Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

« Back

1523 days, 12 hours, 4 minutes ago

Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3:

The editors are using this thread to document their changes. In addition, if someone sees documentation that is in error, missing information, or could use some help, please feel free to post that information here.

Part 2 of this thread (http://planets.nu/#/activity/1810471) has gotten to be over 500 posts long, and it's time to roll over to a new thread. Please use this thread and not the old one.

Part 1 of this thread (http://planets.nu/#/activity/1715309) was retired for similar reasons about 4 months ago.

1523 days, 11 hours, 58 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Heh. The old thread WAS taking an uncomfortable amount of time to load. :o)

1523 days, 11 hours, 46 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

It was a pain to read on my phone as well.

1523 days, 11 hours, 38 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

TTBOMK, the following items are outstanding:

Race pages - This was outstanding at the start of the previous thread as well.

http://planets.nu/#/activity/1997134 - This thread describes a bug in the Minefields page. I started looking at it, then realized that there was a new minefields with the same error. What are we doing with the new combined minefields page?

TOC - Will we be moving to the top-TOC that I put together? If so, we should work with Joshua to get it in.

Ship pages - This has been stalled at my end. It only takes a little more time to finish. With luck, by the end of next week.

1523 days, 11 hours, 25 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Site documentation is still ongoing, currently paused pending some research. There's also the (related) Settings pages, with default subpages for both Standard and Classic, and a few subpages. Once the composition is complete, it'll be merged with the current ToC as a top-level item, and several pages will be reorganized.

The textual review is nearing completion, with a couple of long projects -- including the minefield pages -- waiting for time. I'll check over that thread and see what's what.

Race Pages have seen some standardization pending modification to the Achievement documentation relative to the Site project. The new bios are still on hold, awaiting either Project: Ashes or Project: No Moon (and those I'll discuss with you privately if you want).

Ship pages: Might be useful to link directly to hull pages under website "Races" tab; format:
http://play.planets.nu/#/race/1/hulls/1

Also: I've got an idea on RaceSheet which might help. Working on it.

Top ToC: I've heard no opinions from the Dev Team about it. Let's open up a separate thread here; you show what you've got and we'll try and drag Beefer in. For the moment, I'm working with what we have, and the "tree" structure (similar to an Apex tree) is giving some decent background cohesion that's leading to functional changes in side-ToC layout. Whatever happens, let's wait until that tree is a little more complete before we do any surgery -- I want Site Doc merged first, and that form will follow its function.

1523 days, 8 hours, 17 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

As far as the TOC goes... I've been looking at this, and how we can make things work well for both mobile and web. I think the side "tree" TOC has to stay. It actually is a pretty good landing page for the mobile client documentation.

In general, I like the top TOC, but I don't like when it wraps. It also seems like it could be a maintenance headache whenever things are reorganized. So I'm leaning against it, at least for the mobile client.

1523 days, 6 hours, 57 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Big+Beefer,

> In general, I like the top TOC, but I don't like when it wraps.

This is something that I haven't seen in my testing. If you could send me a screenshot, I might be able to fix it.

If it's mobile only, we might be able to identify it and limit the menu depth.

> It also seems like it could be a maintenance headache whenever things are reorganized.

Once it's set up and working, it's the same level of maintenance pain as the side TOC.

The advantages of a top TOC are that it takes up less screen space, and that it allows the documentation to be full width.

1523 days, 6 hours, 49 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

> Race Pages have seen some standardization pending modification to the Achievement documentation relative to the Site project. The new bios are still on hold, awaiting either Project: Ashes or Project: No Moon (and those I'll discuss with you privately if you want).

I have no idea what you mean here. Please bring me up to date on this critical project. Email is fine.

1522 days, 11 hours, 39 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Lost your real email, @W, so I used the Contact link. Confirm receipt?

Side note -- Patch-fixes on "RaceSheet":
The new Advantages are now documented. In addition, the "alchemy" redirect is now unnecessary, as the page now links properly to "alchemy-ship". Therefore, it's evident that changing the page proper is possible for someone. Since this is core documentation, I rather like the idea that another step is required to do anything to it; ideally, I'd like to insulate the Host Order in the same way. Perhaps WE can be trusted with it, but not EVERY possible editor.

I'd like to add live links to the Advantages list. Is there anything you'd like to fix or add?

1518 days, 19 hours, 6 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> Perhaps WE can be trusted with it, but not EVERY possible editor.

This would require a more granular security system. I've commented about this several times previously, and had no feedback from the manglement.

> it's evident that changing the page proper is possible for someone

Correct. Joshua can do so, and I assume that the other developers can as well.

The problem with the 'racesheet' page is that there remain several bugs in it, only one of which was fixed. The Alchemy bug took ~6 months to fix. I do not believe that this level of responsiveness is adequate to the needs of the documentation, especially in a dynamic environment.

1518 days, 19 hours, 2 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> I'd like to add live links to the Advantages list. Is there anything you'd like to fix or add?

Where's Super Spy Advanced?

1518 days, 19 hours, 0 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> the "alchemy" redirect is now unnecessary

This is incorrect. It is still used by the Aries Class Transport.

1518 days, 18 hours, 55 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

My mistake. Good catch.

1518 days, 18 hours, 50 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Another good catch.

I've since been informed that the RaceSheet is code-generated and the reason it can't be modified is that it's this way by design. It follows logically that the separate entry for Aries alchemy is by design, but what the hell -- even with a manual redirect, I like the feel of the present alchemy page. Dividing it up would increase confusion and decrease information throughput, so there's no actual up side.

1518 days, 18 hours, 46 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> I've since been informed that the RaceSheet is code-generated

Then either the generating code has a bug, or the data that it uses to generate the information does. In either case, there are SEVEN known errors in the racesheet page, and there's no good way to fix it.

1518 days, 18 hours, 28 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

You might well be correct in that, @W, but I'm going with the 'by design' theory. All things being equal, someone's more likely to admit to "I meant to do that" than "Oops; my bad". :o)

Well, if we keep talking about the glitches (and maybe ask to have the Advantages links activated), we might just get our wish. It's possible.

Advanced added.

1518 days, 18 hours, 23 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> All things being equal, someone's more likely to admit to "I meant to do that" than "Oops; my bad". :o)

While this may be true, it has nothing to do with reality. The reality here is that the racesheet is significantly broken, and needs to be fixed.

1518 days, 18 hours, 20 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Speaking of which: While I'm here, I'll see about a patch-fix for minefields. After that, it's back to RL.

1518 days, 18 hours, 10 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> While this may be true, it has nothing to do with reality.

I think I'm going to treasure this sentence for a long time. :o))

1518 days, 17 hours, 56 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> It's grammatically correct and explains the present situation, but it is unpleasantly complex.

I'll have a look at it. There might be a way to clean it up without having to go to Pseudo-code (something that I feel should not be in any of the base pages).

1518 days, 17 hours, 52 minutes ago

draka

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

is this post open for suggestions? i mean all the devellopers running around here....
If so, how about a change in the battle simulater that if you select a race those racial ships are on top to chose, sometimes its killing me when i can't find the ship and 90% they fight in their own ships.

1518 days, 17 hours, 25 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> is this post open for suggestions?

Yes. We like to receive suggestions from the users on how to improve the documentation.

> i mean all the devellopers running around here

Neither Gnerphk nor myself are developers on this site.

> how about a change in the battle simulater ...

That type of suggestion should have a thread of its own. It is unlikely to receive adequate input here.

1518 days, 16 hours, 29 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

>> While this may be true, it has nothing to do with reality.
>
> I think I'm going to treasure this sentence for a long time.

There are two different realities being discussed here. There's the reality of a developer admitting an error and the reality of solving a problem. The first has nothing to do with the second.

1518 days, 13 hours, 51 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Oh, sure. The meaning came across, and that's the chief purpose of communication. It's just one of those fun sentences that makes the mind chortle quietly to itself. I love using words like that. :o)

1518 days, 12 hours, 29 minutes ago

draka

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

>Yes. We like to receive suggestions from the users on how to improve the documentation, or information from them on bugs or missing pieces.

Good great to hear that, i just think that it just will fit in under your missing pieces part since it is not there yet.

>Neither Gnerphk nor myself are developers on this site.

That is to bad maybe you guys need some unwanted promotion in this case.
Did you ever try to fix the documentation first and then pass it on to the developers and saying everything is ready except the software? (don't say that if they have hot coffee in their hands, the side effects might be dangerous)

>That type of suggestion should have a thread of its own. It is unlikely to receive adequate input here.

I might disagree with that i did see Gnerphk whisper some usefull things here and there.

>There are two different realities being discussed here. There's the reality of a developer admitting an error and the reality of solving a problem. The first has nothing to do with the second.

Those reality's might be more linked then you think, without the admitting of an error there is no need to solve it since it is not an error, so the second reality cannot exist if the first reality does not exist.

I guess i have to give my mind some rest, time to go to bed now...

1518 days, 12 hours, 21 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

>> We like to receive suggestions from the users on how to improve the documentation, or information from them on bugs or missing pieces.
>
> Good great to hear that, i just think that it just will fit in under your missing pieces part since it is not there yet.

This is not in the documentation because it's not in the code. Unless you're writing a specification document of some sort, it's unwise to document something that does not exist.

If you want someone to provide feedback on your suggestion, this is not the correct thread. Please create a new thread.

1518 days, 8 hours, 9 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Yeah, I'm with @W on this. We can pretty much just say that it's alphabetical, and there's no reason to do so since it's evident.

1518 days, 0 hours, 27 minutes ago

draka

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Ok i surrender, i hope this one is on topic now (if not shoot me...)

In the documentation you have a page about cloning
(http://play.planets.nu/#/howtoplay/cloning)
but i only find it by links within an other page.

I don't see it back in the side menu it self maybe it would be nice to have it in the side menu so people can find it if they are looking for it.

1518 days, 0 hours, 2 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

That one IS on topic, but all you're going to get is an explanation. Hopefully, you'll like it. Better than getting shot, at least. :o)

There's a ton of very useful pages that don't have a place on the left navigation bar (ToC is what we call it). "The Host Order Of Shipbuilding" would be my preference for handling this subject and similar, since it gives most of the needed information. And yet, it's not there.

The limits we've imposed on the ToC were put there for a good reason -- it kept getting longer, which meant that it started getting a lot harder to find information on any particular subject. A while back, Beefer made some cuts to it for mobile use, and I've made more cuts recently. Once I get some free time in RL (got to pay the rent!), I'll be reorganizing it even more, probably making one or two more cuts in the process.

If we're lucky, though, I'll find a way to fit the "Host Order Of..." pages on it somewhere, for people with curiosity about things like cloning.

In the future -- once I've finished half a dozen other tasks, probably -- I'm hoping to create an alphabetical index to the documentation by subject. That will help a lot more for people that don't like the current "tree" structure. The downside is, it'll take time to maintain, and I've already got too little. I had to limit myself to 20 hours a week of Planets writing because I found myself skipping profitable work to do this volunteer stuff, and the bills do keep piling up.

(Regards this last projected index: I'm certain there's automatic widgets that can build this type of page for us, but we'd still have to build one copy manually just to make sure the widget-generated one is correct. So I'm not even worrying about it yet.)

1517 days, 23 hours, 11 minutes ago

draka

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Did you ever thought of making one page and put a link on the toc for it and in that page you just put all subjects and the link of everything usefull documentated so people can search in there on a certain word or just browse down and look it up.

I know its probebly a lot of work so maybe its not worth putting the time in it, after all i did stumble somhow in to the right page like a terry pratchett book.

1517 days, 22 hours, 57 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

That's what I've got planned, pretty much.

But it will take some time, and I don't have much.

1494 days, 15 hours, 4 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

OK: the Host Order modifications

I'm going to post a proposed alteration, commented, in Host Order. It will include a revision to Step 1 and a substep for Command Ship movement. Please review and comment here.

1494 days, 14 hours, 44 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I tested to see if Crystals can Tow-capture if out-of-fuel themselves... it doesn't work as expected. Not sure if worth putting in Documentation.

1494 days, 14 hours, 26 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Glyn,

How does it actually work?

1494 days, 13 hours, 9 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Whoops, missed a comma in there, round 2;

Tow-capture requires fuel to function... as expected.

1492 days, 14 hours, 30 minutes ago

singularity

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

friendly code page:

BD# — (Beam Down Money) [......] if that feature wasn't enabled, this will function line any random non-special Friendly Code.

Typo - LINE should be LIKE.

1492 days, 12 hours, 47 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

It says 'like' now. Apparently someone beat me to it.

1492 days, 11 hours, 52 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Odd. Kinda makes one wonder.

1492 days, 11 hours, 38 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Well, there ARE other editors. Perhaps one of them fixed it.

1489 days, 16 hours, 37 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Overpopulation article implemented; currently undergoing final revision. I've incorporated it under Climate and Colonists, and I've edited both to accommodate it.

Rather than provide precise formulae, I've opted to give the external link. The math is situational depending on race and advantages, and so I deem the subject a bit too complex for a basic article. Thoughts?

That being said, it might be useful to prepare an accessible page to act as a repository for all known formulae, perhaps organized by their place in the Host Order. It would be a tough project but likely worthwhile; it would be especially tough, I think, because some of the more esoteric navigational formulae haven't been quantified and distributed outside of the game,

1489 days, 16 hours, 16 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Planet defense posts:

I know that increasing the number of planet defense posts increases the effectiveness of the colonists against ground attack. This information isn't in the current documentation (http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/defense-outposts-details). Can someone point me in the direction of a doc that explains this, so that I can update our docs?

1489 days, 16 hours, 13 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> I'm going to post a proposed alteration, commented, in Host Order. It will include a revision to Step 1 and a substep for Command Ship movement. Please review and comment here.

The command ship movement addition looks fine, but what is it checking against?

I updated the new 1A, still as a comment.

1489 days, 16 hours, 10 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> Overpopulation article implemented

All the formulae for that are in the Taxes and Happiness - Details page (http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/taxes-details).

Do we really need another page for this?

1489 days, 15 hours, 16 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I can snag the Defense Posts modification, since I'm already in there.

I needed an Overpopulation page as a simple reference from a guide, and it fit neatly under Colonists and Climate. I like the idea of including a link to the taxes-details page, though; I'd missed the info. Good catch.

1489 days, 15 hours, 4 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Def Posts and Def Post Details updated.

1489 days, 14 hours, 58 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Overpop updated and linked in.

1489 days, 14 hours, 49 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

With respect to the Host Order proposed alterations:

"Determine starship mass for Ion storm activity"
is part of
"Upload and validation of clientside data and action lists"

They are the same step, which is (technically)
"Update of clientside-actions"

The difficulty is in coming up with a wording that is brief, easily understood, and that is informative without being exhaustive. It's for things like this that the Annotated Host Order was created, but unfortunately, that's probably always going to be too arcane (not to mention subjective) for general distribution.

---

The "Mass Check" for Command Ships is simply that part of the Host that determines things like fuel consumption. I presume that it also modifies the characteristics of Command Ship flotilla members with regard to Ion Storms.

It's the Mass Check steps that handle this.

---

...hrmmmmm...

Perhaps, then, the Step 1 alteration should be:
A - Upload and validation of clientside data and action lists
B - Initial mass check
C ...

(Mass Check comes AFTER upload and is a part of validation.)

1489 days, 14 hours, 46 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

The movement-relative Mass Check lines are:
"Mass check, repair & mkt"

They come before each movement step. One presumes that there's a "no-movement" Mass Check as well.

1489 days, 14 hours, 44 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> Def Posts and Def Post Details updated.

It looks better, but when I go to the Ground Attack page, the term 'defense factor' appears, and it's not defined. I'd like to see that term go away, and replaced with clearer text, and possible a few examples (or a table).

1489 days, 14 hours, 42 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

WRT 'mass check' items. We need to say what it's a mass check for. Movement and ion storms are the only two so far, but I assume damage (mine and combat) is there as well.

While the 'short hand' may be perfectly clear to you, we need to also consider a newbie (possibly intermediate for Host Order).

1489 days, 13 hours, 57 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Hrm. No, I don't think we do need to consider a noob for Host Order -- intermediate, perhaps.

The problem is that more than half of the steps in the Host Order are at the least arcane and at worst quite convoluted. It all works because it's an intricate logical structure, but the timing and interactions of steps are complex and critical. If we explain each step -- even each important step -- in detail, we'll have a massive wall of text forty pages long and as readable as an Army field manual.

Have you ever read a field manual? Some aren't horrible, but most of them read like my "Guide to the First Turn" -- which is great on Turn 1, but when you get to Turn 29 and you have to go through Steps One Through Seventeen-B yet again you start to lose your enthusiasm for the task.

I think what we actually need is a GUIDE to the Host Order. I've done the two little ones (for Combat and Shipbuilding), but a greater guide would be extremely useful.

Plus, it could replace the Annotated, which would be helpful.

Down side is, it'll take a while to write, and I've got too little time to tend documentation as it is.

In the mean while, and under the presumption that the Guide to the Host is actually going to get written, I'm going to veto adding gratuitously explicit language to the Host. It has to remain terse and simple in order for there to be a guide to it.

1489 days, 11 hours, 34 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> The problem is that more than half of the steps in the Host Order are at the least arcane and at worst quite convoluted.

That is EXACTLY the problem. I believe it's our job to simplify that process to the point where it can be understood by most of the players with 2-3 completed games under their belt.

> In the mean while, and under the presumption that the Guide to the Host is actually going to get written, I'm going to veto adding gratuitously explicit language to the Host.

I disagree, sort of. IIRC, you started a Host Order Details page. Could you please, at least, add more information there? I expect that, eventually, we'll take the created 'wall of test', and break it out into several pages, each covering, in detail, a section of the Host Order.

1489 days, 10 hours, 2 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Aye; that's the plan at present.

I've been looking things over to try to figure the best approach, and it seems like building an "Annotated Host Order (Lite)" is the way to go. All we really need to do is internally reference HOShip and HOCombat for those portions and elise any direct mention of things we're uncertain about, that are undocumented due to exploit potential, or that are far too esoteric for anyone to actually use.

Add to that some very simple text blurbs introducing each section, a bit of sorting and textual bracketing, and a basic writeup on the nature of the Host and we're in business. 3-4 days worth of work (at my present off-and-on pace) and we should have something meaningful.

I've got to finish the "Turn 2 Guide" first, and I'm going to do some more exploration of the Mobile client (have we heard more about updates?), but after that I'll make some time.

