads older than 31 days may be archived by RoboJeb.

Questionable

If there are no more kind of resources, how will the life support work? NWM (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2014 (CDT)

That you have to ask the developers, but we got sources for both statements (and then from the same person so not a case of “dev a says this” and “dev b says that”). But for example, what if Maxmaps was talking about mining, selling and converting when he was talking about resource systems (like how Kethane works) and not just “add a resource which is magically added to your craft”. And one part of life support resources is already implemented as electricity. Also both statements are kind of vague: He didn't say they will never ever add resources, just that they haven't found the right way yet and not actively searching for it. And adding life support sounds like it's being added in the far future when their position about resources might have changed. — xZise [talk] 03:47, 28 September 2014 (CDT)

0.90.0 / Beta

The most recent blog post explicitly suggests that most of what's on this page should now be disregarded. What's to become of the planned features list? Ninetailed (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2014 (CDT)

But as he said it's community driven. And while some misinterpret this page, it's also used to list features for the next version. I vote against discarding everything now, because we can't be sure what Squad is actually doing. Especially for everything where there is a more or less recent citation. — xZise [talk] 19:31, 15 October 2014 (CDT)

Newest Blog Post

Ok so the most recent blog post talked about aerodynamcs overhaul and deep space refuelling, should we add that? — Bashir 203

agreed i also read the blog post just add citation - joshwoo69

Yeah blog posts from the devs are probably fine, especially if it's about the dev blog tuesday. (Oh and do you two know that four tildes (~~~~~) automatically add your username AND timestamp.) — xZise [talk] 21:32, 31 December 2014 (CST)

Secret Feature

One of the devs talked about a secret feature, where would that go?--Bashir 203 (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2015 (CST)

I'm not sure, it's very vague and the question is if it will be explained before it's released or discovered afterwards. Could you maybe show the reference? — xZise [talk] 17:32, 18 February 2015 (CST)

Removing colors showing features

Regarding the colors on the "planned features" page (http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Planned_features)

It might be a good idea to provide some color-blind support by adding markers as is done most elsewhere to note the different implementation timelines. If it is decided to stick with the colors, any other mixture of colors other than yellow and green would be good. Those two look exactly the same to most color-blind users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BevoLJ (talk • contribs) 05:18, 26 March 2015‎ (UTC)

If you are color blind, you can help us with tweaking the shades of the yellow-green-blue to make it differentiable for the color blind users. NWM (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2015 (CDT)

We could orientate us at w:WP:COLOR. And at least for themselves the colors have enough contrast (yellow, blue, green). Not sure how to test with each other though and I'm not sure if there is a good solution or if there are different types of color blindness. Maybe we should simply add an annotation or so to mark them as such (like in synchronous orbit with the daggers). — xZise [talk] 09:13, 27 March 2015 (CDT)

There are three essential kinds of deficiency in color perception — basically a lack of red, green, or blue perception, with blue being the most rare. Here's an article depicting color perception.

Relying on font-face, italics, underlining, or even borders are more reliably accessible to all, and color can continue to be used for most people's convenience. It's important, though, that the colors be light since the text is dark — low contrast makes the text hard to distinguish from a background whose color you don't perceive much of. --Brendan (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2015 (CDT)

Features Implemented in 1.0

I removed features which I know were implemented, and see no evidence of further development. If I missed some evidence, please put them back in in yellow, and adjust the citations. Similarly, I'm not sure if the "Spacecraft Stats" is finished, and have tentatively turned it yellow, and I'm not familiar with the tutorials, so someone should look at that. Do we know what the next version will be called? (I assume not.) Cultist O (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for Deletion

I see this page was nominated for deletion, as it is "Largely inaccurate information caused by misunderstanding, misquoting, and out of date information." I would argue that replacing it entirely with features confirmed for the next version seems heavy handed. It is useful to have a list of features the devs have confirmed for eventual inclusion (such as multiplayer) or even those they have discussed, but not confirmed (such as more planets). Instead, I would argue for:

• 1. removal of all current and future entries lacking strong citations,
• 2. reworking of all remaining "partially implemented" entries to reflect specifics,
• 3. restructuring of the page into 3/4 sections rather than the current highlighting scheme. (next update, future updates, considered, and repudiated)
• 4. removal of all instances of "(available with mods)"

Hopefully this would solve the very real problem expressed by the nominator, but without loosing the useful record of what we can hope for. Cultist O (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree

A wiki should be factual, not wild speculation. Removal of uncited information is a start, but many of the partially implemented features are actually never intended features. Even reading the citations, someone misunderstood something. IVA's for example are done. There was never an intent to suggest any more than each pod/cockpit/crew cabin having it's own IVA, read the citation and you will see that. The name of the page itself is misleading, many of the listed items on here are not planned features at all... Life Support? Not planned, only speculation from the user base. In fact on the page named "Planned features" there is a section named "Not Planned or shelves". That is just crazy. Some of these items were discussed by former developers who do not work for Squad any longer. Finally, some of the information is based on personal twitter accounts of the dev team, that has proven to not be reliable and many times vague. If the information didn't come from an official Squad account, be it Dev Notes, Official Twitter, Official Facebook, Squadcast, or whatever, it doesn't belong here. This page hurts the community by spreading false rumor and speculation, it is a hindrance.

My suggestion would be a new page, call it Upcoming Features (the word "planned" implies there has been no action, just planning) and on it only include those things that are announced through the official Squad channels. Maxmaps twitter and offhand forum/reddit comments are not official announcements.

Alshain (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I would argue that proper implementation of my steps one and two would eliminate this problem. If there is not enough evidence that something is indeed planned, then it should be removed. For what it's worth, were I implementing my plan, I would not find a single example you listed as having "strong citations". I have not been through each citation to the degree where I could determine whether or not enough content exists for each category I suggested, and if there is not a single feature that falls into one, then of course there is no reason to have it. However, if for example, there are features that the devs have expressly stated will not be added, then I see no benefit to removing that fact from the page. Edit: I guess to clarify my position, I am worried that limiting the page only to things which are confirmed for the next update, has the potential to lose things that have been substantively confirmed or denied for the more distant future. I feel that that information is important (and it would be even more silly to split the page.) Cultist O (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)