Difference between revisions of "User talk:Admiral Obvious"
(Hiya) |
|||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
:Got it. I'm not trying to copy the books to the letter and transpose, but, in regards to the Infantry weapons section, it's an entirely new "type" of way to present information. Like, a normal vehicular MG in Total Warfare has a damage value of 1, but a RPG MG has a damage value of 4B5D. I'm just going to try and add in what I can without wholesale copying the book, so people can reference that as "what it means". 5D is different than 5 because of the scale the different games work on. That's all I'm aiming for. I plan on doing one more article on how RPG damage and the armor types work when compared to Total Warfare rules, but that's all I had planned. [[User:Admiral Obvious|Admiral Obvious]] ([[User talk:Admiral Obvious|talk]]) 20:33, 30 December 2018 (EST) | :Got it. I'm not trying to copy the books to the letter and transpose, but, in regards to the Infantry weapons section, it's an entirely new "type" of way to present information. Like, a normal vehicular MG in Total Warfare has a damage value of 1, but a RPG MG has a damage value of 4B5D. I'm just going to try and add in what I can without wholesale copying the book, so people can reference that as "what it means". 5D is different than 5 because of the scale the different games work on. That's all I'm aiming for. I plan on doing one more article on how RPG damage and the armor types work when compared to Total Warfare rules, but that's all I had planned. [[User:Admiral Obvious|Admiral Obvious]] ([[User talk:Admiral Obvious|talk]]) 20:33, 30 December 2018 (EST) | ||
::I have been meaning to follow up the conversations about Infantry and the mess of the Weapons section with you anyway, but I have been quite busy with work and all the holidays lately. I will leave you to it for now and follow up at a later date. You have been doing good work, I just wanted to keep you going in the right direction. Have a nice new year AO :-)--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 21:32, 30 December 2018 (EST) | ::I have been meaning to follow up the conversations about Infantry and the mess of the Weapons section with you anyway, but I have been quite busy with work and all the holidays lately. I will leave you to it for now and follow up at a later date. You have been doing good work, I just wanted to keep you going in the right direction. Have a nice new year AO :-)--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 21:32, 30 December 2018 (EST) | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Essay style articles== | ||
+ | Hi AO,<br />I've noticed your articles, specifically [[Mechanized Battle Armor]] but also [[RPG damage]], [[Character Attributes (RPG)]] and [[Walking Fire]]. I wasn't previously aware of Sarna.net BTW's [[:Category:Game Aids]] nor [[:Category:CBT Tactics]], as I'm personally more concerned with the lore aspect on Sarna. Looks like both of these are poorly defined and need a serious cleanup. Anyways, the point(s) I wanted to raise with you are twofold:<br />1 - [[:Category:Battle Armor]] is definitely wrong for the [[Mechanized Battle Armor]] article, as it is not a type of battle armor. I've tentatively re-categorized the article into Game Aids.<br />2 - The names are a bit misleading imho. "Mechanized Battle Armor" reads as if this was an article about a specific type of battle armor, which it isn't. When I read "RPG Damage" I think of the damage caused by Rocket Propelled Grenades. And "Walking Fire" could be the name of a merc unit. Perhaps appending "tactics" to the first and last could help, and renaming "RPG Damage" to "Weapon Damage (RPG)" might help clarify the subject matter? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 03:59, 4 January 2019 (EST) |
Revision as of 05:00, 4 January 2019
Welcome
-- New user message (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2018 (EST)
Take caution when handling rules
Hey AO, Just want to say be very, VERY careful with stuff like your Character Attributes (RPG) article. I know this being a wiki everything we do is by the good graces of the various owners of the IP, but with the universe being as huge and expansive as it is the wiki is an invaluable resource in linking everything together lore wise in one place (several writers have stated they use Sarna when writing new stuff for the BTU), BUT I personally feel that articles that have the sole purpose of handling rules or rules related topics are possibly going too far and would be very hard to justify. On a skim through of your article it looks ok, it simply explains what the stats mean but I would be very cautious about getting any closer than that. I personally write everything as in universe and believe that we should not have any "rules specific" articles at all but I know that some people appreciate that information being here.--Dmon (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2018 (EST)
- Got it. I'm not trying to copy the books to the letter and transpose, but, in regards to the Infantry weapons section, it's an entirely new "type" of way to present information. Like, a normal vehicular MG in Total Warfare has a damage value of 1, but a RPG MG has a damage value of 4B5D. I'm just going to try and add in what I can without wholesale copying the book, so people can reference that as "what it means". 5D is different than 5 because of the scale the different games work on. That's all I'm aiming for. I plan on doing one more article on how RPG damage and the armor types work when compared to Total Warfare rules, but that's all I had planned. Admiral Obvious (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2018 (EST)
- I have been meaning to follow up the conversations about Infantry and the mess of the Weapons section with you anyway, but I have been quite busy with work and all the holidays lately. I will leave you to it for now and follow up at a later date. You have been doing good work, I just wanted to keep you going in the right direction. Have a nice new year AO :-)--Dmon (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2018 (EST)
Essay style articles
Hi AO,
I've noticed your articles, specifically Mechanized Battle Armor but also RPG damage, Character Attributes (RPG) and Walking Fire. I wasn't previously aware of Sarna.net BTW's Category:Game Aids nor Category:CBT Tactics, as I'm personally more concerned with the lore aspect on Sarna. Looks like both of these are poorly defined and need a serious cleanup. Anyways, the point(s) I wanted to raise with you are twofold:
1 - Category:Battle Armor is definitely wrong for the Mechanized Battle Armor article, as it is not a type of battle armor. I've tentatively re-categorized the article into Game Aids.
2 - The names are a bit misleading imho. "Mechanized Battle Armor" reads as if this was an article about a specific type of battle armor, which it isn't. When I read "RPG Damage" I think of the damage caused by Rocket Propelled Grenades. And "Walking Fire" could be the name of a merc unit. Perhaps appending "tactics" to the first and last could help, and renaming "RPG Damage" to "Weapon Damage (RPG)" might help clarify the subject matter? Frabby (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2019 (EST)