1489 days, 9 hours, 28 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> undocumented due to exploit potential

This is WRONG. If an exploit is known, then it should be documented. If it is inherent in the game, then all players should know about it. If it is not inherent in the game, then all the known details should be documented, so that it can be fixed.

For player-visible exploits, security-through-obscurity is not an appropriate path.

1489 days, 9 hours, 0 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

And if an exploit is potential but hasn't been explored?

If there's an exploit that someone else has discovered, I'll document it. But I'm not going to go out and make one fashionable if nobody else has stumbled across it yet. There's concealment and then there's concealment.

I'd like to point out, just as an example, the potential interaction of the Tantrum Device with the Command Ship. It's probably intentional, but it does raise interesting questions about the Mass Check pre-Command, which is why I've been looking into it.

I mention this one because, as far as I can tell, there's no serious abuse potential due to the "hidden" Mass Check step. Since it's present, though, it ought to be mentioned, and that's what I've proposed -- not the repercussions or potential for synergy, but instead the mere facts where anyone can get them.

There are dozens of other possibilities, and I certainly haven't taken the time to look into them all.

1489 days, 7 hours, 0 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

The second draft of "g-second-turn" is nearly done. I'm going to go over it and knock it into a slightly different shape, but if you notice anything obvious that I missed, please let me know.

1489 days, 4 hours, 58 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Found some obvious things and fixed them. If anyone feels like taking a look at the guide, here's the link:
http://play.planets.nu/#/howtoplay/g-second-turn

1489 days, 4 hours, 3 minutes ago

draka

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Gnerphk, do you ever sleep?

On your manual it looks ok,
just 2 things that come in mind, how about telling them they will run out of minerals on the homeworld and need to set up other worlds to mine and bring back the minerals to build ships?
Also a reminder of putting enough fuel in ships so they don't stop flying in black space can't harm to be said again.

there are also differend ways of colonizing, i prefere first to scout planets with a light ship and drop one clan, and send the ldsf out to the planets that needs them to save fuel consumption.

1489 days, 3 hours, 37 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I do sleep, from time to time. Not just now, though. I've put in nearly thirty hours on the documentation so far this week, with breaks for commenting in the Feed and... hmm... I must have played a turn at some point. :o)

Thanks for looking over the new guide.

A mention of bringing minerals home is a good idea. I'll make a note of it and incorporate it during the next revision.

I like the idea of emphasizing fuel as well.

Perhaps a brief reference to "Beam Up Missions" would be in order. Mental note #3. :o)

With regard to different colonization methods: I've seen and regularly defeated players that use (poorly) the method you describe. It can certainly be done well, especially by Privateers and Cyborg, but that takes rather more work, in my opinion, and should only be attempted by experienced players who are skilled at late-game logistics.

These guides are for the newest of new players, and I would never recommend brute-force scatter exploration to any true noob. It's far too easily screwed up.

1489 days, 3 hours, 36 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

BTW: The information page on the Tim Continuum should now be reachable under the Rules.

It's possible that the bit about the mimes is going a bit far. I'll let you folks decide; I need a nap.

1488 days, 19 hours, 42 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> And if an exploit is potential but hasn't been explored?

Then it's not known, and doesn't need to be documented.

> I'm not going to go out and make one fashionable if nobody else has stumbled across it yet.

Remove the 'else', and I agree. Again, I expect that there are quite a few potential exploits. These do not need to be documented, but when it moves from potential to known, it should be documented.

Documentation of bugs that significantly effect gameplay, or open up an exploit, and are expected to be fixed soon, can wait a month or two, but should be documented after that.

1488 days, 18 hours, 44 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Well -- as a player with a sense of civic responsibility, I'm going to keep my little list of odd quirks to myself until I see them here in the Feed. There's no sense generating chaos.

1488 days, 17 hours, 0 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Mercenary leaderboard is absent from Documentation and it also relates to Championships replacement players.

1488 days, 7 hours, 37 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I made a few minor adjustments to the Tim Continuum page. In both cases, I commented out the old words.

1488 days, 5 hours, 38 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Courteous of you. I approve of the changes; definite improvement in tone.

1487 days, 12 hours, 31 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I updated the g-getting-started page to be more consistent. For internal links, a name works fine. For external links, I'd like to have the full URL displayed.

1487 days, 12 hours, 13 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

In a list of guides, a full URL can't hurt anything, but within any sort of text block it seems superfluous, considering hovertext, tooltips, and the status bar. Additionally, it's quite opaque for anyone on the lean side of the Asperger's spectrum. (Probably not either of us, though I may be jumping to conclusions. :o)

You know me; I'm fanatically opposed to anything that detracts from the balance and flow of text.

Our mandate is to explicitly state "external link" somewhere in the leadup. We aren't even required to say "We're Not Liable", although here and there we do.

With trusted sites only (Planets Calc, the Wiki, and PlanetsMagazine), since we link to them repeatedly, I'm thinking that the Links page should be enriched by a bit more description. Additionally, it may be useful to prune links a bit once the Guides pages have been expanded.

1486 days, 16 hours, 4 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

> In a list of guides, a full URL can't hurt anything

Have a look at the page. I think you'll find the results acceptable.

I made a few minor tweaks to the first-turn guide. Looks good.

I'll be reviewing the second-turn guide and the minefield page soon.

In the thread http://planets.nu/#/activity/2058447 , I list the items that are, and are not, used to compute fuel usage. I think this should go on a page. Do you have any idea which page it would work best on?

1486 days, 7 hours, 4 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

It appears that someone finally decided to fix most of the bugs in the RaceList page, including all but one of the wishlist items.

It would have been really nice if whoever it was had bothered to tell us, so that we could make the appropriate adjustments. Now I need to create a web page that's newly referenced.

1486 days, 6 hours, 52 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I sympathize. It's a code-generated automatic page, though, so I presume it auto-updates periodically.

Perhaps we can include a notification as a part of the code?

1486 days, 6 hours, 33 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

They updated the code as well. The resulting page looks different.

Enough is enough. It's time to drop that auto-generated crap and move to something that we control.

1486 days, 4 hours, 57 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

While I understand your frustration, it has been an admirable product thus far, and as code-generated data, it reflects the program with both accuracy and precision -- two different targets that pure text rarely manages. It's my own most-referenced resource, just ahead of the Host Order.

I believe a dedicated per-racial shiplist with a descriptive paragraph for each vessel would be useful as a parallel resource, and I believe a per-racial advantages page would be equally useful. More, the two should crosslink for each race. That's twenty-two pages that I think we should add. I believe we can do this in a way where we can present the data usefully and organized in a fashion that's non-data and non-table.

1486 days, 3 hours, 51 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

Once you add a description of the ship, you're into the space of a guide. While I have nothing against creating new guides, those aren't the same as the majority of the pages we've been creating.

As for keeping the page, you of all people should know that there's nothing we can do to actually remove that particular page. All we can do is ignore it, and make sure that no other page references it. I'll be heading in that direction.

It took several months to get them to fix it, and when they finally do so, they can't even be bothered to take a few seconds to post here that it's been fixed. This is NOT an appropriate way for a professional software developer to act towards the people who are trying to keep their documentation up to date.

1486 days, 3 hours, 36 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Oh, I agree, @W. It's evident to me -- and I mean no criticism -- that our development staff is rather on the amateur side of game design.

Right now, on another tab, I've got a Facebook game running called "Transport Empire". It's got shiny graphics, good sound effects, and trains that go from place to place. Basically, it's single-player Planets Lite with no combat but with random events every now and again. It looks shiny and the glitches, though extant, are minor.

Planets has a 20-year history of quirkiness, low-end graphics, and a seriously flawed combat system that has become sacrosanct due to 20 years of tradition. (I'll confess, I also appreciate the symmetrical beauty in the resonance of the prime number arrays -- but I'm a math geek as well as a word geek.)

I'd rather be here, all things being equal; "Transport Empire" is just an interactive wallpaper. But it probably cost very little to build and it looks a hell of a lot better than Planets ever did.

All this is not meant to be a negative criticism toward our game or developers; as I say, I'm here because I want to be. I'm just saying that there's very little to disguise the semi-amateur status of this game.

Frankly, I'd like to get paid for what I do, even if only a pittance. I'd be able to justify my time expenditures to people who want to socialize with me during my writing hours. Plus, it would give me a positive to offset the occasional moment of "They did WHAT to my documentation?!"

But... meh.

1486 days, 3 hours, 20 minutes ago

draka

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Hi, i did't read all, but i just sow the word description, and i think it might be handy if you put the word cloaker at the ship description for the starbases when they are selected or builded. (now its only with advanced cloak visible)

1486 days, 3 hours, 16 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

We don't work inside the game client, @Draka. We're just working on the onsite documentation, the "How To Play" section.

1485 days, 16 hours, 1 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

The Webmine Immunity page is now up. This advantage is only available on the Crystal's Sapphire.

1485 days, 8 hours, 42 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

The new Ship List page is more readable but less aesthetically pleasing.

On a marginally-related note: I'm thinking about adding more description to game types when I update and revise the Game Options page around Customization. A list of links to active advantages under Classic, Standard, and Custom/Test Only would be interesting. The whole bit needs reformatting.

Item 183 on the to-do list...

If only there was someone offering me a vast bribe, I'd feel like Dennis Nedry.

1483 days, 14 hours, 10 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

Would it be a good idea to suggest in the documents that the players make an entry in the player map?

1483 days, 13 hours, 51 minutes ago

draka

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

About the ship list page, how about to put in the bp for the ship in a colom..
(Yes i know, i m lazy and rather have you calculate them for me)

1483 days, 10 hours, 44 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Two reasons we can't, @Draka.

First, PBP cost varies between Standard and Priority Queue. Second, we can't actually edit that one single page. It's the only documentation we can't touch.

The first reason is enough, though -- we can't have innately confusing information in the documentation, and it would take a lot of space to make it perfectly clear.

1483 days, 8 hours, 19 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I've been thinking about the Player Map. We'd have to clear it with Space -- my impression was that he intended to close the document soon -- but I think it's doable; we could set it up under the Links page in the Intro.

1483 days, 7 hours, 49 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Minor glitch found in RaceSheet; added to "questions-for-joshua"

Plus side is, a lot of the errors have been corrected. I'm fairly pleased at the progress. Since I'm not paid help, I'm also fairly pleased that I didn't have to do the work...

1481 days, 18 hours, 28 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

From about a month ago,

> New Minefield text added

I came up with a different set of words for the combined minefields page (http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/NewMinefields). How does it look?

1481 days, 18 hours, 27 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

> I've been thinking about the Player Map. We'd have to clear it with Space

Would you mind taking the lead on this one?

1481 days, 18 hours, 16 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

RE the minefield article:

You might try using H4 rather than H3 for the subsections under Mine Impact. It might be an improvement.

I'm also not sure the decimal approximation of pi in minefield area is a good thing. I figure anyone good enough with math to use the decimals is good enough to appreciate that pi was used to make radius/area calculations easier.

But these are relatively minor quibbles, both more style than substance. As it stands, I like it. Of course, I'll go through it another time and if anything jumps out at me, I'll let you know.

1481 days, 18 hours, 5 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> RE the minefield article

Actually, I was specifically referring to the paragraph about new minefield creation vs. minefield expansion. About a month ago, we received new information. You merged that into the two main minefield pages (minefields and web-mines), with the following text:

> If a minefield in that player's identity already exists at that location, the starship will lay mines to expand that field. If the player has no minefield in the ship's location OR has another minefield that the ship is not inside but is closer to its center, a new field will be created

I just merged that information into the NewMinefields page with the text:

> To determine whether a new minefield is created or an existing minefield is expanded, we first need to find the closest minefield center, where the minefield is of the same type (normal or web) and has the same owner as the mines being created. If we're currently within that minefield, that minefield is expanded. Otherwise a new minefield is created.

I'm also wondering if web minefields from two enemies will destroy each other, as normal minefields do.

1481 days, 17 hours, 30 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I believe webs are immune to each other.

It's worthwhile to note that decisions on webs are made while webs are being laid. It's an immediate thing, so (for example) lower-numbered ships may impact the result, and all of it is Host Order dominated, of course.

1477 days, 13 hours, 21 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

New subject.

Based on this thread (http://planets.nu/#/activity/2071086), I believe that Joshua should create an AUP covering user posts and other user supplied text and images. That AUP should explicitly state the conditions under which the Admins will modify/delete the text/image, and the conditions under which more serious measures (e.g. banning a user) are taken. It also needs to cover what happens to any pre-paid Premium membership.

In addition, it should cover who owns the text/images, and who has the right to distribute them. Specifically, I believe that ownership should remain with the poster, but that by posting, the user gives Planets.nu & GMI permission to distribute the posting in perpetuity.

This is needed to protect Joshua and GMI. Almost every forum has an AUP, and it should be relatively easy to modify one of them to fit the needs of this site.

1476 days, 23 hours, 35 minutes ago

meteor

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Typo:
Page "Giving Ships Away", second line, "srsthip" instead of "starship"

1476 days, 17 hours, 14 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Meteor,

Thanks. Fixed.

1476 days, 11 hours, 28 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

> I've been thinking about the Player Map.

It was in the Planets News that arrived in my email box this morning. I think Joshua may have done the checking already.

1475 days, 16 hours, 53 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

Some time ago, you suggested that the "Emperor" ships receive pages of their own. My response at that time was that we should be able to describe all of the features of the ship with Advantages. With the new information on the Stargate, I'm thinking about those pages again.

For the Stargate, I could invent an UberMassive advantage to cover the movement issues, but I'd still need to create an advantage to cover the shields. I could do this if we used our own ship-list, but not as long as we continue to use the unmaintainable ship-list that Joshua supplies.

I think that the best path would be to dump Joshua's ship-list and use our own. This is yet another example where the ability to do our own maintenance solves problems and simplifies the solution.

Please provide detailed information on what my starship list needs to have for you to accept it as the production starship list.

1475 days, 15 hours, 31 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Please clarify: "new information on the Stargate"

1475 days, 15 hours, 27 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

http://planets.nu/#/activity/2072581

1475 days, 14 hours, 50 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Ah. It was the "2 Days Ago" bit that threw me. We've been oddly active in the Feed today.

With regard to this specific issue, I'd observe that the particular advantages and concurrent disadvantages of that single ship are inextricable. There will never be a Super-Stargate that has one thing but not the other. As such, the individual advantages and disadvantages intrinsic to that ship need not have individual pages in order for the documentation to either (1) be complete or (2) model reality.

The general principle is that this is true for certain specific ship advantages. All four of the Emperor's Flagship models have them, but so do fighter squadrons (Elusive and Squadron are unique to them, whereas Planet Immunity is general) and even such Classic vessels as the Lady Royale and the Cobol.

Since ship-intrinsic abilities are distinct from race advantages in access, in function, and in structure, sharing as they do only the Campaign Resource expense as an attribute, it seems reasonable to categorize them separately (as we presently do) and to format them differently (which we don't).

Whereas for fighter squadrons it is a simple matter to crosslink the individual ship abilities, the Emperor's Flagships are innately complex. Each to date contains a fatal flaw, In order to thoroughly document each ship, therefore, the flaw must be described in a way that anyone accessing the advantage would automatically access it.

As a result, I advise that our simplest solution would be to create an information page specific to each of the four flagships. Short redirects would either replace the Ship List ship ability link pages or, if those are short, would exist as a prominent aspect of them.

1475 days, 14 hours, 37 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

With regard to replacing the present Ship List:

I like the current document due to its comprehensive nature and explicit format. If you can replicate that functionality perfectly without using Java (which is apparently being phased out from modern browsers along with NPAPI) and store it as an active page -- even external to the present structure -- then I wouldn't object from a practical perspective.

As a matter of propriety, it seems impolite to create a separate page for documentation on the site. Planets Magazine existed as an alternative to onsite documentation for a long time, as did the Planets Wiki. With this project, we're attempting to create an onsite structure to contain sufficient documentation here. This brings with it an obligation to respect certain decisions made by the site development team.

As an alternative, however, I would propose deploying such a page on the Planets Magazine. The architecture there is such that a secondary access tree for ship and ability article content would be highly useful.

1475 days, 14 hours, 33 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

Email sent.

1475 days, 14 hours, 3 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Preceding post edited to permit mention of our amateur unpaid status.

Did I mention a lack of compensation?

1475 days, 13 hours, 11 minutes ago

draka

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk, You could ask for a raise, maybe you get a free second account out of it. (normal or upgraded tells us how good you can negociate)

1475 days, 13 hours, 0 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I would be in support of that free account/extended time based on your amount of volunteered time and level of contribution...Ra

1475 days, 12 hours, 49 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Heh. I'd be Free out to about 2021 right now, I think. :o)

But it would be nice to have some material acknowledgement of the work. An oversized embossed coffee mug and a replacement USB keyboard would be nice (I wore one out).

1475 days, 12 hours, 33 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> a replacement USB keyboard would be nice

Why didn't you tell me. I've got several of them sitting around here. The only problem is that they're the Microsoft keyboard :(

1471 days, 17 hours, 5 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

I just found http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/combat-races

I'm wondering why information from several different pages was replicated into this one, with no link to the originating page. Wouldn't it be better to have a teaser description and a link?

1470 days, 18 hours, 15 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

I'm working on a combat details page, that goes into the random numbers, and how they're used. In the process, I've found that the VCR has distances and times, but I haven't found any information on what the units are for either one. I think it would make things work better if we had names for the time and distance units. Ideas?

1470 days, 17 hours, 6 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

This is where my Combat Details fell down -- the terms were, as far as I can tell, invented by Jan Klingele ("Sirius") in his Master At Arms article. And that's copyrighted.

"Microns" is the time unit, "KelliCams" was the space unit, I think. I'd think you could use them if you add an "All Rights Reserved" to a standard reference footnote.

("Micron", of course, is a real unit of distance, a micro-meter. "KelliCam" is a Klingon unit of planetary distance from Star Trek, about 2 KM.)

My draft document called them "Time Units" and "Distance Units" and it didn't read badly. TU and DU worked fine and didn't violate any copyrights at all. If you find that unimaginative, consider that the word "mile" comes from the Latin for one thousand, meaning that's the number of paces (two-step paces) in the distance.

Physically reconstructing the primes list is potentially useful for determining the resonance effect, AKA the "buggy" combat instances. I see no purpose to physically reproducing the primes matrix, however, and I'd suggest restraint.

1470 days, 9 hours, 14 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Hrm. There's something that I failed to mention, @W, and I know I drafted the post. I feel foolish and quite embarrassed.

It's about the new version of the RaceList ship list page.

