Talk:Planned features

Misc

Hey, shouldn't the EVA feature be in green, because it's the main focus of the next update? And maybe Long-duration smoke trails and Fuel-dependent larger explosions too, because Silisko is working on better particle effects for 0.16? Trbinsc (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

As this page is currently arranged, probably. That said, A 3rd color for features in the next update might be clearer. UmbralRaptor (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I decided on a new colour due to the new update cycles not guaranteeing features any more.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Causeless (talk • contribs)

Wouldn't it make sense to remove the features that have been added (green). After all, these are the planned features.The-Bean (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I think it's nice in showing how far the game has progressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Causeless (talk • contribs)

That's what the Version History is for... --The-Bean (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it's much easier to that a quick glance at this page for an overall idea than needing to hunt through the update history. Not to mention that newcomers may be confused when they only see one planned feature and won't realize the game may be near to completion. Sure, the title of the page implies only planned features, but it's really a question of either fitting the technical details perfectly (in expense of both ease of use and simplicity), or doing the simpler, easier, and really more intuitive option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Causeless (talk • contribs)

I agree that already-added features should be removed from this page, because they are no longer "planned features". To alleviate any confusion, we can add bold text to the top of the page which says "Features already present in the game are described in the Version History." If the goal is to provide a general overview of "features in the game", that belongs in more of a tutorial setting, not in the Version History or Planned Features articles. — Elembis (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I, too, agree. Is there an official procedure for proposing a change like this? Holomanga (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2013 (CDT)

Faster Game Loading, done, really?

I hate to come across as snarky here, but surly improving the load times and general game performance is an ongoing thing? Thecoshman (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Protection on this page

Perhaps this page should be protected so that only users marked as 'Squad Employees' are able to edit it. Maybe some sort of elevated users as well, who can help keep it formatted and tidy. Thecoshman (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why that's necessary.--Craigmt1 (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess for now it is ok, but I can see it becoming a problem with people editing it to list 'planned features' that are made up. I know that at the moment, there is only one Squad employee on the wiki. It's something we might have to consider though. Thecoshman (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

What generally happens is that squad posts a lot of their upcoming plans on the blog,the forums, and reddit, which gives users a chance to come here and add what's been confirmed and saves them the work. I just don't see vandalism or misinformation becoming a big enough problem in the near future to justify taking away user control. It's not like we can't undo it, anyway.--Craigmt1 (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I thought Squad where putting the planned features on here them selves. Thecoshman (talk) 12:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a couple of us do, but most of the feature announcements are made on the forums or blog. The Wiki is mostly the users' domain. -- N3X15 ^{(C · T · E)} 02:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Spans or ColorBoxes

Hey, I saw that the ColorBoxes were replaced by spans? Now I added them to make it easier to read especially with the red background. So is there any reason to use spans instead? — xZise [talk] 10:00, 6 May 2013 (CDT)

Surely it would be better to use a ColorBoxes for clarity, but I think it is wrong displaying — Andrew221 (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2013 (CDT)

Citation Needed?

To avoid spreading of false rumors, I think that we should go the Wikipedia way here and enforce that each entry in this list must have a reference to a developer statement as a source. Retroactively finding sources for all the entries here might be too hard, but we could at least try to enforce this for new entries. --Crush (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2013 (CDT)

+1 That would be reasonable. Any new entry need a citation of some official. — xZise [talk] 12:42, 7 May 2013 (CDT)