Difference between revisions of "Talk:Planned features"

From Kerbal Space Program Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Citations for Spacecraft Construction: Asked a question on citations)
(Citations for Spacecraft Construction)
Line 8: Line 8:
== Citations for Spacecraft Construction ==
== Citations for Spacecraft Construction ==
I added citations to the list that denotes the new ARM parts, but they are links to YouTube videos. Is this alright? [[User:Sfmmcolossusfan|Sfmmcolossusfan]] ([[User talk:Sfmmcolossusfan|talk]]) 21:29, 26 March 2014 (CDT)
I added citations to the list that denotes the new ARM parts, but they are links to YouTube videos. Is this alright? [[User:Sfmmcolossusfan|Sfmmcolossusfan]] ([[User talk:Sfmmcolossusfan|talk]]) 21:29, 26 March 2014 (CDT)
:I would say so because those YouTubers simply promote KSP for Squad. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 07:26, 27 March 2014 (CDT)
== Misc ==
== Misc ==

Revision as of 12:26, 27 March 2014

Threads older than 31 days may be archived by RoboJeb.

Citations for Spacecraft Construction

I added citations to the list that denotes the new ARM parts, but they are links to YouTube videos. Is this alright? Sfmmcolossusfan (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2014 (CDT)

I would say so because those YouTubers simply promote KSP for Squad. — xZise [talk] 07:26, 27 March 2014 (CDT)


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 (talkcontribs)

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 (talkcontribs)
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 (talkcontribs)
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)
If it becomes necessary, we could subject changes to moderation by Admins. Admins would obviously forward any content not cited from official blog and forum posts new content to Squad Employees, or one of the Squad Employees that maintains the blog could regularly monitor the page for unmoderated, uncited, additions. However, we should only do this if rumors things Squad hasn't been completely start being misinterpreted as facts on this page.
The reason for the potential of rumors and misunderstandings is as follows: Squad Employees have been quite vocal about things they wish they could put in, that are currently not a priority, but are on the table for things to be added in future releases. This doesn't mean those things will ACTUALLY be added, just that they have been proposed. Other times Squad Employees will say to stop suggesting a feature. This isn't always because they have decided to never do that. It just means they've heard it already, and whether or not it's on the road-map it's been/being considered. If it hasn't happened, it doesn't mean it won't happen, just that they are aware of the option, they've weighed it, and they've decided it's isn't currently worth the added work when so much other work needs to be done. Some people have trouble with this concept of priorities.--Ruedii (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2013 (CDT)

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)
What do you mean with the last half of your sentence? — xZise [talk] 14:43, 8 May 2013 (CDT)
Text should be in ColorBox, right? But it is not. ColorBox is next to the text. – Andrew221 (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2013 (CDT)
No it shouldn't be in the ColorBox because that won't change anything. The reason I used them to have a white background for the text. — xZise [talk] 08:33, 9 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)
Definitely agree. I spent most of the last 4 days contacting Squad trying to get some official word on the multiplayer issue. How would you reference emails or forum PMs on the wiki though? Leonassan (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2013 (CDT)
Well, you can link to forum threads. As for emails, maybe a screenshot or something. -- N3X15 (C · T · E) 16:05, 29 July 2013 (CDT)
But not to PMs. Screenshot might be a choice: Upload it and then use <ref> to reference to the image. — xZise [talk] 16:49, 29 July 2013 (CDT)
+1 As a newcomer to this page, I was struck at how 90% of the items are Citation Needed. Chum (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2014 (CST)
I've marked most of them some time ago, so most of those are simply there, because they were added before this policy existed. — xZise [talk] 18:14, 8 February 2014 (CST)
+1 Although it should be noted that any feature might still be implemented. I believe multiplayer was on the "Not happening" list once, now they are working on it already. As for those entries which exist and need a citation, I think we should remove them unless confirmed. Kosmos[talk] 23:47, 8 February 2014
The entries on the list are not a commitment, and the developer team is not under any obligation to implement them all. These features may be pushed back or implemented on another way then suggested here.

Planned features, as of 21:59, 4 February 2014‎ (UTC)

That is already noted there. — xZise [talk] 18:13, 8 February 2014 (CST)

Extra Colour(s) for Expansions/Mission Packs/Small DLC

As I write this, "Asteroids" under Celestial Bodies is marked Blue with "Citation Needed". Since I'm not entirely sure if outside sources such as Polyon can count as official Citation here, despite that the linked article's supposed to represent very closely what SQUAD shared with them, I won't add that citation. But it raises a question: If the article is correct, then the Asteroid in question may not be what we expect. It could be something as "simple" as a large body that's running on vessel physics as opposed to Celestial Body physics and only appears in a Scenario, such as the simple ones SQUAD made long ago to help teach basic controls.

Since in that case we can't really call it a new "Feature" since it's not part of the game's mechanics or even the main Campaign, it should probably be marked as something other than an upcoming "feature". In fact, as we probably will start seeing new things SQUAD plans that is more in line with extra missions or even official "mods" in the sense that they don't change the core game, just offer and optional extra feature or two, perhaps part packs, then if those have any place on this page at all, they should be marked different from the rest of the features, to let players know what will be optional, or in need of extra action on their end (DLC and Expansion Packs don't just appear after every update).

If these aren't pointed out, unless the wiki viewer keeps an eye on KSP news, he/she may be mislead by the presence here. (Not to mention, if the Asteroid mentioned her WILL just be a Scenario, we could remove the mention of Asteroids planned for the main campaign scale, on account that there technically is already one asteroid in the game, despite its function possibly being very different from an open campaign asteroid (field). (Forgot the Signature, sorry mods) --Ictiv (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2014 (CST)

Now without adding any colors, Ringotuna removed that color and I added that remark that there is something happening but we don't know what exactly. As you said, in theory you could add a vessel which looks like an asteroid (I think there is or was a mod). But on they could also work on adding n-body (apparently it isn't that load heavy) were the bodies aren't on rails anymore. Then you could add something like Kerbal Attachment System and tug it somewhere.
I don't know how this addon is treated. It could be a mod from NASA, like that KerbalEdu mod, or it could be some kind of DLC. If Squad at some time announces a DLC or expansion/mission pack we could add a different color. I also merged some references. — xZise [talk] 05:24, 30 January 2014 (CST)