Some weeks ago, a while before the change was made, Beefer and I were discussing the page as it then stood. I offered a very few suggestions mostly along the lines that the links should be updated; he told me that since it's a code-generated page, any specific changes we'd need would be difficult, and that we should request them directly.

At that time, I'd composed a message to you to that effect, intending to post it here in the Doc thread. Apparently, I failed to do so.

I suppose this is the main reason that I'm more content with the present iteration of RaceList; my suggestions, minor though they were, were acted upon. Unfortunately, and probably in large part because of my posting error, yours were not.

Accordingly: My apologies, sir. That should not have happened.

1470 days, 8 hours, 32 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> he told me that since it's a code-generated page, any specific changes we'd need would be difficult

In other words, not only can't we fix bugs in the page but they can't either. From my point of view, that was the signing of the death certificate for the code-generated page.

A wise man once said that if you want something done right you have to do it yourself. I guess that's what we have to do.

1470 days, 6 hours, 28 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Well to be fair to myself, here's what I said about the race sheet:

"The page is actually generated by code server-side, so there is no "document" for me to update. I mention that because I can put in changes, but we would probably be better off if you just tell me what they are. I can't just take an updated document you send me and paste it in the database or anything like that."

My point being that if you were to take the HTML of that page and change things and send it back to me, it wouldn't do me much good. That it would be more effective to send me a list of changes directly since I would have to make them in the code or database or wherever. Certainly we can fix bugs in it, though it's not always a very high priority.

But I am a little curious what the major flaws in it are that make it so unusable. We put in a batch of fixes for it not so long ago, so are there a lot of remaining bugs?

1470 days, 5 hours, 14 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Big+Beefer,

> But I am a little curious what the major flaws in it are that make it so unusable.

The largest flaw is that maintenance of it is such a pain. The last set of bugs took about 3 months to get in. I believe that the primary reason for this is that the communication between the developers and the editors is so poor, and I see no significant sign of an improvement.

If the editors have full control of the page, then it can be quickly updated when we find a bug, or when we decide to make some organizational changes to the pages. Without that control, we have to wait for the developers to get to it in their queue.

I understand that you're busy (OK, extremely busy), but I don't see any end to that, and I don't think you do either. We need a solution that can be updated when needed, and what we have in place isn't it. As it's unreasonable to expect you to give this sort of work a high priority, that only leaves one solution.

As for other flaws, we're currently trying to figure out how to properly describe the Emperor starships. This is likely to be more than a little difficult, and require quite a few changes to the list.

If you could provide us with the data file, we could probably update it ourselves, and send it to you when changes are needed, thus preserving the current system, and improving turnaround time.

1470 days, 5 hours, 7 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

It's a bit ugly at present, is my main objection. Otherwise, I rather like it.

The four Imperial Flagship models are referenced oddly, largely because their abilities all are:
(1) Uniquely intertwined
(2) Complex
(3) Countered by a major disadvantage
(4) Somewhat erratically documented in the primary source

That fourth is a source of major frustration to us; after all, are we supposed to somehow take one of each out for a test-drive? But we've pretty much muddled through that.

@W and I are hoping to put a conference call on that particular subject together on how to treat it, but my schedule has been unexpectedly difficult these last few days. (Oddly without profit too, which is vexing. Freelancing is not at all easy.)

My proposal is to create a ship description page for each of the four, but the trouble is, the more pages we create, the slower the system gets. It visibly bogs down right now. It's probable that he has other objections to my thought; as I said, we haven't managed to even schedule the discussion.

I wouldn't venture to speak further on W's behalf on the subject of the RacePage; his feelings are as strong as mine, but opposed.

PS: Beefer, did you get my email RE MvM messages?

1470 days, 5 hours, 6 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Heh. Simulposting. :o)

I agree with @W about the lack of communication.

1470 days, 1 hours, 35 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@W: Modified the text somewhat in g-weapons -- sing out if you want to discuss. I feel warning people before they go read Master At Arms is wise; I know good solid players who'd take one look and collapse in shock. :o)

1469 days, 18 hours, 40 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

I don't know what you changed exactly, but it looks fine.

1468 days, 10 hours, 11 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

http://play.planets.nu/#/activity/2085206

Big Beefer: "The truth is actually between the 2 options, due to rounding. So:

- Up to 15 normal clans defending, 1 lizard clan wins and survives
- 16-30 normal clans defending, 1 lizard clans kills them all but also dies

The tool @Mkkangas mentioned above is accurate for calculating this."

Above can be used to improve; http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/ground-attack

1468 days, 10 hours, 7 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

HRRM. Interesting.

I'll have to take a look at the tool and play around with it a bit. I think perhaps you're right.

Don't look for a fast turnaround on this; I'm extremely busy at the moment, including a miniscule paid commission over the weekend. Perhaps, though, I can make some time.

Thanks for the suggestion. I hereby retract one slighting remark that I've made about ya, @Glyn. Only one, though. :o)

1467 days, 18 hours, 52 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

As a result of this thread (http://planets.nu/#/activity/2085705), I added comments to the top of 'Overpopulation' and 'taxes-details' informing the editor that there was duplicate information, and to check the other page if an update is made. With luck, this will keep the duplicated content in sync.

This should be done with other pages containing duplicate information, as we find/create them.

1464 days, 9 hours, 8 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Minor adjustments underway in some of the pages in the Guides section. Be aware so we don't cross-edit. :o)

It's just a bit of fine-tuning; nothing major.

1464 days, 2 hours, 59 minutes ago

meteor

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

The articel on glory devices (http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/glory-device) is a bit misleading, IMO.
Sounds like the reduced damage is a race advantage of the fascists (and thus only available to them).

In my last turn as COM I blew up a D19b I owned and my other ships only received damage equal to 20% of a minehit.
So it looks like this advantage is oriented on the ship owner and not the race.

1464 days, 2 hours, 54 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Interesting. I've actually observed the opposite, @Meteor. Very curious.

It WAS a D19b and not a Saber, right? And you checked Supply consumption?

1464 days, 2 hours, 50 minutes ago

meteor

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

2xD19b Nefarious Class Destroyer with "pop" on 3 Virgos.
Every Virgo consumed only 30 supplies to repair (I put in 160 because I expected 2 full mine hits)

1464 days, 2 hours, 40 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

If you detonate a Glory-device as any race, your ships only receive partial damage. Fascists just ALWAYS receive partial damage.

Your own planets are immune Glory-device detonations also (but not the natives).

1464 days, 0 hours, 59 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Natives are immune on your own planets as I recall. It's also worth noting that while Fascist ship always receive partial damage Fascist planets are not immune to enemy glory explosions.

1463 days, 21 hours, 8 minutes ago

challengespaceyard

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I second @Siggi. Your planets are safe (colonists, natives, and structures) from your own glory devices (exception: Amorphous natives)

1463 days, 19 hours, 23 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

OK. Who will update the documentation to include this information?

1463 days, 15 hours, 7 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

I believe that the 'site-my-games' page needs information on how to send a Private Message. That should include the special case that IE needs a double-click to select the text box.

1463 days, 2 hours, 2 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Quick re-wording of Documentation required, see thread on topic;

http://play.planets.nu/#/activity/2094324

1463 days, 1 hours, 18 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Got it.

1461 days, 10 hours, 34 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Some more info that could be added to the Documentation about Starbase damage/repair; http://play.planets.nu/#/activity/2095929

1459 days, 17 hours, 50 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

Do we have a page that describes the differences between a Standard player account and a Premium player account?

1459 days, 17 hours, 46 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

We need to do some research on which minefield gets enlarged when we're in two minefields with equidistant centers.

http://planets.nu/#/activity/2098018

1459 days, 15 hours, 59 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

From our discussion of time/distance units almost 2 weeks ago:

> This is where my Combat Details fell down -- the terms were, as far as I can tell, invented by Jan Klingele ("Sirius") in his Master At Arms article. And that's copyrighted.
>
>"Microns" is the time unit, "KelliCams" was the space unit, I think. I'd think you could use them if you add an "All Rights Reserved" to a standard reference footnote.
>
>("Micron", of course, is a real unit of distance, a micro-meter. "KelliCam" is a Klingon unit of planetary distance from Star Trek, about 2 KM.)

I was just doing some reading on the VGAP add-on "The Killing Floor". They use Meters and Rounds. I think we should be able to get away with Meters and Seconds. Opinions?

1459 days, 13 hours, 8 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

The original Battlestar Galactica TV series had funky pseudo-decimal time units, with microns being the unit sort of equivalent to seconds in usage.

1459 days, 12 hours, 47 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

"Meters" are rather close for any sort of combat even these days, much less in space. If you want a generic measure of distance, call it "Klicks".

"Seconds" is fine by me. We have no concept of what exactly these torpedoes are, for instance; they could be railgun projectiles or guided rockets. We have little idea of the nature of ship propulsion or maneuverability, and so scale is meaningless.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/klick

1459 days, 12 hours, 42 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Since the full benefits of a Premium account are listed at http://play.planets.nu/#/start/upgrade I've felt no compulsion to expand on them. Moreover, if a detailed description is provided, it (1) will become inaccurate if things change (as they have done and will do frequently) and (2) will create civil liability. Under Title 42 of the UCC, that liability would include us specifically, as I understand it.

That's three great reasons to NOT document the benefits of a Premium account. Instead, we could just use an inline link to the Upgrade page.

1459 days, 12 hours, 40 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Minefields: Someone should research this, yes. My present understanding is that the lower-numbered of the two fields will gain the mines, but we want to confirm that.

1458 days, 4 hours, 50 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

I've been working on a Combat Details page that goes into the guts of the actual VCR code. It's VERY rough and needs a LOT of filling, but the basic structure is starting to form.

http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/combat-details

You might want to check it from time to time, and provide suggestions.

1458 days, 2 hours, 26 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I'm going to suggest that you violate one of your precepts, @W, and use a couple of nested subpages rather than provide a narrative. The random number tables, for example, are mere curiosities since we don't know precisely how they are employed but only generally.

(Of course, decompiling TimHost would tell us, but that would be cheating. Not in a literal sense, of course; I just prefer to deduce from results.)

My advice at present is to employ the combat-basics page as a structure and nest detail pages from it. Divide Combat into Planet and Ship vs Ship, and then presume every vessel has tubes, fighters, and guns for the step-by-step description.

(After, include the mass and side advantage modifiers.)

Combat then is divided into stages: Long range, where fighters are launched; Medium range, where torpedoes are launched, Close range, where beam weapons discharge at the opposing ship, and Point Blank, where movement has stopped and where (as I recall) fighters do not shoot one another.

I approve of your use of Klicks, and torpedoes hit approximately 65% of the time. One can read into the repeat numbers in the 100 table for the reason for that.

Klingele's article will serve for most but not all data, especially that of the combat glitch descriptions. My most pointed advice at this moment, then, is to skip the rest for right now and instead concentrate entirely on complete documentation of the possible glitch combat matchups. From study of a broad sample, deduce causes. Most particularly, quantify which events will and will not reset the pseudo-random loop, including initial damage, torpedo discharge, et cetera.

We've got detail articles on Order of Battle, weapon power, and several similar topics. You might refer to my Planets Mag article on side advantages; pay especial attention to the footnotes. You'll have to do the verification, but I'll help as I can.

Again, though: concentrate on the glitches, and be thorough. That's the most valuable contribution that I foresee, and it's bite-sized.

1457 days, 16 hours, 52 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

> The random number tables, for example, are mere curiosities since we don't know precisely how they are employed but only generally.

Actually, we DO know how they're employed. It's in the VCR code (a mirror of the Host Combat Engine). In any case, I had intended to leave them at the bottom of the page, to minimize their interference with the core ideas of the page.

> My advice at present is to employ the combat-basics page as a structure and nest detail pages from it.

I don't think that will work. Once I get all the data in there, I'd like to organize it similar to the way it is in the code. While that may not be as pretty as it could be, I believe it will do a better job of describing EXACTLY what the Combat Engine does.

> Klingele's article will serve for most but not all data, especially that of the combat glitch descriptions.

Glitches should be able to be verified in the code. I'll have to come up with the WHY, so that it makes sense. The reason that I'm currently concentrating on the WHAT of the code Combat Engine is that I expect the cause of most of the glitches will then be obvious.

> My most pointed advice at this moment, then, is to skip the rest for right now and instead concentrate entirely on complete documentation of the possible glitch combat matchups.

Actually, I think the page is almost to the point where the Glitches can be properly documented. The page about the EE SSD not working had quite a bit of good data in it that helped to fill in many of the holes. The final details are still in the code, to be extracted.

> From study of a broad sample, deduce causes.

Why? We have the VCR code. In most cases, we should be able to KNOW the causes.

> You might refer to my Planets Mag article on side advantages; pay especial attention to the footnotes. You'll have to do the verification, but I'll help as I can.

Which one of your numerous Planets Mag articles are you referring to?

1457 days, 16 hours, 11 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

One of the things I'm doing in the Combat Details page is that I'm adding comments that describe where each item comes from. That will make it easier to verify functionality, and to change the description if the Combat Engine changes.

1457 days, 14 hours, 16 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

http://www.planetsmagazine.com/strategy/strategic-knowledge/advanced-combat-carriers-and-left-vs-right/

http://www.planetsmagazine.com/strategy/strategic-knowledge/whos-on-first-on-combat-order-and-battle-value/

I touch on stuff in the footnotes, but it's so long ago now that I've purged some of the research references. So there's the fighter kill advantage in LvsR, but there's also the miniscule recharge rate advantage, the side advantage in torpedo firing, et cetera. These are on the order of 0.5%, as I understand it -- but measurable. I believe the side advantage in fighter hits has the same mechanism as the others.

-- now that I've explained, here's where we differ.

You aim to examine the code; I explore matchups in the simulator to enumerate and describe the combat glitches. Experimentation will remove the uncertainty associated with deduction; that's one reason for my preference. Yours does make sense, though; it's just not how I'm thinking because I don't aim to look at code.

My general advice, though, is to divide this into bite-sized projects and display it all in only a semi-integrated fashion. Some of the information will be more accessible in that way. The alternative is an indigestible wall of text.

1457 days, 13 hours, 41 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

Thanks for the links. I'll have a look at them

I've made good progress on the Combat Details page, and should have the first phase finished today. I'll look at the glitches after that. If I find glitches that appear to no longer be valid, I'll bring them up.

As part of the code examination, I determined the power of a Fighter's beam. Having that information, I added it to the Weapon Technical Details page.

1457 days, 10 hours, 8 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

OK. The first pass is done. I believe the weapon actions are all correct.

I'm working on the weapon damage now. With any luck, I should be able to move on to the glitches either late tonight or tomorrow.

1457 days, 6 hours, 21 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I'll take a quick look over it for anything that jumps out at me. Once it's done, I'll proof it, then go over it again for language and presentation.

If there's something that you don't see, pop a query in the comments and I'll do my best to answer. Don't forget the footnotes from those articles; each is a question that wants answering. (Not that I demand absolute perfection here; some of this stuff has been waiting years.)

And don't forget to tag it at the top while you're editing. I'll do the same. No sense in us overlapping. :o)

1457 days, 3 hours, 23 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

You'll want to look at the source as well as the result.

1456 days, 13 hours, 34 minutes ago

singularity

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/friendly-codes

QUOTE
DMP — (Dump) This Friendly Code will cause the starbase to deconstruct any starship components it has in stock and convert them back to surface minerals. Hulls alone will be retained in storage.
/QUOTE

Might want to add that you get back 0Mcr, and 100% of the minerals used to make the components.

1456 days, 13 hours, 17 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Yikes, major flaw in Documentation... and even Donovans Host order list from decades ago!

Relevant thread: http://play.planets.nu/#/activity/2100925

1456 days, 13 hours, 7 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Singularity,

I added the recycle rate and MC non-return.

I thought Hulls got recycled as well. Can anyone verify?

1456 days, 13 hours, 5 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

http://planets.nu/discussion/question-for-a-new-guide-if-a-starbase-is-captured-by

1456 days, 12 hours, 38 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Glyn,

Working on it. More detail in cited thread.

1456 days, 11 hours, 59 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

My initial testing has demonstrated that the Host Order probably needs to be adjusted. Please see my last post in http://play.planets.nu/#/activity/2100925

1456 days, 11 hours, 26 minutes ago

singularity

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@whisperer

I tested hull dmp and got an unexpected result - Other components get dmped ok, but hulls remain in component storage and therefore no hull recycling takes place.

Method:
built 10x hulls
built 10x engines
fcode dmp
end turn

receive normal income from mines.
engines gone from storage. hulls remain in storage.
minerals on surface gained from engines dmped.

Not what I expected. Is this the same as THost?

1456 days, 11 hours, 12 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I can tell you that hull nonrecycle via DMP is by design.

With regard to Host Order: Let's wait for Beefer to confirm, ignore, deny, or announce intent to modify.

1456 days, 11 hours, 2 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Actually, @Glyn, that explains the design cause behind hull nonrecycle. Hulls are supposed to be permanent and nontransferable.

1456 days, 10 hours, 42 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Yeah edited it hours ago... saying 'Nevermind'

1456 days, 10 hours, 41 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

> With regard to Host Order: Let's wait for Beefer to confirm, ignore, deny, or announce intent to modify.

While I have no problem waiting a few days to make the change, it's obvious that a change is needed. Unless the developers provide different information that matches the data, I'd like to make this change on Wednesday or Thursday. Will that work for you?

WRT the current Host Order, what should we do with it? I'd like to convert it to a PDF and save it, so that the progression can be seen. Opinions?

1456 days, 10 hours, 27 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

It takes Beefer two to three days to reply to an email at the best of times, mate. This would also require exploration of Host code. I'm thinking we give them a week anyway.

In the interim, temporary text in the Tow Mission description will provide sufficient documentation for anyone likely to be at all interested in the phenomenon. Anyone that fails to check there has only themselves to blame.

PDF: That's a format often described as "on its way out". Very good idea, but let's go simpler.

Text file change log format within the Documentation, perhaps? We can start with the "original" from TimHost, then tack on the old site's version, and then move to the present incarnation with change-log steps (and the reasons behind them) in between.

1456 days, 10 hours, 14 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> Text file change log format within the Documentation, perhaps?

I want something that the users can look at if they want, without having to go through a lot of effort.

> PDF: That's a format often described as "on its way out".

When there's a good replacement, I'll believe it. Until then, I'll use PDF for long-term archival of on-line information.

1456 days, 5 hours, 17 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

We have the same goal, at least. :o)

At present, there's an archive we can't access. We have version control active at an access level above ours, presumably as a safeguard against an editor going berserk and wreaking havoc among the damage tables.

Still -- what I describe seems entirely accessible, and it would also provide us a log which contains the reasons for each change. That strikes me as entirely reasonable.

Side note: You may well be right about the PDF format. I didn't believe Java was on its way out until recently; I thought Silverlight was perpetual. But the PDF is extremely useful, and it has no valid replacement.

Where would you store such an archive?

1456 days, 4 hours, 51 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> Where would you store such an archive?

Have a look at the very bottom of the Host Order page.

1455 days, 19 hours, 7 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

> Since the full benefits of a Premium account are listed at http://play.planets.nu/#/start/upgrade

Actually, they're not. In addition to the listed benefits, a Premium player has their promotions announced in the newsfeed.

1455 days, 18 hours, 44 minutes ago

challengespaceyard

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Furthermore, there is no agreement with respect to Holiday Mode. The upgrade page says you can turn it on, but it appears that it can be turned on even if one is shareware.

I cannot prove its effectiveness because I have no games running.

Premium players can also recategorize threads, but I disagree with this requirement.

1455 days, 18 hours, 35 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@CSY,

> The upgrade page says you can turn it on, but it appears that it can be turned on even if one is shareware.

As a non-Premium player, you can turn it on, but it doesn't make the turn for you. It will allow the game to turn when you haven't indicated that you're ready. I consider this to be a bug.

> Premium players can also recategorize threads, but I disagree with this requirement.

I believe that's a task for Moderators. Joshua doesn't seem to have decided that they're needed yet, but I think he's getting close.

It would be much better if the system-generated newsfeed posts were placed in the proper forum when generated.

1455 days, 18 hours, 30 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

> We can start with the "original" from TimHost

I haven't been able to find a clean copy of this. The closest I've found are:

http://www.donovansvgap.com/help/ordered.htm (left-hand frame)
http://vgaplanets.org/index.php/Host_Order

I don't like the look of either of these for the archive.

I already have entries for the page before this set of changes, and the page from the old documentation.

BTW, the Donovans link above has similar functionality to what I'd like to see for our Host Order.

1455 days, 17 hours, 55 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Question about Advanced Cloning: Where does it go in the Host Order? As I see it, the options are: Before or with 28 or 29 (total of 4 possible positions).

1455 days, 17 hours, 52 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

28, in all likelihood. Check out my "Host Order Of Shipbuilding".

If it's actually in the Cloning step, it's retconned. Which would be disturbing, IMO.

1455 days, 15 hours, 35 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

> Check out my "Host Order Of Shipbuilding".

Nice doc. May I use the build information there to update the Host Order?

1455 days, 15 hours, 31 minutes ago

challengespaceyard

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> @Whisperer: It will allow the game to turn when you haven't indicated that you're ready. I consider this to be a bug.

Last time I checked, it is not a bug according to press. If you are the LAST missing player, and a game is LESS than 24 hours to host run, you will be marked ready even if you are not done.

1455 days, 15 hours, 19 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@CSY,

I just reread the documentation. I thought that Holiday Mode made your turn for you. Apparently it doesn't.

In this case, Holiday Mode works for all players, and isn't a Premium feature. I know this because it's bitten me :(

1455 days, 8 hours, 4 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@W: Stop with the Host Order. One change was what I agreed to.

If you feel like expanding on it, there's an annotated version you'll find interesting. It's a ways from ready, but once those questions are answered it'll be an invaluable resource.

1454 days, 8 hours, 50 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Suggest updating Force Surrender to include information that ship mission is reset and waypoint cancelled and possibly warp reset to zero?

http://help.planets.nu/starbase-commands

Also relevant to 'gsX'.

Relevant thread: http://play.planets.nu/#/activity/2108605

1453 days, 15 hours, 57 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

A statement was made by Big Beefer in this thread (http://planets.nu/#/activity/2107518) that I believe modifies Rule 2 to NOT include private games. This has caused concern from users in the past. As the Admins have provided clarification, I'd like to clarify the rules. Is that acceptable?

1453 days, 14 hours, 16 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

If you have no objection, @W, I'd like to perform that surgery myself.

Since I read the post I've been torn between just adding the word "public" or adding a full descriptive sentence. In time, if clarifications and additions keep getting made, we will need to do a two-section format: the top, which is a list, and the bottom, which is the explanation. For now, though, things are still simple.

1453 days, 14 hours, 10 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Present text:
Do not, under any circumstances, join the same game with two accounts. You should only ever have one view of the game from one player position. Joining with two accounts is considered cheating.

This is what I'm thinking:
Do not, under any circumstances, join any public game with two accounts. You should only ever have one view of the game from one player position. Joining with two accounts is considered cheating. (Private or Test games are not restricted by this rule.)

1453 days, 13 hours, 54 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

That looks good to me.

1453 days, 13 hours, 48 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Done.

Thanks for humoring me. I hate to let go of something when I'm in the middle of it. :o)

1453 days, 13 hours, 20 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I would remove the "Test" game designation, as it's a distinction that doesn't really exist on the site, or matter much for this rule. A game is public or private. I wouldn't want someone to think it was OK to join a public game with 2 accounts because it was a "test game" for them.

1453 days, 13 hours, 16 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Good call. Done.

1452 days, 15 hours, 6 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Debating splitting off the Starbase Orders section into a subpage for easier access from the top Starbase page. On the plus side, it would make the information easier to find; on the minus side, we've got too many pages as it is and adding another wouldn't help.

One alternative would be to rebuild the three sections to each have at their top the Interface documentation and tree from there, but that would require substantial effort for only moderate gain.

Another would be to add an explanatory sentence to the Interface link description on the Starbase page, telling what's to be found there.

A third would be to copy the information into a subpage but leave the primary documentation repository on the Interface page, and have a link explaining that. This strikes me as clunky but one of the simpler functional solutions.

1448 days, 21 hours, 45 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

With reference to the above post:

In general, a large number of our top reference pages suffer from "Wall Of Text Disease".

Top pages and those which are designed as basic documentation (as distinct from reference documentation) ought, ideally, to be brief. They should have basic information in a highly readable format. There should also be links to detail pages which contain tables, formulae, and lists of exact methods (reference documentation).

The project of instituting such a sweeping change through our entire work is an ambitious one, but I believe it's necessary. Otherwise, the documentation is impenetrable to the casual user and, therefore, is itself as much an obstacle to new players as was the original incomplete version.

Please discuss.

1448 days, 20 hours, 9 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Some basic revisions implemented as a part of an ongoing project. Precision Navigation subpage generated; Information Screens renamed Information Panes.

1446 days, 18 hours, 50 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Ill. Contact via email if urgent.

1444 days, 7 hours, 10 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Cool. Got a shout-out, and he pronounced my name (almost) right. So did you, @W. If we attend the next Con, we'll have to hit him up for a free beer at least; my agent's starting to give me crap about this.

Dammit; I'll have to give him a tenth of my beer. Hm. Maybe I'll save the dregs...

ANYway. Advantages updated to reflect transitive nature of Advantages being brought into Standard going forward. Fascist Fast Beams, Super Spy Advanced, and Starbase Fighter Transfer all placed in separate list. Did I miss anything?

Still feverish; going back to bed. Fun dreams.

1444 days, 6 hours, 36 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> Fascist Fast Beams, Super Spy Advanced, and Starbase Fighter Transfer all placed in separate list.

Looks good.

1444 days, 6 hours, 30 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

Big Beefer posted a page on Academy (http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/academy). Should we link it in with the rest of the pages, should we build a separate tree based on it, or should we just leave it alone?

1444 days, 6 hours, 29 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Cool. I also put what little we know about Chupanoids into the FAQs section, since I'm not entirely sure where else to stick the buggers. Are they a player race? Are they a native race? Is there a chance we can avoid them if we stay out of Campaign like the wusses we know we are?

I don't know, but I'm investing in warp stabilizer research, just because I want to be ahead of the curve.

1444 days, 6 hours, 26 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

The Academy page is obviously still undergoing construction. Let's leave it be a couple of days.

Once we know where it'll live as a game setting, we'll know how better to insert it into the documentation tree. Right now, my guess is it'll need its own complete subtree -- and ideally its own sidemenu ToC, but that might be tough -- so that means it gets its own full section. Once it's time we'll spawn it under Intro and see if it grows.

1444 days, 5 hours, 18 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Yeah, don't worry about Academy just yet. I just wanted to get some details available somewhere for those in the test games.

1439 days, 11 hours, 18 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Switching to the correct thread.
Planet immunity can't be switched off. So it's an always on advantage.
And therefore should be included in the general advantages :)

1439 days, 11 hours, 12 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

You're thinking the individual Race pages?

Yeah; I've been rewriting those things over and over for eight solid months. The format is unpleasant when they're exhaustive and we lose the flavor of the text when we're technical. Quite some time ago we got a finding from @Joshua that we should try and keep as much of the old-time flavor if practicable.

For the moment, I've put a patch line in each of the Fascist and Rebel race pages to indicate the advantage, but there are other standard and intrinsic advantages which aren't included.

1439 days, 11 hours, 6 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Just looked at it , yeah that was pretty much what I was thinking.
When Acezzz brought it up I went looking and actually couldn't find an explanation of planetary immunity and who it applies to.
But this fix looks good.

1439 days, 10 hours, 26 minutes ago

acezzz

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

any where you see the NUKE command should say / not to include rebels or fascists

1439 days, 10 hours, 23 minutes ago

acezzz

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

wow this thread is kinda hard to find and follow, to many hops.........why do you think i used the front page on the start.

1439 days, 5 hours, 31 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Siggi,

> I went looking and actually couldn't find an explanation of planetary immunity and who it applies to.

http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/planet-immunity

1439 days, 5 hours, 29 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Acezzz,

> this thread is kinda hard to find and follow

It can get that way. While I believe the documentation is far better than it used to be, it's still got a long way to go, and the road isn't always smooth.

1438 days, 15 hours, 8 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Seeing as many beginners have asked multiple times, "why didn't NUK work?" and it was because there was no-defense post... it needs inclusion.

http://help.planets.nu/friendly-codes

I attempted to work it into the wording myself;

"(NUKE) Use of this Friendly Code *along with at least one Defense Post* will cause the planet to initiate combat with any decloaked enemy starship that enters orbit, fueled or not. Note that this is the only way in the game to initiate combat with a fuelless staship. Races and Starships with Planet Immunity will not be effected by this Friendly Code.

(maybe even replace 'fuelless' with out-of-fuel link also)

1438 days, 13 hours, 58 minutes ago

emork the lizard king

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

For the sake of comprehensive documentation:

"Races and Starships with Planet Immunity AND FUELLESS BIRDMEN WARSHIPS will not be effected by this Friendly Code."

GA with Birdmen Merlins is fun :)

1438 days, 12 hours, 53 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

And we won't forget Fascists and Rebels.

Ya know, it's kinda surprising we use the NUK code at all; there doesn't seem to be much point, since so many are resistant to it.

1438 days, 12 hours, 33 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

One reason, Privateers.

Ship arrives without fuel and you have a big enough defence of star base you take out the hopefully large fuel tank but low fighting ability ship.

1438 days, 9 hours, 35 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

http://help.planets.nu/advanced-cloak

" Second, they can cloak in an ion storm or a nebula as lon as the ship is undamaged."

Missing a 'g' on what should be 'long'.

1438 days, 9 hours, 34 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Same page, "for normal cloaking, and that they are protected from the effects of dangerous ion storms."

'that they' wording sounds off.

1438 days, 9 hours, 31 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

http://help.planets.nu/ion-storms

-Cloaking is impossible inside an ion disturbance.

I suggest at least adding 'Normal' to the start of that.

1438 days, 9 hours, 30 minutes ago

challengespaceyard

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Corrected the advanced cloak page. Lon has been corrected to long, and the redundant word "that" has been removed.

1438 days, 6 hours, 17 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Thanks, @CSY. Very good of you.

1438 days, 5 hours, 23 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

http://help.planets.nu/advanced-cloak

Advanced cloaking inhibits Ion Storms from moving ships.

http://planets.nu/discussion/advanced-cloak-and-ion-storms-level-3

http://www.donovansvgap.com/help/ionstorms.htm

'not affected by Ion Storms at all' is probably best way to phrase it.

1437 days, 23 hours, 15 minutes ago

challengespaceyard

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Streu's Ion Storm Physics conflict with this. Thus, further exploration in such a game is necessary.

Reference: http://www.phost.de/~stefan/ion.html

1437 days, 17 hours, 16 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Challengespaceyard: Did you look at the discussion link I posted, Joshua commented on this.

1437 days, 16 hours, 53 minutes ago

challengespaceyard

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I just re-read the links. AFAIK, it appears that the current information in the documentation still stands. Advanced cloakers are protected from ion storms WHILE their cloaking device is active.

Joshua commented on, and fixed, a bug where a CLOAKED ship was being dragged anyway. This also dated to back when the random cloak failure was 1% per turn.

1437 days, 9 hours, 24 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

@Jernhand posted a nice idea in this thread (http://planets.nu/#/activity/2135990). I believe it simplifies the overall minefield situation. Do you have any objections if I merge it into the minefield page?

1436 days, 5 hours, 27 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

It appears that we have too few links to the "out of fuel" page (http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/out-of-fuel). I think we should make this a bit better.

1436 days, 4 hours, 59 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Reasonable. Don't forget that there are at least two different states of having no fuel -- having "run out of fuel" and "having zero fuel". I'm still working out a few of the differences.

1436 days, 3 hours, 33 minutes ago

nanning

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Could
http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/adv-starbase-fighter-transfer
be altered to remove the campaign resource use, and could it be referred to in the Evil Empire and/or Star Base items as a non-classic feature.

I'm also unhappy about
http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/glory-device
where in the past 13 hours the text
"The glory device does less damage to starships owned by a Fascist that also owns the detonating ship."
has been altered to
"The glory device does less damage to starships owned by a Fascist or that also owns the detonating ship."

which is improper English and still seems to be in conflict with
http://www.planetsmagazine.com/races/klingons/klingonguides/absolut ion-gap-frequently-asked-questions-about-glory-devices/
"Fascists will suffer reduced damage no matter who detonates it. Enemies will only suffer reduced damage when they detonate their own glories meaning they do not adapt the protection."

1435 days, 17 hours, 44 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Nanning,

Both Gnerphk and myself are in the US (he's on the east coast and I'm on the west coast), and we're daytime people (actually, Gnerphk appears to run on my tomezone). I've responded in your thread (http://planets.nu/#/activity/2137644).

Copied from that thread:

As Gnerphk is "working" on the race description pages, I'll leave it to him to properly link in the Starbase Fighter Transfer advantage.

1435 days, 17 hours, 2 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I've been considering, and I've reached a partial conclusion: If we're going to do without the Berthold rays, we should probably do without the fictional science created by Jernhand.

Our guidance in the past has been that we should add fictional color where it's in keeping with the overall Planets mythology. If this is to be the case, we ought then to have a complete "science of Planets" background, something that explains the observed (fictional) realities, has no internal contradictions, and violates no copyrights. The removal of "Berthold rays", a Star Trek invention that (as I recall) was used to flesh out the ion storm, is a positive change, and it's possible that Jernhand's invention is equally positive -- but until we've got a complete fictional science, it's unwise to cobble one together from spare parts.

1435 days, 14 hours, 44 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

> If we're going to do without the Berthold rays, we should probably do without the fictional science created by Jernhand.

The problem with the use of Berthold rays for the Glory Device is that they didn't explain the damage to ships. This is typically what happens when the wrong "science" is used. I believe my change does a better job of explaining the damage. It also explains the ability of Fascist ships to avoid damage, as well as the race that controls the popper.

As for Jernhand's suggestion, I had no intention of changing the documentation until the concept was completely fleshed out.

> we should add fictional color where it's in keeping with the overall Planets mythology

Berthold Rays came directly from Star Trek. My recollection is that we had direction to move away from the original sources when possible. What's the proper balance here?

1435 days, 14 hours, 4 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

That's a good question.

(By the way -- I'd intended to register agreement with your removal of Berthold rays.)

I'm mining Charles Sheffield's works for a decent science background for the site; he strikes me as the appropriate author, since all of his fiction seems to have some sort of basis in actual science, and as he goes out of his way to explain that to his readers, I very much doubt he'd object. :o)

The only objection that I have is to using snippets piecemeal. Once we've got a good overall "Science of Planets", we can proceed to add color, in my opinion.

1435 days, 12 hours, 17 minutes ago

singularity

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

To add to the minefield in warpspace discussion - this also helps explain the oddity of why you can see ships in an ion storm, but not minefields.

The ion storm is masking the warped minefield's signature, whereas Ships are detectable in normal space-time.

Or something like that ;)

1435 days, 12 hours, 8 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

> The only objection that I have is to using snippets piecemeal.

I agree, however the "science" I selected (in this case, close to real science) to put into the Glory Device is simple enough that I expect we can merge it into virtually fictional science that we might select for Planets.nu.

1435 days, 4 hours, 44 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Yeah. That aspect of it I like. Explosives next to in-system drives, or even deliberately destabilizing a warp core -- works fine, and it's an improvement on the Berthold rays.

My objection was directed toward the minefield language you had mentioned, and it's temporary. Sorry to have been unclear.

We ought to revise the language in Glory Devices a bit to give the in-game "Glory Immunity" details for Fascists -- that their ships take reduced damage, that Fascist own colonists are immune, and that Fascist natives... I think they're immune? I'd have to reread Ana's article for that.

Going on vacation now; fortunately, I'm not sick any longer (sick vacations stink) but unfortunately I don't have the time to devote to this that I otherwise would. Apologies, mate.

1435 days, 3 hours, 8 minutes ago

acezzz

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

test post

1434 days, 8 hours, 20 minutes ago

singularity

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Hotkey added U for unload.

http://planets.nu/#/activity/2139763

1434 days, 5 hours, 26 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/hotkeys updated to reflect change. Thanks for mentioning it, @Singularity -- I'm on vacation and would have missed it entirely.

(Hotel internet stinks. Hello and goodbye eastern Pennsylvania!)

1434 days, 4 hours, 14 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

> I'm on vacation and would have missed it entirely.

I saw it earlier, and planned to work on it this evening. While I'm somewhat happy that someone else did the work, YOU'RE ON VACATION. Take some time off, and spend it with the family. Don't bury your nose in the documentation, except to help you in an ongoing game.

> Hello and goodbye eastern Pennsylvania

Having spent my youth a bit north of Baltimore, I understand what you mean ;)

1434 days, 3 hours, 22 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk about glory immunity. Fascist natives are NOT immune to enemy (or allied) glory explosions.

1433 days, 5 hours, 39 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

"http://help.planets.nu/site-Contact"

Rather useless in its current form.

1432 days, 20 hours, 23 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Yes it is, @glyn. That's by design. It's an ironic statement, similar to Statham's "Transporter" wearing a simple suit and tie with no character or individuality.

The rhetorical question I'd pose here is this: Is there any reason to document the feature at all? Is there any information that can't be conveyed simply by clicking on the Contact link?

In truth, the overwhelming majority of the website is like that. That portion of the documentation is meant to parallel it in order to provide a comprehensible structure. Ease of use for the necessary parts, that sort of thing.

@W - It's not that sort of vacation, alas. Right now it's rainy and miserable in Providence, and I've got three turns to run -- which makes it a perfect day. :o)

1432 days, 13 hours, 52 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

http://help.planets.nu/cloak-intercept

Fails to mention that ship on intercept mission enters combats on right hand side.

1432 days, 13 hours, 23 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Glyn,

If you have a point, make it and support it.

1432 days, 13 hours, 14 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I did.

1432 days, 12 hours, 34 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

http://help.planets.nu/host-order

Fails to mention when Nebulas decloak ships, which is at end of movement assuming this is correct; http://help.planets.nu/nebulas

1432 days, 12 hours, 15 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

http://help.planets.nu/neb-scanner
http://help.planets.nu/nebulas

Called both Neb Scanner and Nebula Scanner... while called 'Neb Scanner' on sites official ship descriptions... I suggest prodding Joshua too replace it with 'Nebula Scanner' officially.
____

http://help.planets.nu/host-order

Fails too mention when the 'neb scanner/nebula scanner' scans, although I assume it is during regular ship scanning phase, still should be mentioned.

1432 days, 10 hours, 4 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Glyn,

1. http://help.planets.nu/nebulas has been updated to call them "Nebula Scanners".

2. Joshua and Big Beefer took about 4 months to make the last set of changes to the ship list. I wouldn't expect a quick response.

3. Changes to the Host Order are not made on a whim, or based on anyone's unverified assumption. It is necessary to verify where these additions belong before they're added. That verification usually comes from experimentation, but sometimes comes from the developers. There are several missing items, and they'll stay missing until we know *exactly* where they go.

1432 days, 5 hours, 24 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

And, because @W is a polite fellow, he usually bows to my dictae that:
(1) Never change the Host Order,
and
(2) NEVER CHANGE THE HOST ORDER!!!

That and the "Ship List" (or "Race Page") are the only two bits of core original documentation we have that are purest Gospel, aside from the Change Log (which really isn't very reliable by its nature). So my preference is, as W said, to avoid altering either unless it's absolutely essential.

Such items as precise timing on Ion Storms and Nebulae are, in my opinion, far too precise for the general Host Order documentation, and should only be covered in the sections for each item and the Commentated Host Order -- if that ever gets completed to a point where it's accessible. (At least a score of items need more testing before it graduates from its present status of "documentation editor's general question repository".) The reason for excluding the details from the Host Order page is simple: There are far too many details to put there, that in an ideal world would BE there, to permit a readable document once it's complete.

I hope that clarifies a bit of the process for ya, @Glyn.

Speaking for myself: Please continue to tell us about these things when you run across them -- but also, please don't be disappointed if we choose not to make changes you'd like, or if it takes us a while. The Host Order especially is a tough one.

-- going back to vacation now. Played "EuroRails" with an old friend this evening; having a blast.

1431 days, 9 hours, 33 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I'm going to keep posting suggestions here.

That way I have a record I can refer to later on when I update the vgaplanets.org wiki in the Winter. I don't care if my suggestions go unfulfilled... and when the Host order DOES get updated by whomever, they then can easily find the relevant posts via the hyperlink that I add to accompany them.

All I have left for you two is APATHY. Lets please return to ignoring each other.

1431 days, 9 hours, 29 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

http://help.planets.nu/links aka http://play.planets.nu/#/howtoplay/links

"Our UserVoice site can be found by clicking on the Feedback link at the bottom of the page."

Only makes sense if used via; http://play.planets.nu/#/howtoplay/links

1431 days, 9 hours, 25 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

http://help.planets.nu/win-conditions

Some relevant ongoing discussion about overriding another's Win Conditions in this thread; http://play.planets.nu/#/activity/2141844

1431 days, 8 hours, 7 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Glyn,

> "Our UserVoice site can be found by clicking on the Feedback link at the bottom of the page."
> Only makes sense if used via; http://play.planets.nu/#/howtoplay/links

Thank you for yet another "out of context" quote. The VERY NEXT SENTENCE tells the user what to do if that link doesn't work. I did, however, replace "working" with "visible or working" in the second sentence.

> Some relevant ongoing discussion about overriding another's Win Conditions in this thread;

That looks to me to be discussion of a bug. With Emork pushing for a fix, I expect to see one soon. When we get a response, one way or another, we'll verify that the documentation matches the fix.

1431 days, 7 hours, 35 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

http://help.planets.nu/links

"If for any reason that link isn't visible or working, you might try clicking here instead."

Doesn't work and thus doesn't make sense.

1431 days, 7 hours, 16 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Glyn,

> Doesn't work and thus doesn't make sense.

Thank you for the clarification. There appears to be a bug in Joshua's translation from the dynamic pages to the static pages. This is probably a problem on EVERY page that references a page external to the documentation. In the general case, this is something that we can't fix, and will need to be forwarded to Joshua & Big Beefer.

In the short term, I made the external references on this page visible. Most of the pages that reference external pages display the actual link being referenced, but this one (and a few others) didn't.

The links still don't work, and probably won't for a while.

1431 days, 6 hours, 50 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

When you have a few minutes, could you have a look at the grammar in the NUK section of the Friendly Code page WRT effect vs. affect? This was described by @Jellyfishspam in http://planets.nu/#/activity/2145816

1431 days, 3 hours, 45 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I just updated the hotkeys page (http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/hotkeys) from the JavaScript Client code. There were quite a few missing hotkeys.

1430 days, 4 hours, 29 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Just went through the game setup customization page (http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/customization) and brought it in sync with the game creation pages. The following were added:

Super Spy Advanced
Starbase Fighter Transfer
Incremental Fight or Fail
Cloudy Ion Storms

I also added the parameter that is used with each value on the sector settings screen.

1428 days, 19 hours, 36 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Glyn,

> http://help.planets.nu/host-order
>
> Fails too mention when the 'neb scanner/nebula scanner' scans, although I assume it is during regular ship scanning phase, still should be mentioned.

There is a new section at the end of the Host Order, listing those items that we don't know where they go. This will serve as a continual reminder to the Editors that there's more work to do on this document, and to the reader that the document isn't complete.

From 9 days ago:

> Cloaking is impossible inside an ion disturbance.
>
> I suggest at least adding 'Normal' to the start of that.

Fixed.

> Seeing as many beginners have asked multiple times, "why didn't NUK work?" and it was because there was no-defense post... it needs inclusion.

Fixed for both ATT and NUK. Sorry for the delay.

1428 days, 15 hours, 35 minutes ago

acezzz

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Whisperer

you must have read my first chats by date....lol

i am finding things here at NU.com that would be backswards for the norm, that you guys take for Granted as being experts....

- in my opinion

- what you guys are making the fixs in the dark and talking trash on the surface.

- iv been all over this site , hmmm can you say fragmentation

- keep up the Hard work , ahahahahahahahaha

- good day all

1428 days, 15 hours, 15 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I'm going to resist saying anything besides stating I'm resisting saying anything harder than I ever have before in my life.

1428 days, 15 hours, 4 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Acezzz,

While your response appears to be more literate than most of what I've seen from you, I still have no idea what you meant by that post ... and I think I'm happier that way.

@Glyn,

Primarily, I'm looking for suggested styles. Things like how to quote another user, and attribute the quote, how to indicate a change in post topic, and how to indicate off-topic posts. In other words, how to clearly do things in this forum that are obvious in full-featured forums.

I'm just trying to save a bit of time on this task, in case someone has seen something like this.

1427 days, 11 hours, 52 minutes ago

mcnimble

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Recently got pointed to http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/variant-games (Thx W!)

I'm not looking so much for options, as for documentation to choose a game. It should come *before* tutorials about turn 1 on the ToC and/or the Introduction.

I'm thinking of specific suggestions:
- "you are new to planets, you are in your MvM game, change to one with a human mentor, wait until turn 15, join a Standard Beginners. Wait until turn 30 in your MvM to understand the load of a planets game, then you will know whether you can handle more than 2 games"
- "You played VGA-Planets in the past, drop MvM, pick a Classic game since it has no Minimum Rank"

What about making a table from the list, with added columns for min/max rank, an indication of mineral settings, ... "specific info"

Then I see also existing Senior Officers, Standard Slow games, and there is probably more.

suggestion: "Classic, as close to the original VGA-Planets as we can make it"

Q: does playing levels indeed gain experience, so I can gain ranks and pass the minimum rank requirement? Could be a tip. But since experience it not listed by planets.nu, I have a hard time verifying. Played 2 birdmen levels, Intelligence Center still has me at 0 experience.

1427 days, 10 hours, 58 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Mcnimble,

> suggestion: "Classic ...

Minimal change. Clarifies. No potential maintenance issues. Good suggestion. Done. Added a Tim reference as part of the change :)

> does playing levels indeed gain experience

No. I think it used to, but no longer. If something says that (I didn't see it on the referenced page), we should fix it.

The list of game types has become larger. We need to figure out a clean way to display it.

As for the suggestions list/table, I think it's a good idea, but I'd rather have Gnerphk do it if he has time. I've only played MvM, Classic and Beginners Melee.

1426 days, 17 hours, 37 minutes ago

mcnimble

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Thx!

I have no problem digging through the game list and coming up with a table. Once :) and then I'd rather have it in a place where it won't get lost.

As to experience: http://planets.nu/documentation/leaderboard states experience is gained by those games. I think that is outside what you are editing. http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/leaderboard and http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/leaderboard-details state something similar, however. The latter says "amount specified by the scenario", but I cannot find such an amount (checked Level 3 birds, Level 5 xtal).

I was aiming at a way to gain a few ranks to join more game types. Say, "how to join the game you want to play". But that way does not work, so needs no words in the documentation.

1426 days, 17 hours, 16 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Mcnimble,

> I have no problem digging through the game list and coming up with a table. Once :) and then I'd rather have it in a place where it won't get lost.

If you PM it to me, I'll get the docs updated.

> As to experience: http://planets.nu/documentation/leaderboard states experience is gained by those games. I think that is outside what you are editing.

That is correct. That link is to the old version of the documentation, and is currently not being maintained.

> http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/leaderboard and http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/leaderboard-details state something similar, however.

I updated those pages.

> I was aiming at a way to gain a few ranks to join more game types.

Sorry :(

I have found that if you join a Campaign game as a Replacement player, you will be allowed to use the campaign features that the original player had selected. Does that help any?

1426 days, 17 hours, 10 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

Are we ready to replace the webmines and minefields pages with the single NewMinefields page? I believe it would make our lives simpler.

1426 days, 15 hours, 37 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> I'm just trying to save a bit of time on this task, in case someone has seen something like this.

Here's the start. We're very interested in anything that the community feels should be added. I'd like this page to stay as a "How To" type of document.

http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/ForumUsersGuide

1425 days, 4 hours, 2 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I had Regicide in my current Sector lay a minefield as a Robot in the name of another Robot.

Client always misleads by showing the 4X lay result when laying as any another races name, and the result, even when laying as another Robot, it without the 4X bonus.

Game will end soon; http://play.planets.nu/#/sector/91080

Client misleading is a bug, and not sure if Robot laying as another Robot should get the 4x minelay bonus, but at least we know it doesn't now.

1425 days, 3 hours, 57 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Testing if 360.2 ly HYPjump works or results in 350ly jump.

Sorry for posting here, really busy and may forget otherwise.

1424 days, 20 hours, 52 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

In this one instance, I don't mind, @Glyn; I'm curious too.

1424 days, 7 hours, 21 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

360.2ly HYPjump waypoint resulted in a 352ly jump.

Client did show red-dotted line Client estimation warning it would default to ~150ly HYPjump. This was a 350.1 ly HYPjump that Client predicted. So Client doesn't correctly predict HYPjump destination when outside 340-360ly (well, only test +360ly and only once).

I noticed this before which is why I ended up testing it.

You can thank Regicide for these tests; he tried sweeping my Webs with a huge stack of Falcons... so I laid massive Webs in multiple Crystal races names (Melee Sector) overwhelming the falcons 150kt fuel capacity.

I've put it them to good use.

1424 days, 7 hours, 6 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

http://help.planets.nu/squadron

Missing information; Doesn't lose crew in Combat.

Relevant discussion: http://play.planets.nu/#/activity/2156543

Wiki info: http://vgaplanets.org/index.php/Sq

1424 days, 4 hours, 25 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Glyn,

Response in the other thread.

@Gnerphk,

Do we put this in the Elusive or the Squadron advantage? To me, keeping the crew alive feels more like the Elusive advantage.

1424 days, 0 hours, 50 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

We don't document it, IMO, any more than we document the same for a Neutronic Fuel Carrier. That they are noncapturable is an artifact of the ship mass.

1423 days, 21 hours, 59 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

there are two circumstances in which a NFC can be captured.

1. Fed owned

2. if it is in combat with a ship that has exactly ONE x-ray beam. in this instance, the NFC takes 59 percent damage...

1423 days, 21 hours, 8 minutes ago

rkious

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I think I have seen a Priv MBR without torps and with X-ray Capture A NFC.....

1423 days, 18 hours, 19 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

The gunboats have a mass of 65kt (both the 4 and 5 gunboat versions), with a crew of 8 or 10, depending on which gunboat it is. I frequently capture MDSFs (mass 60, crew 2) with <20% damage, and an occasional PL21 (mass 34, crew 1), also with low damage.

If the gunboats lost crew, they'd be captured. Looking at the implementation side of this, if the crew in an Ru30 is reduced to 5, it's still functional (probably damaged). Beyond that, the individual gunboats of the squadron would be captured. There's no way to represent one of these gunboats.

1423 days, 16 hours, 2 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

gunboats can not be captured, I thought.

1423 days, 15 hours, 30 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

To clarify things some, from the code perspective, it is the squadron ability that prevents crew loss. So it might be best to document it that way. Right now it doesn't matter since all the ships that have squadron ability also have elusive, but in the future there might be some that only have one or the other.

1423 days, 10 hours, 24 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Big+Beefer,

Thank you for the information. I updated the documentation to describe this.

Unfortunately, WRT Planets.nu "physics", I have no idea why this happens. It would be easier to explain if the crew died off. Then the gunboat with dead crew would automatically slave itself to one of the remaining gunboats with crew.

If anyone has an explanation for the crew not dying that fits the Planets.nu physics, I'd like to see it.

1423 days, 8 hours, 48 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Ship is small enough to be fully automated therefore it has no "real" crew?

1423 days, 8 hours, 5 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Ru Gunboats are described as "actually 4 long range fighters", and you don't capture fighters in combat even though presumably they have a one person crew. Anything that hits hard enough to kill the crew also destroys the fighter.

1423 days, 7 hours, 35 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Physics:
A squadron consists of fighters plus support staff. It cannot exist alone, and therefore regardless of the personnel loss, it cannot be captured.

That we don't see the support staff in no wise invalidates its existence.

1423 days, 7 hours, 20 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Or Squadrons are Remotely Controlled Fighters, so no crew 'on board'.

1423 days, 3 hours, 16 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

The pilots rub unicorn blood onto themselves making them invincible.
_______

You can update Documentation about the overestimation of fuel use for multiple leg shift-waypoints due to Client using initial fuel amount for each leg... OR wait till it is fixed. In any case, for my own reference I say this here. Night.

1423 days, 3 hours, 12 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Glyn,

> You can update Documentation about the overestimation of fuel use for multiple leg shift-waypoints

No. Look at the response in that thread.

1422 days, 17 hours, 44 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Nope, like usual, you are wrong Whisperer.

1422 days, 17 hours, 35 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Glyn,

Please leave discussion of the fuel calculation issue in the original thread until we KNOW what the issue is. Right now, we don't know. As I stated in that thread, more testing is required.

1422 days, 16 hours, 49 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I can't imagine that issue is appropriate for this thread in any event. All we need to do is add the word "estimate" to any discussion of it; that implies imprecision.

I think we already do that.

1422 days, 16 hours, 48 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Incidentally, @Glyn: I'd be grateful if you'd find someplace else to keep your personal reference notes. There's no call to persecute us with them.

1422 days, 15 hours, 45 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk: They are only personal reference if you choose not to update the Documentation and no-one else ever uses these Doc. Edit threads to ensure all improvements have been made.

I stated that you can either update the Documentation or wait for Big Beefer to fix it soon.

It was obvious mentioning changing the Documentation wasn't my point otherwise I'd list all the pages needing update;

http://help.planets.nu/map-ship
http://help.planets.nu/navigation-precision
http://help.planets.nu/navigation
http://help.planets.nu/hotkeys

I didn't even suggest adding it too; http://help.planets.nu/questions-for-joshua

I was going to see if Big Beefer tackles this right away or not, otherwise add the multiple-shift-set waypoint Client fuel-use estimation bug to the 'Known bugs' section.

_____

I also see you haven't added the Clients slightly-incorrect crew death estimation from radiation halos yet to 'Known bugs' yet either, assuming it isn't fixed yet... thus proving the NECESSITY for me to continue posting.

I'm more interested in improving Documentation than either of you and is the only reason I continue to tolerate your incessant trolling.

1422 days, 15 hours, 43 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk: Don't bother threatening to resign if I get access to editing the Documentation AND moan about me submitting improvements.

You can have ONE, not both.

1422 days, 6 hours, 37 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Glyn,

> I also see you haven't added the Clients slightly-incorrect crew death estimation from radiation halos yet to 'Known bugs'

I don't see it posted in this thread. Do you have a link to the thread?

> It was obvious mentioning changing the Documentation wasn't my point otherwise I'd list all the pages needing update;
>
> http://help.planets.nu/map-ship
> http://help.planets.nu/navigation-precision
> http://help.planets.nu/navigation
> http://help.planets.nu/hotkeys

I made this point to your spiritual brother Acezzz. Apparently you didn't catch it. I'll repeat it here to help you understand:

Good documentation is very similar to good code ... you should only write something once. There are two reasons for this. First of all, it reduces the total amount of documentation that needs to be written. Second, when something changes, it should only need to be updated in one place. With limited manpower, that's a reasonable approach, and it is our goal (not yet achieved).

> I'm more interested in improving Documentation than either of you

Whether or not this is true, it's obvious that you're far less capable of doing the job properly than either Gnerphk or myself.

1. You have inadequate restraint. There have been several instances where you wanted documentation changed ASAP, but there wasn't enough proven knowledge to know what to change it to. The fuel calculation errors were the most recent instance of this. You were requesting that documentation be changed, but we didn't yet fully understand the problem. In only a few hours, I was able to determine the functions that are the source of four different fuel calculation errors. While I didn't actually write the code to fix the bugs, I did almost everything except that. With that much to go on, I expect to see fixes from Big Beefer for the first two soon. The other two are more difficult, and may take longer. See note below.

2. You neither have nor understand subtlety. This is often (not always) an indication of a lack of creative writing ability.

3. Your English isn't up to the task (see your use of "too" and "Clients" two posts up), although you might be useful as a translator when Joshua starts that portion of the project.

NOTE: As you claim to "know mostly everything about computer tech", I expected you to write the fix and submit it to Big Beefer, instead of requesting that the documentation be changed, but that's for another thread.

1422 days, 6 hours, 3 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Glyn - I won't threaten.

1422 days, 4 hours, 17 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Whisperer: If you can replace 'too' with 'also' in a sentence, then it is being used correctly. Why does that even matter? Making a typo on a thread post all of a sudden invalidates ones ability to not do so for snippet of text in Documentation? Don't be absurd.

Insulting me is a Rule 1 violation. I also have not demanded anything 'ASAP', which is a very tolerant demand... you are JUST volunteers. I actually just send private messages for anything important and you never even hear about it.

Stop the knee-jerk responses claiming I'm wrong, because I'm tired of having to prove that you are the one that is mistaken over and over. You completely misunderstood the multiple waypoints fuel use estimation Client-bug... you should have just said nothing, it would have been preferable. Now people will see the kind of responses they can get when making suggestions and will be discouraged from contributing.

1422 days, 4 hours, 16 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk: Well you already did once before, and isn't necessary again, so I guess were in agreement.

1422 days, 3 hours, 41 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

http://help.planets.nu/time-machine

Since "Time Machine doesn't interface completely with the message feed" is mentioned...

I suggest changing; "The Time Machine may also be accessed from most screens by use of the i and o HotKeys to go back and forward respectively."

Into; "The Time Machine may also be accessed by using 'i' and 'o' hotkeys to go back and forward respectively. After viewing the Starmap, these hotkeys require selecting 'Home >>' to re-enable in the Dashboard screens."

And/or mention in; http://help.planets.nu/questions-for-joshua

1422 days, 3 hours, 1 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Glyn,

> Now people will see the kind of responses they can get when making suggestions

Yes they will. They get problems solved (well, closer to being solved) instead of documented. I know which of that pair I prefer. I expect that if you spend a few hours thinking about it, you will too.

FYI, I don't like to document bugs in the normally viewed site documentation. I will only document one if I feel it's not going to be fixed in a reasonable timeframe, and I think the bug is important (causes questions from users/players). Gnerphk is even more averse to documenting them.

> Insulting me is a Rule 1 violation.

I did not insult you. I showed you, in detail and with a few examples, that you have neither the requisite skills or abilities to perform a specific task well. I did so in a much more polite manner than you've shown above. Get over it and learn to live in the real world.

As for a rule 1 violation, either complain to Joshua, go upstairs and cry to your mama, or STFU. You're not a Moderator on this forum and I don't need to read your whining.

--------------------------------

Now that you're done with your weekly harassment of the documentation team, please feel free to go out and find more bugs in the documentation. We'll fix them in the manner that we feel to be most appropriate, which includes pointing bugs out to the developers, changing the documentation, filing it away for future consideration, filing it away for future testing, ignoring it as too small a difference to worry about and ignoring it as not well enough defined (not a complete list).

1422 days, 2 hours, 54 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Perhaps once I'm officially back from vacation, I'll look at it, @Glyn. I've got quite a backlog, and unless I'm missing something this doesn't seem to be terribly urgent, but I can make a bit of time.

I'm not entirely certain what the hotkeys have to do with the odd impact the T.M. has on the message system, though. Perhaps we're discussing different phenomenae.

Side note: Not quite that, no; instead, it's a forecast. I'm a proud man, and I believe I'd find you difficult to work with. W and I have arrived at a pretty solid working relationship despite our differences because each of us respects the other - and is willing to show it.

Anyone that gives me crap about how slowly I work (for free!) when I'm away on vacation seems to me to be somewhat lacking in the "showing respect" department, and would probably end up changing pages that I'm working on without asking or apologizing. That would happen about once before I decide my skills might be better employed on a paying proposition.

1422 days, 2 hours, 26 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk: They are both quirks users would benefit being aware of in the mean time is all, no direct correlation. I'm pretty sure the 'listener' for the hotkeys is messed up once switched to the Starmap but resets to the Dashboard upon selecting 'Home >>'. It'd actually be better and quicker to just fix both bugs, but since you are volunteers and cost nothing... might as well document it which helps users till it is fixed and dramatically increases the odds of it getting fixed.

In software companies most of the work is spent on communication to programmers, who if you've seen Office Space... can't talk to customers worth a crap... they need someone with social skills to translate for them to avoid angering the customer (hint hint hint).

Documentation helps Big Beefer and Joshua be more aware of what is going on so while it is inefficient to keep updating and changing Documentation to adapt to bug fixes... because they lack secretaries and such, Documentation/uservoice.com/Activity-Feed/Contact-form are filling that role of providing communication.

It also cuts down on the repetitive bug reports, the whole hotkeys not working has had multiple mentions and threads... once in Documentation that would drastically be reduced.

1422 days, 2 hours, 20 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Telling someone to 'STFU' is also a Rule 1 violation.

1422 days, 2 hours, 1 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Sometimes, @Glyn, it's appropriate. I venture no opinion in this case, but I'll just mention that I for one am not rushing for the Contact button to report anyone for abuse.

----

The Documentation as a whole is the wrong place to store bug reports. There have been long and detailed discussions between well-intentioned, intelligent, and thoughtful individuals on the subject, and we've concluded that, for the most part, it is both inappropriate and an unwise waste of our time and effort to include any mention of bugs that meet the following criteria:

(1) Short duration. Anything that's just been discovered would likely be fixed before the virtual ink is dry on the document.
(2) Esoteric. Corner-case glitches can sometimes be documented, but usually the question arises whether the additional information is of sufficient value to warrant its inclusion. The arguments against completely exhaustive documentation are too many to go into just now.
(3) Minor. Anything with no actual in-game impact is usually considered unworthy of inclusion for the above reason.
(4) Dangerous exploits. It's counterproductive to encourage people in engaging in exploits during that time when the development team is working on repairing them. Some of long duration have been documented (on the theory that widespread abuse demands widespread knowledge), but these are the exceptions. At present, I'm aware of no active exploits in the game proper.
(5) Insufficiently understood. Right now, there are a round dozen malfunctions in the Destroy Planet event, and I can't even begin to sort them out. A note in the Advantage page to say that "there appear to be some bugs" is too little information, and I'm incapable of giving enough. It's also worthy of note that anything that qualifies here is also likely
(6) Currently being fixed. We're informed that Beefer is presently working on Destroy Planet, for example.

This isn't meant to be a complete list. It's enough to go on with, though. Apply intelligence and initiative to the above rules of thumb and you'll likely find that by the time any bug is fully understood, it's just been fixed.

----

There are several other reasons we don't document bugs. The main one is simply that it's disrespectful. We've got an excellent development team and I choose to believe that they operate intelligently. This implies that they read bug reports, maintain a working list, prioritize, et cetera. It would be terribly bad form for anyone engaged in work in their name to presume that their task requires a third party looking over their shoulder and shouting instructions.

1422 days, 1 hours, 44 minutes ago

mcnimble

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> In software companies most of the work is spent on communication to programmers, who if you've seen Office Space... can't talk to customers worth a crap... they need someone with social skills to translate for them to avoid angering the customer.

The movie is hilarious; every role is stereotyped.

If a customer cannot talk WITH a software engineer, they have a problem together. Solving it by finding someone who can 'translate', is avoiding the problem, rather than dealing with it, consequently making it worse (communication goes half as fast, there are twice as many misinterpretations, etc).

1422 days, 1 hours, 40 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk: And telling people to 'STFU' is totally respectful. /s

1422 days, 1 hours, 27 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Hey, I didn't say it. Not just now, at least.

But please don't misunderstand me. I do assert that, sometimes, it's quite appropriate to inform a person that their behavior is falling short of an acceptable standard. When a person is deliberately being annoying, for instance, it's often considered more genteel to ask them for silence than some of the other available options.

During an earlier era, two gentlemen who annoyed one another might well agree on the point that the world only required one of the two, and that it could be improved by a voluntary removal of one. They would then engage to go out for pistols for two, followed perhaps by coffee for one.

In short, a duel would be fought; the victor would gain the satisfaction of knowing the loser would cease being such an annoyance, and the loser would avoid injury from that satisfaction. Honor of a sort would be served, and neither party would face an injury to their self-esteem.

Of course, now we live in a far more civilized age, and while I might decline to drink my morning coffee with a person who calls me names, I would never offer to shoot him.

Incidentally: At present, @Glyn, I would decline to drink my morning coffee with you no matter how far you had driven to see me. That might change in a week; then again, it might not. I mention this only because I wish to avoid misunderstandings: I feel insulted, abused, and quite unjustly put-upon, but even were duels common in our age I'd feel the world to be a better place with you in it (albeit at a distance).

1422 days, 0 hours, 57 minutes ago

neuman

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Good grief. You call that "in short"?

1421 days, 20 hours, 36 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Glyn,

> And telling people to 'STFU' is totally respectful.

It was the most polite statement I could write that I believed you'd understand and still get the point across. Anything more subtle would probably not have been properly understood. As it is, you STILL didn't get the point, so even "STFU" appears to have been too subtle.

Let's try it again.

You are not a Moderator on this forum. It is therefore inappropriate for you to attempt to interpret forum rules for others. If you believe a rule has been broken, the ONLY appropriate action for you to take is to notify the Moderators. Any other action on your part is inappropriate.

1421 days, 20 hours, 36 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Neuman,

> Good grief. You call that "in short"?

Gnerphk is a professional writer who gets paid by the word. While that doesn't apply to this site, it's gotten into his writing style. While he's occasionally a bit verbose, he's usually fairly clear.

1421 days, 18 hours, 36 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Whisperer: Rule 1. Be considerate of other players. Refrain from name calling, swearing and other abusive behavior.

Telling me to 'STFU' and acting like you are a Moderator here will not stop me from submitting Documentation improvement suggestions. You will not bully me into submission.

How many times do I have to tell you that I have nothing but apathy for you.

1421 days, 14 hours, 8 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Home from vacation; scrolling for important items that I've missed.

1421 days, 13 hours, 31 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

OK so an update for the Squadron info issue.

Under the master starship list there is a link for Squadron for the Gunboats.

In the race hull list ( http://planets.nu/#/race/8/hulls ) and when you click on a hull type in-game, it only displays the description of:
"Squadron, Elusive, Planet Immunity - Ru25 Gunboats are actually 4 long range fighters. Torpedos fired at them only have a 10% chance of hitting. When destroyed only one fighter is destroyed (1 beam weapon is removed) and they will circle back for another pass until all four are destroyed. The others escape."

Does this help in determining how to go about updating/fixing it?

1421 days, 13 hours, 28 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Repetition, but useful for future Feed scholars:
I think the Race Hulls pages are code-generated. We don't have access.

1421 days, 11 hours, 34 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

OK -- working on Glory immunity. Jeez; I've been gone a while, haven't I?

1421 days, 10 hours, 10 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

> working on Glory immunity

The Glory Device page has already been updated.

1421 days, 10 hours, 6 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Siggi had pointed something out to me that I'd missed a long time ago and I figured it was about time to add it. There was also a caveat required in the Out Of Fuel page relative to Glories et cetera; I'm still doing some followup testing, but I like where it presently sits.

I've put in my hours for the evening now, but tomorrow I've got a couple of other things on the list. We'll see how it goes.

1421 days, 9 hours, 50 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

http://help.planets.nu/ground-attack

Probably should be renamed Ground Combat.

Imperial Assault destroys all Defense Posts and has been left out, and I'd explain Ground Combat leaves everything intact FIRST, then go onto Imperial Assault and then mention it destroys all Defense Posts.

One question should be explored, are the Defense Posts immediately destroyed? Since another race can still end up dropping clans after the Imperial Assault, it does matter.

1421 days, 9 hours, 41 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

http://help.planets.nu/imperial-assault

"the starship needs to drop ten clans on an enemy planet in a single turn."

Could have slightly improved wording by adding 'at least';

"the starship needs to drop at least ten clans on an enemy planet in a single turn."

1421 days, 8 hours, 46 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Glyn The Imperial Assault statement as it reads is 100% correct, and the "at least" addition may not be correct or could have a bug. I have personally experienced dropping more than 10 clans and NOT having the Imperial Assault take place (rather, a normal ground combat occurred, which annoyingly left the base in enemy hands). And yes I know about the conditions an SSD needs to be in to do the assault.

I will try and validate that it occurred here on Nu, because it seems recently that it happened... I remember going, "WTF?? Oh yeah, that damn exactly 10 clans bug thingy again".

1421 days, 8 hours, 35 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Lord Pollax: I have dropped more than 10 many times, and it has always worked for me. I'm interested in knowing what causes it to work or not. Personally I have never had IA fail no matter the number of clans I drop >=10.

1421 days, 8 hours, 35 minutes ago

challengespaceyard

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Lord+Pollax: That was an ancient bug that plagued Planets Nu. It has long since been fixed.

1421 days, 8 hours, 30 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Lord+Pollax: I've been taking planets with SSDs almost every Turn for a couple months dropping up to 200 Clans by using a LDSF to funnel Clans through the SSDs.

Long ago however, NuHost did in fact have a bug where only exactly 10 Clans resulted in a successful Imperial Assault.

1421 days, 8 hours, 20 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Aye; good catch on the SSD language. There's two or three places where it's properly documented, but the SSD is an exception in at least six locations. I'll go through it again first thing tomorrow, or perhaps tonight if I get time.

1421 days, 8 hours, 9 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Thanks, that is good to know. Can remember getting very annoyed with it.

1421 days, 2 hours, 43 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Glyn: ...taking planets with SSDs ... dropping up to 200 Clans by using a LDSF to funnel Clans through the SSDs.

IF that LDSF has a higher ship ID than the SSD, then you are wasting energy by not just dropping as many clans as you want with that LDSF.

ANY ship with a higher ID than your lowest ID SSD dropping clans at a planet just adds clans to the planet. any ship that has a lower ID than the lowest ID SSD dropping (at least) 10 clans in an IA will experience ground combat.

hope this helps,

GhostWriter

1420 days, 19 hours, 18 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Ghostwriter: "Glyn: Since another race can still end up dropping clans after the Imperial Assault."

I sent a lower id# LDSF to join up with the SSD, poor planning on my part...

1420 days, 17 hours, 35 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Glyn: ...I sent a lower id# LDSF to join up with the SSD, poor planning on my part...

that is more likely a case of you use what you have available. in that case, you did an EXCELLENT job of compensation ! VBG !

1420 days, 8 hours, 58 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

For anyone engaged in review and proofreading: I'm told the static pages at help.planets.nu seem to have a bit of a problem with updates. I'm going to advise that you refer to versions under http://play.planets.nu/#/howtoplay/intro in the near future.

1420 days, 8 hours, 32 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Glyn -- The timing of Defense Outpost destruction has indeed been explored: It's immediate.

However, some of the results in a multiple-player ground assault sequence can be slightly anomalous; I'm guessing it's a "butterfly effect" chaos echo. The differences are small enough (one clan off the estimates here and there) that I don't plan to do exhaustive testing just now, but if someone else is sufficiently bored, this might be a good place for them to expend their energies.

1420 days, 7 hours, 57 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Minor update in Host Order. More will come later.

1418 days, 5 hours, 12 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/defense-outposts

"If a planet detects that it is a victim of a Super Spy Deluxe mission and it has more than 30 defense posts, it can burn up 10 of the defense outposts to emit an ion pulse that will uncloak all cloaked ships in orbit. A planet has about a 20% chance of pulling this off."

This is a direct rip from Donovans and isn't from original VGA Planets docs either... and can be worded way better than this.

Also you might as well mention that changing to 'mfX' is 100% chance if mentioning the 20% normal chance, or neither and direct to article on ion pulse.

Plus original docs refer to it as ionic pulse... in-game as "ion discharge overload" assuming recent thread poster is accurate, and Ion Pulse and Ionic Pulse on Donovans.

1418 days, 4 hours, 57 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Appreciate use of the #/howtoplay link -- makes my life easier.

There's an email discussion currently going on about this very subject.

That page was recently revised, but not that section... I seem to recall the text you mention was there during my initial revision, likely imported from the old Nu docs.

But yes, it could be worded better, and the ion pulse is on the research list. There's also discussion as to whether any mention beyond the most basic (plus a link to ion pulse) is appropriate here.

Specifically, what we need (if anyone's interested in doing research) is:
- verbatim copies of reports from both sides of the Ion Pulse
- specific description of the exact results
- exhaustive determination, particularly whether the Pulse impacts cloaked vessels of Own, Allied, Safe+, or Other

1418 days, 4 hours, 41 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Ha! Found it.

I stole it originally from a revised version of the 3.20 docs that was floating around. I think I may have used the version on the Warshed, but I don't recall; it's all TimHost, so copyright isn't an issue.

http://www.thewarshed.com/Addons/docs/host320.txt

When I revised Ion Pulse, I transplanted the original text and made a note to myself to edit it down, but it got lost in discussion.

-- This post is written not for its value for reference, nor really as a reply, but instead as a mention of my personal feeling of triumph for having actually found something in my vast disorganized personal mass of editing notes. :o)

"I sound my barbaric yawp over the rooftops of the world." - Walt Whitman

1418 days, 4 hours, 11 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

ion - an atom or molecule with a net electric charge due to the loss or gain of one or more electrons.

ionic - of, relating to, or using ions.

@Gnerphk: If not from Donovans I take it you changed the original 'ionic' to 'ion' then... after learning ionic is a real word... I guess they are interchangeable anyhow.

1418 days, 3 hours, 45 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Quite possibly, the first person to create the Ion Pulse page did, or it could easily have been me. My notes aren't that detailed. If they were, I'd be spending more time revising the notes than generating or correcting text.

By the way - the public research list is at the bottom of the TODO page in the docs. We don't maintain that page all that well (see above) and a lot of the info is in comments, but the bottom section is plain text.

1418 days, 3 hours, 17 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> the first person to create the Ion Pulse page did, or it could easily have been me.

Joshua's documentation (http://planets.nu/documentation/ion-pulse) lists it as an ion pulse.

1417 days, 14 hours, 54 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I've got a live gig this weekend, an actual paying proposition. As I have time, I'll research appropriate naming, and likely Tuesday I'll look into a possible retitling.

In the mean while, if anyone has time to do that research, I'd be interested in the results.

1416 days, 15 hours, 36 minutes ago

nanning

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Request: could the Starbase "Repair Base" mission be more fully described?

http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/starbase-commands

Currently it reads like the SB repairs itself in a single turn (qv the fix ship command) which is not what happens, it repairs only 5% as mentioned in

http://www.planetsmagazine.com/strategy/strategyguides/vga-turns-in-30-minutes-or-less-part-2-next-turns-actions-now-time-saving-missions-and-friendly-codes/

1416 days, 15 hours, 28 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Good catch. On it.

1416 days, 3 hours, 34 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

http://help.planets.nu/cloaked-fighter-bays
http://play.planets.nu/#/howtoplay/cloaked-fighter-bays

"This occurs even when the Red Wind Storm-Carrier does not directly participate in a battle."

Suggest squeezing in 'whether cloaked or not'.

1416 days, 1 hours, 45 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Nanning: Technically Singularity beat you to it about two months ago, with Martinr providing the answer and me dropping the link to the thread in here.

@Gnerphk: I've started including 'howtoplay' links also now.

1414 days, 6 hours, 57 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

http://help.planets.nu/minefields
http://play.planets.nu/#/howtoplay/minefields

"A starship hitting a mine can be slowed by 10 light years for every mine hit the ship takes. Starships below hull tech 7 that hit a space mine will be slowed by 10 light years if they have more than 10 light years to travel when the minehit occurs."

Suggest; 'Under Tech 7 hulls upon hitting a mine have their waypoint target reduced by 10ly immediately.'

If you have less than 10ly to go you stop immediately? Pretty sure that a guy hit two mines at the same spot and stopped dead in his tracks... kinda doubt he had EXACTLY 20ly left to go.
___

Also duplicating all this info for Webs mines is annoying to learn, you should just mention the differences Webmines have from minefields. Or even first list everything they have in common, then show in a table side by side the differences.

1414 days, 2 hours, 1 minutes ago

celestial

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Hello editors.
The shiplist http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/racesheet shows the 'Saber Class Shield Generator' as a glory-device equipped vessel. This appears to be incorrect.

1414 days, 1 hours, 29 minutes ago

mkkangas

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

The Sabre shield generator does indeed have a glory device. The GUI does not show this in the friendly code popup, but you can "trg" and "pop" it just like any other glory device ship.

1414 days, 0 hours, 29 minutes ago

celestial

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Ok. My mistake :) It'd be nice if 'trg' at least showed up in red when typed into the f-code box.

1413 days, 7 hours, 5 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Celestial,

This is a bug in the JavaScript client. It has been reported to Big Beefer.

1413 days, 6 hours, 55 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

This should be fixed in the ui now. Thanks for pointing it out!

1407 days, 6 hours, 54 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

http://help.planets.nu/fascists
http://play.planets.nu/#/howtoplay/fascists

Suggest capitalizing 'glory device' link and adding a link to Pillage Planet advantage;
___

http://help.planets.nu/adv-pillage
http://play.planets.nu/#/howtoplay/adv-pillage

Suggest deleting; "This advantage is enabled by default, and can not be disabled. The Pillage Planet mission is used to trigger this advantage." as it is already mentioned however refer to it as advantage instead of 'bonus' then other duplicate sentence.
__

http://help.planets.nu/rebels
http://play.planets.nu/#/howtoplay/rebels

Suggest adding a link to Rebel Ground Attack advantage and calling it that instead of 'Rebel Ground Assault' and also a link to other Rebel advantages such as; http://help.planets.nu/adv-arctic-colonies
___

A total overhaul of the race pages is probably a good idea.

1407 days, 6 hours, 48 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I'm working on them as a long-term project. Format and storyline first.

(Actually, dealing with the flood damage comes first; this can wait for the weekend. :o)

1405 days, 10 hours, 41 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Note to self (or other volunteer editor): Document Holiday mode if not present.

1404 days, 0 hours, 58 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Testing completed on dead player minefield code interaction; documentation in draft and review phase.

1404 days, 0 hours, 34 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Note: SAMP tag has a particular utility in that serifs are often required to differentiate certain letters but are nevertheless absent in some display fonts. We may wish to switch the entire documentation to SAMP, replacing its current implementation with boldface, underlining, or some other variation.

Discuss.

1401 days, 15 hours, 31 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

http://help.planets.nu/warp-chunnel
http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/warp-chunnel

Fails to mention Fireclouds have to be owned by same race.

Also repeats same info over and over and is just awful all around.

Should link to stargate with mention of non-same race requirement and chunnel stabalizer feature:

http://help.planets.nu/stargate
http://help.planets.nu/chunnel-stabilizer

1398 days, 9 hours, 13 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Glyn,

> http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/warp-chunnel
>
> Fails to mention Fireclouds have to be owned by same race.

That's not how I read it:

> To start a Chunnel, as stated above, the traveling (or initiating) Firecloud needs to set its friendly code to the ID number of another Firecloud owned by the same player, which will be the destination.

As for the rest, this was one of the first pages updated. I have no doubt that it needs to be brought in line with the rest of the documentation. While I'm sure that's on the list, it's probably not high on the list.

1397 days, 18 hours, 2 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@W: That article has been edited since I made the request. Along with other improvements I didn't even suggest but were mentioned in the original thread which another Doc. editor was a participant in.

1393 days, 18 hours, 31 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Glyn,

> That article has been edited since I made the request.

Perhaps it was. I checked and found that it was recently updated, but we have no way to determine what the change was.

NOTE TO ALL EDITORS: When fixing issues pointed out by users/players, please make a note to that effect in the requesting thread.

@Gnerphk,

The above note should be in one of the editorial policies.

1393 days, 18 hours, 15 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Hm. Good idea. Actually, I'd like to suggest that all non-minor edits ought to be signed and dated.

1393 days, 17 hours, 45 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> I'd like to suggest that all non-minor edits ought to be signed and dated.

I believe that would be too much wasted bandwidth, unless we cleaned out the old edit comments. Any comments over 3 months should be purged?

Much better, but not likely to ever be supported by Planets.nu, would be if we could put all this into a GIT repository. That would keep detailed history for us, and resolve the issue of multiple editors changing the same file.

Hmmm. I wonder what sort of version control Planets.nu uses for their software. Another instance of that for the documents might do the job.

1393 days, 13 hours, 2 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

No; keep 'em perpetually, @Whisperer. Most edits are minor:
"Fixed a typo."
"Changed 'less than 100 LY' to 'less than or equal to 100 LY'."
"Clarified text slightly."

I mean, most of those things are pointless. Leaving a date tag next to a name for the "Edited" comment line is really all that's absolutely needed, IMO, but for anything major... well, in those instances, why not comment?

1392 days, 9 hours, 4 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Hey guys, just a heads up that I added a really simple page for Planets Nu Mobile, mainly just to list the download links which people have had trouble finding. I guess we are no longer the first hit on google play when searching for "planets nu", though we do seem to be first when using "nu planets" or "planets nu game". Oh, fickle google!

Anyways, feel free to take a look and make any edits for formatting or better prose. It's certainly not my strong suit.

1392 days, 6 hours, 55 minutes ago

mule

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Yah for BB!
Of course, I had to go looking for it to find out what was there.
I found it at: http://play.planets.nu/#/howtoplay/general-info

I'm hoping this gets "fleshed out" as time goes on. I can already think of a lot that could be added, and I'm only at Turn 3 of my first game. :)

1391 days, 20 hours, 3 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Heh. Looks like we're going to have to play with the new toy now. :o)

1391 days, 6 hours, 48 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Looking at the Host Order (http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/host-order) the Host Order Of Combat (http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/combat-host) and the Priority Build Points (http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/priority-build-points) pages, none mention that Priority Builds are performed as part of the second ship build (after combat). As it is mentioned that Priority Builds are done as part of the first build, the implication is that they're not done in the second.

It appears that Priority Builds ARE, in fact, part of the second ship build in the PBP system. This is based on actual events in a game I'm playing.

I destroyed 4 enemy starships totaling 17 PBPs, pushing me to 35 PBPs. The two builds I received in the second build were both starbases with a PBx Friendly Code. Other starbases without a PBx Friendly Code were between the starbases that received builds, indicating that the PBx Friendly Codes were used. PBPs were consumed as appropriate for the ships built.

I think we need to take another look at the second ship build in the Host Order, and add the necessary steps.

1391 days, 4 hours, 30 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

You are correct in your conclusion that priority points, under the PBP system but NOT under the PQ system, can be used during the second main build phase.

This is certainly unclear from a direct reading of the Host Order and should be amended. I'm uncertain when this error crept in, but it may well be long-standing. Good catch.

"combat-host" was designed as a page about combat. In Step 27 (Second Build Phase), the text reads (in part):
"Which builds take place differs depending on whether the Priority Queue or the Priority Build Point system has been chosen for this specific game."
Since this text includes links to "priority-build-points" and "queue" respectively, and since the page "starbase-host" exists for the express purpose of describing shipbuilding, no alteration of Step 27 is required. It's possible that inserting a link to "starbase-host" there would help clarify; on the other hand, it's also possible that it would confuse.

In Step 10 (First Build) of this same page, however, confusion is created because excess information is given on this subject, which would lead one to expect similar information in Step 27. My conclusion, then, is that Step 10 should be altered for clarity, and then Step 27 can be modified to echo the tone of Step 10.

"priority-build-points" expressly states the true and proper order of construction, as does "starbase-host". "queue" is verified correct as well. Both reference "starbase-host", and both are referenced from "combat-host", so the information is present. A modification of the link on "combat-host", as described in the preceding paragraph regards Step 10, should improve clarity in the search for this information.

It's probable that most of the confusion could be avoided in the future by placing a direct link to "starbase-host" in the ToC.

Summary of recommended changes:
- Host Order (in process as we speak)
- "combat-host" Step 10 major, Step 27 possible minor (slight delay)
- "starbase-host" link inserted in ToC (immediate fix; accomplished)

1391 days, 4 hours, 3 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Host Order amended. I've deliberately avoided updating the step numbers in "queue", since to do so might invite lack of clarity. Considering how best to approach that, but tabled for now.

ToC fix verified.

"combat-host" updated slightly; it should be enough to underline that it's not the proper document to answer questions of that nature. Considering additional changes; consider it 'pending'.

1382 days, 10 hours, 56 minutes ago

singularity

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

From Host Order page:
>Missing Items
>Nebula scanner (believed to be done with sensor sweep and bioscan).

We're talking about the NebScanner on the Swift and B41, right? I've tested this and I can 100% confirm that it occurs after stage 77: Second ship build.

I would speculate that it occurs in stage 83, but I see no way to test this in any stage after 77.

1381 days, 16 hours, 52 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

> Host Order amended

I think we need to look at this again.

1381 days, 14 hours, 11 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Singularity - Probably during the stated "Scan" steps, would be my guess.
@Whisperer - With regard to what, particularly? I'm thinking 1F should become 2, but that's the biggest change I'm presently contemplating.

1381 days, 13 hours, 56 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Some answers posted in Host. Presently verifying a few items; could take a while. Left "editing" marker up just in case it does.

Comments will elucidate.

1381 days, 13 hours, 53 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

NOTE: Private message will reach me during testing and verification. I've left the document open here.

1379 days, 13 hours, 41 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Host Order is still open and under edit; some changes have been made. Bear in mind that the current version is an interim document.

1379 days, 11 hours, 49 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I think it could be better.

How about:

1. Have two entries - one for First build and one for Second build.

2. Under these entries, have PBP and PQ.

3. under each of these, have the list of what happens for that build system.

1379 days, 10 hours, 26 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I'm considering:

- Priority build (includes Advanced Cloning)
- First build phase
- Cloning

...

- Second priority build (PBP only)
- Second build phase

It covers what's needed, keeps things very clean and simple, and doesn't mislead. "(PBP only)" could be changed to "(Classic build queue only)", but it's not commonly referred to that way so it might be more confusing. Perhaps instead "(Classic PBP system only)"?

1378 days, 10 hours, 21 minutes ago

singularity

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

The http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/debris-disks page doesn't contain any data on likelihood of EE ships hitting asteroids.

MJS provided a table a while back in this thread:

http://planets.nu/discussion/bug-destroy-planet-after-destroy-planet-was-activated-the

QUOTE
For Empire ships > 200 kt:

Warp 1 – 0% chance of damage per light year
Warp 2 – 1% chance of damage per light year
Warp 3 – 1% chance of damage per light year
Warp 4 – 1% chance of damage per light year
Warp 5 – 1% chance of damage per light year
Warp 6 – 2% chance of damage per light year
Warp 7 – 3% chance of damage per light year
Warp 8 – 4% chance of damage per light year
Warp 9 – 9% chance of damage per light year

/QUOTE

But I don't know where he got that data from. If it is correct it should be in the docs.

1378 days, 10 hours, 15 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/adv-debris-disk-defense

Perhaps a link is needed.

1374 days, 4 hours, 38 minutes ago

mattrixx

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Suggestion, How To Play Documentation -> Diplomacy.

Would good to add a short explanation to this area on how to activate and use these particular features.
It took me a few tries to figured out what is where and where is what and what screen and what button does what in a game on the diplomacy.
For the new players who are new to gaming in general it might be many times harder to figure out how to activate the diplomacy settings in their game(s).

Maybe a small picture of what is where and what does what?
Or some sort of worded guide to what to do, what is located where on the screen.

If you need I can even write something up for you on that regard?

1370 days, 10 hours, 23 minutes ago

singularity

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Host order doesn't show RaceKill or Player dead. From the docs it looks like it is just after client side processing.

1370 days, 10 hours, 16 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

It is an interesting question, isn't it?

Once we find out, we'll document it precisely. Perhaps not in the Host Order, mind, but we'll make sure every bit of the info on the subject that we can verify is present in the documentation.

1369 days, 9 hours, 52 minutes ago

singularity

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

The friendly code page has the following paragraph repeated twice.

"Special Friendly Codes work regardless of the case. For instance, msc, the Friendly Code that scoops mines, also works if you use mSc, MSC, MSc, or any case variation thereof. This is useful in preventing certain tricks that involve matching Friendly Codes."

http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/friendly-codes

1369 days, 9 hours, 28 minutes ago

singularity

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Whisperer

>>Nebula scanning. I've tested this and I can 100% confirm that it occurs after stage 77: Second ship build.

>Could you please describe the testing used? It's not that I don't trust you, it's that there is a need to verify this sort of thing.

Sure…

First I noted in a live game that after I moved a ship into a nebula that I detected a new planet. That puts it after movement.

Then, because I was curious, I ran some tests:

1) I created a test game with two accounts. With the first account I found a planet deep in a nebula and put a ship in orbit set to kill. With the other account I HYPed a ship to those exact same coordinates. The HYP ship was destroyed by the hostile ships and the planet was not detected. Putting detection after ship combat.

2) Then I colonised the planet and built some defenses. I HYPed a second ship to the exact coordinates and got blown up by the planet. The planet was still not visible the next turn, so that puts detection after ship to planet combat. Funny that I died to the planet but still it wasn't shown on the map :p

3) Then I made a another test game with shiplimit set to 10. 500 planets in a 500x500 map = massive high density of planets. Very thick nebula in the middle.

Player one explored the nebula to give me a map to work from.

Player two built a starbase just on the edge of the nebula using a LDSF. Player 2 could see planets up to ~30ly away, but no further.

I then built 10 ships to fill the queue. In the starbase by the nebula I put a a Swift Heart scout in the queue. Swift Heart has the neb scanner technology.

I ran host once to verify no further ships would be built. Then the following turn I used Land and Dissassemble (stage 49) to destroy a bunch of ships. That allowed the Swift to be built in the second build stage.

After host finished the Swift could see all planets in the nebula up to 100ly away.

I therefore conclude that NebScanner is after second build. I can only conclusively prove that regular nebula scanning is after ship to planet comnbat. However I would infer that the the two occur together.

1369 days, 8 hours, 41 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Singularity,

> The friendly code page has the following paragraph repeated twice.

It appears to be fixed.

1369 days, 8 hours, 31 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Matrix,

> Suggestion, How To Play Documentation -> Diplomacy.

Images take considerably more time than words. They're on the 'ToDo' list, but fairly far down. Sorry.

We'll take a look at the words soon. I recently visited that page, and it absolutely could use some help. There's missing information, and information that's not adequately clear.

1369 days, 8 hours, 26 minutes ago

mattrixx

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Whisperer just let me know and I can easily enough create the wording to supplement documentation that you can easily then add there into the correct spot in the lines so that it fits in nicely.
I can even add it so that it is already part of the original written documentation page.
Just let me know and I'll do it. Won't take more then a moment of my time to write it down. :)

1369 days, 7 hours, 55 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Mattrixx,

Please feel free to PM any suggested content to either Gnerphk or myself. While I can't guarantee that the exact wording suggested will be used, any input will be considered in updating the page. Of course, detailed content is likely to get the page updated sooner.

1369 days, 7 hours, 6 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Actually, I prefer not to get PMed with suggestions. If they're here, I can opt to ignore them for a while. Email that I ignore gets permanently lost. That's just a personal preference, mind.

1369 days, 6 hours, 35 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

> I prefer not to get PMed with suggestions.

For minor suggestions, I agree. On the other hand, the suggestion being discussed here is a full text item. For that much information, I think a PM might be better than a thread post.

My $0.02.

Also, will you look into the Host Order item above?

1369 days, 5 hours, 41 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

About Neb Scanners? I did.

My conclusion is that, as it's in form and style a standard scan, it takes place during the scan step. Sing's research tends to confirm this. I've got a secondary test going on as we speak, but if I get confirmation, that tells me that the Host Order is correct.

The timing belongs in Neb Scanner description, but how exactly would one phrase it? "As expected, Neb Scanning takes place at the same moment as all other scanning." Bear in mind, it's not a sensor sweep or a bioscan; it doesn't require a mission.

It's possible that "Including Neb Scanners" could be added to the Scan step of the Host Order, but I don't see it as being usefully informative.

Instead, I figure I'll work on the description within the ability. There's got to be an interesting way to phrase it. After all, if major media can make a news story about some nutjob ranting about Starbucks coffee cups -- one guy, mind you; that's all this is -- then I ought to be able to come up with an informative and intelligent way to express this tidbit.

But it would be impolite of me to do so before my researcher gets back to me, so I'll wait a day or two. I've got a day on Amtrak coming up; that might be a good time.

1369 days, 5 hours, 28 minutes ago

mule

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Watch out GP! Trump will ban you from Trump Tower if you don't run in circles bemoaning the Starbucks attack on Christmas! Sorry for the riding 2 wheel thingee, but I couldn't resist.

And I'll raise one of those pagan red cups to you.

1369 days, 5 hours, 28 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> It's possible that "Including Neb Scanners" could be added to the Scan step of the Host Order, but I don't see it as being usefully informative.

I do.

1369 days, 5 hours, 9 minutes ago

mattrixx

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Whisperer I made a little text supplement on that diplomacy screen and have just sent it to your private mail as a message.
I know it is not perfect but I hope some people will find it helpful in locating the diplomacy settings faster and not needing to look and figure them out out of the blue anymore. :)

1369 days, 3 hours, 37 minutes ago

singularity

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> It's possible that "Including Neb Scanners" could be added to the Scan step of the Host Order, but I don't see it as being usefully informative.

I would have found it useful to know when in host order neb scanning took place.

I didn't say in my test but the reason I got curious was because my ship exploring the nebula was destroyed by an enemy ship (after movement). I couldn't see any new planets in the nebula, but I wasn't sure if that meant there were no new planets in range, or the scan never happened.

Hence why I ran those tests.

1369 days, 3 hours, 34 minutes ago

singularity

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Whisperer

The friendly code thing "Special Friendly Codes work regardless of the case..." is still listed twice.

The third and tenth bullet point in the first section.

1368 days, 19 hours, 35 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

To be specific, the third bullet point is comprehensive, but later bullet points deal with the same information on an item-by-item basis.

I think Whisperer mentioned that he'd look at the complete article in general later, but I've got a spare minute so I'll see if I can clean up this one section right now.

1368 days, 19 hours, 20 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I've reduced the number of points, combining some and eliminating two that were purely repetitious. The language could use some cleaning up but it seems intelligible now.

While I'm here, I'm going to dabble a bit in Victory Conditions and wander over the Host Order. Please don't edit either today or tomorrow; I'll be working remotely on Amtrak, which means my connection will be sporadic and edits will arrive in batches.

1368 days, 19 hours, 11 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

At present, there's a note under Scan for Planets that explicitly mentions Nebulae. We may want to combine Scan into a single major step with substeps as we did for Step 1.

1368 days, 14 hours, 58 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Singularity: I stated the same... glad to see I was correct.

1366 days, 12 hours, 37 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

Are we ready to integrate the new minefields page into the documentation?

http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/NewMinefields

1366 days, 12 hours, 7 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Let me take a moment to refresh my knowledge of the discussion. I haven't looked at this in a few weeks, since the last medical emergency I think.

1362 days, 4 hours, 15 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

WRT the new minefields page, any decision yet?

1361 days, 17 hours, 13 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Let me take a peek. We've been working on a master revision to that page, but some small tweaks in the mean while can't hurt.

1361 days, 17 hours, 11 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I see what you're saying, GF. "Enemy" can have so many interpretations.

1361 days, 15 hours, 42 minutes ago

nanning

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Perhaps the word 'alien' is better?

1361 days, 15 hours, 4 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

or foreign or unowned...

1361 days, 14 hours, 59 minutes ago

challengespaceyard

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I prefer foreign myself. Unowned makes sense ONLY if the object is, in fact, owned by no one. Otherwise, the object is foreign from a player's perspective.

1360 days, 3 hours, 51 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

OK -- I've done a review of NewMinefields, and I approve.

Let me tell you what it is (that's substantiative) that's been slowing me down, and you can tell me what you think. Bear in mind, you've got my approval here; this is just the explanation that I feel I owe you.

- Text issues: There are still a few. I figure we can wait and fix them once the new version is up; I've been hesitant to jump in and edit on the fly since a bunch of my alterations vanished a couple of months ago. Probably just two of us logged in at the same time; "tagging" isn't perfectly foolproof.

- Combination: I'm still not convinced that web mine documentation should be conflated, nor minelaying as a mission, nor torpedo conversion. However, this version is far superior to the present documentation, and that's plenty to convince me to go for it. We don't need perfection; we need complete plus readable plus accessible, and your document covers those heads nicely.

- Standardization: I'm guessing you plan to maintain bare-bones Mission and Advantage pages (Minelaying and Web Mines (Advantage)) with a basic description and a link to this, in order to retain our standard approach. Please tell me if I've read you wrong in this; I think I'd need a stiff drink to recover from the shock.

- Methodology: I had thought originally that we would be best served with a basic descriptive page on minefields and their qualities, with a Details subpage containing every formula and available datum. I'm currently considering a Details subpage for this -- putting in things like the pi area, mineral and cash cost per mine tables, probability formulae, decay formulae, et cetera. However, as it has yet to be drafted, and since my own writing time is rather taken up at present, I'm thinking we should instead wait for it to appear of its own accord and then trim the master article to match.

---------------------------------------
Bottom line: Nicely done. Let's do the surgery very carefully, archiving as we go. Would you care to do the honors, or shall I?

1360 days, 3 hours, 33 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Flashback from five months ago:

>> While this may be true, it has nothing to do with reality.

>I think I'm going to treasure this sentence for a long time. :o))

I was correct in my analysis. I'm still treasuring the sentence.
(For those who can't remember: It makes perfect sense in context. Just trust me on that and feel free to chuckle.)

1359 days, 1 hours, 41 minutes ago

singularity

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

On the game customisation page the following paragraph has an error.... Empire don't get 2x beams!

Starbase Fighter Transfer ( starbasefightertransfer parameter) — When this checkbox is selected, Empire players receive the 2X Fast Beams advantage without having to research it. This applies to both campaign games and non-campaign games. In campaign games, Empire players may choose to disable this feature in order to use the Advantage Points on a different Advantage.

1358 days, 21 hours, 53 minutes ago

challengespaceyard

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Thanks for pointing out the error. Updated!

1357 days, 11 hours, 15 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I'll look over your list of advantages, but I think you're correct. Friendly Codes probably ought to be left alone pending a greater revision.

Go ahead and move on it if you want, mate. Sing out if you want my input with any particular item.

Presently, I disagree about combining "ship-missions" and "special-missions". Initially, I divided them for ease of reference for beginner players; the list of special missions is specialized, and most are unnecessary for users who are just starting the game. Any player with more experience will not be turned off by having to click once more, is my thought, but a new player may get lost in a mass of information.

It would be possible to stack them on a single page without loss of clarity, but I don't see what that gains us.

1357 days, 9 hours, 56 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

> Friendly Codes probably ought to be left alone pending a greater revision.

I was thinking that the Mine Scoop FC should have a link to the "minefields" page and removal of duplicate information in excess of a description (probably very little removed).

> Presently, I disagree about combining "ship-missions" and "special-missions". Initially, I divided them for ease of reference for beginner players; the list of special missions is specialized.

The "special-missions" page has the race-specific and Campaign missions. I believe that calling them "specialized" is an exaggeration. I believe they should be renamed to "race-specific" (or "Campaign", as appropriate), and merged back in, so that new players can find them more easily.

These "race-specific" missions need to be learned quickly by new players, and could easily be missed by new players.

> I don't see what that gains us.

One fewer page to maintain and make the race-specific missions easier to locate for new users learning the race.

1357 days, 9 hours, 41 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Steps 1-3 complete.

1357 days, 6 hours, 1 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

An example of what I'd like to do to the Lay Mines mission page can be found here:

http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/lay-web-mines

1357 days, 5 hours, 47 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I'd actually duplicate some of the basic text as a second paragraph, perhaps like this:

"Web mines are similar to standard mines in the way they function, but there are significant differences. They do a tenth the damage, are five times as likely to hit, drain fuel both on impact and against a stationary target, and can halt any vessel in its tracks no matter its size or tech level. More details can be found (HERE)."

It's a decent overview, but it provides only general information. It would be valuable for a beginning player -- and that's the most important aspect of the intro pages.

Likewise for mines:

"Space mines are small warheads laid in a circle around a point in space. Any enemy ship passing through a minefield has a small chance of impacting a mine for each light year traveled. A minehit will slow low-tech ships, and it will damage any ship hit. Larger ships take less damage, but the smallest vessels can be completely destroyed by even a single hit.

More details on mines and minefields can be found (HERE)."

Don't feel you need to use my text, mate; this is your project. I'm just offering this in case you want to save time drafting something.

1357 days, 5 hours, 20 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

I knew it was missing something, and thought you'd be able to point me in the right direction. I felt that it was best to not reference normal mines in the page on the Lay Web Mines mission. Does the new version look better?

1357 days, 5 hours, 6 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Solid. Not too sharp; not too sweet. I like it.

1357 days, 3 hours, 38 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I believe step #4 is now done. That's a good place to leave it for now.

1356 days, 16 hours, 41 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

Could you please update the 'adv-starbase-minesweeping' and 'adv-starbase-fighter-sweeping' pages to include the Primary Order name?

I believe we want to make sure that we have the Primary Order name for all the starbase advantages that include it. This includes money transfer and fighter transfer.

1355 days, 15 hours, 55 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> I believe step #4 is now done.

I'm now working on step #5. This will be done slowly, as some of the documents will need slight rewording. Right is better than fast.

1355 days, 14 hours, 25 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Concur.

1355 days, 13 hours, 39 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

"The Super Spy Deluxe advantage must be active to enable this advantage. For this advantage to be effective, the Super Spy Deluxe advantage must be enabled."

http://help.planets.nu/adv-super-spy-command
http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/adv-super-spy-command

1355 days, 12 hours, 55 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Yes. Both statements are true, Oswald.

1355 days, 12 hours, 45 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> Both statements are true

Yes, but I think he means that they say the same thing.

1355 days, 12 hours, 27 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

If so, he's wrong.

1355 days, 11 hours, 48 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Thing is, the language is a bit cumbersome, but it states in relatively clear terms the actual truth:
(1) You must research an advantage (activate it) in order to be able to enable it.
(2) You must specifically enable a researched advantage in order to make it function.

Perhaps the text could be improved (both here and on all similar pages) by substituting "researched" for "active", but I'm not convinced it's necessary. The text is effective, correct, and informative. We aren't attempting powerful writing; actually, bureaucratese may be more effective in some sections (such as this) in order to cue readers to know what's skippable and what's not.

On the other hand, today is a holiday for me, and the amount I don't actually care is comparable to the self-loathing which must logically be a component of the personality of anyone who deliberately, maliciously, and with forethought offers me a verbal insult.

(Vast.)

1355 days, 9 hours, 1 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> Perhaps the text could be improved (both here and on all similar pages) by substituting "researched" for "active", but I'm not convinced it's necessary.

While it might not be "necessary", I think it might help to make the intent clearer. Maybe we should look at some of the other "stacked" advantages, and figure out the clearest way to get the point across.

As difficult as it may be to believe, I agree with Glyn that those sentences could use some work.

> today is a holiday for me

It is for me as well. I pulled out an '06 Pinot Noir to have with dinner (about 2 hours from now). It should have aged enough to be tasty :)

1355 days, 2 hours, 58 minutes ago

mcnimble

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

The sentences are fluffy and of different structure. The referencing in the two sentences is confusing. As non-native english speaker, I had to read the pair about 3 times to find the actual difference. I had to read the pair at least 3 times again, while composing this reply.

The planets.nu UI uses the empty representation for not-researched, "Disabled", and "Active" (which is bad in and of itself, especially the complete lack of indication that you can even research the advantage, but that is for another thread). The sentences use "enabled" and "effective", so when reading them, the *first* sentence seems to apply to the list of advantages (if it does, then I still don't *understand* the difference).

How about "In order to use [advantage] in a campaign game, you need to research and activate it before joining such a game" (to also touch upon the problem where people join before choosing advantages).

Upon that, when looking at my midshipmen birdmen campaign abilities, I find it has already been activated. No need to research Super Spy Deluxe at all.

So for this particular advantage "In order to use Super Spy Deluxe in a campaign game, you need to activate it before joining such a game."

Today is weekend for me.

1355 days, 2 hours, 29 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

The difficulty with mentioning "Campaign" explicitly is that some of these advantages are also used in Standard -- if they're researched and activated. (All of these ones SHOULD be researched automatically for every player already.)

We also need an explicit listing of the precursor tech tree.

And yes, I agree; "Active" versus "Disabled" in the Advantages interface is bad usage; it can be misleading. What would be better, though? "Inactive" is proper usage but doesn't imply that a solution is available; "Enabled" is likewise proper but not as clear as "Active".

Hm.

I wonder if @Big+Beefer is available and interested in weighing in on terminology before we make any changes.

1348 days, 6 hours, 4 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

> I wonder if @Big Beefer is available and interested in weighing in on terminology before we make any changes.

After a week, apparently not. By default, I believe that leaves it up to us to decide.

1348 days, 1 hours, 57 minutes ago

mcnimble

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Help me with
> some of these advantages are also used in Standard -- if they're researched and activated. (All of these ones SHOULD be researched automatically for every player already.)
'coz it feels to me that "Standard" implies that I need not research or activate anything. Are you saying that you have not seen this confirmed with enough certainty, or that you have seen counter examples (perhaps bugs)?

Let me refine my proposal, but then using Fasisct advantages, since I'm more familiar with/certain about those: "If you want to use Plunder Planet in a campaign game, you must research and activate it /before/ joining such a game. In order to research, activate ("Active") or deactivate ("Disabled") it, click the advantage and follow instructions." On a sidenote, I would split the fact that a ship needs to have beams and use the mission into another paragraph. Making sure it is available and actually using the advantage are two different things.

But if a particular advantage need not be researched, I would omit the research-thing and just say, e.g.: "Pillage Planet is always enabled when you play Fascists, and uses 40 points of your campaign points. It is not available for any other race." On a sidenote, "This advantage is enabled by default, and can not be disabled." is confusing. It is not enabled 'by default' since it cannot be disabled.

Attempts for the Super Spy X family (hoping I get all the details right):

"If you want to use Super Spy Deluxe in a campaign game, you must activate it /before/ joining such a game. In order to activate ("Active") or deactivate ("Disabled") it, click the advantage and follow instructions."

"Super Spy Advaned is only available to the Birdmen, but see the conditions below.
|
If you want to use Super Spy Advanced in a campaign game, you must activate it /before/ joining such a game. In order to activate ("Active") or deactivate ("Disabled") it, click the advantage and follow instructions.
|
Super Spy Advanced is enabled in Standard games, but disabled in Classic games. The creator of a Custom game decides whether it is enabled, you should check the game settings before joining such a game."

Finding I used enabled/disabled as a given for the latter game types, not activate/deactivate since there is no user action involved.

Hope this helps,
McNimble

1348 days, 0 hours, 1 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I'm pressed for time, @McN, but I'll do my best.

Language --
"This advantage is enabled by default, and can not be disabled."
It's intrinsically a bit confusing, sure. It forces a second read sometimes. However, it's also an example of text deliberately crafted to follow a pattern. Much as Microsoft products all share similar interfaces to reduce cross-training requirements, some text in documentation is standardized in order to make bulk reading and comprehension practicable.

I'm working on some of the standardized text, and I know that Whisperer too has been working on improving legibility. Once we've got something that works across the board for advantages, we'll put it into place.

Likewise, the documentation is bound to mimic the interface in language use. If we do not precisely match such things as "Activate" and "Disabled" in order to pay homage to the rules of grammar, we're reducing the comprehensibility of the documentation. The rules exist for the opposite purpose, and we would ill serve them were we to follow them too closely out of blind obedience.

Having said that: You've proposed some interesting things, and they'll certainly be food for thought. I guarantee that, as soon as time permits, I'll be reviewing the standard language under Advantages.

PS: There's some research we still need to do about Standard. I think we're all good, just as you say, but I don't yet know it for sure.

1347 days, 20 hours, 49 minutes ago

nanning

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/web-mines

"It is important to note that a ship must be at least partially inside a web minefield while sweeping."

This is not true! You can sweep from outside the webminefield if you are in a square which is partially covered by the webminefield, but the central dot is not.

1347 days, 18 hours, 31 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Nanning,

> You can sweep from outside the webminefield if you are in a square which is partially covered by the webminefield, but the central dot is not.

I consider that to be partially inside the web. I've also seen many instances where this didn't work.

1347 days, 17 hours, 53 minutes ago

blazde

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

On http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/racesheet

The Cobol Class Research Cruiser's Bioscan link is broken. Looks like it should link to the Bioscanners page instead

1347 days, 17 hours, 30 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Blazde,

> The Cobol Class Research Cruiser's Bioscan link is broken.

Yes it is. As that one page is maintained by the developers, all we can do is put in a "shim", suggesting that the player go to the correct page. I'll try to do this later today (I'm quite busy with R.L. tasks). I'll also contact the developers to see if they can fix it.

@Gnerphk,

This is yet another example of why we need to drop that page and have our own locally maintained copy.

1347 days, 15 hours, 13 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Disagree. It's incumbent on us to mimic the site; this keeps us on the straight and narrow. Sometimes it's too straight, but that's the price we pay.

Thanks for shimming, mate.

1347 days, 15 hours, 10 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Nanning: Technically the Client is just using an efficient method to show webmines/minefields/radiation-halos/nebulas (anything involvoing circles) which can mislead the player (more crew deaths than predicted, inside field but visually not).

Technically anyone can make a script to fix this and while I have suggested it be documented it'd be more of a blanket understanding of how the circles we see are just estimations.

1347 days, 15 hours, 1 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@nanning:

Glynn is correct; to sweep a webminefield you must be partially inside it.

The issue is that the display of the webfield does not match the reality of what counts as the webfield.

To be precise you will sweep a webfield as long as [distance to center from your sweeper] - [radius of field] < 1.

You can sweep from squares which have no visual indication of a webmine at all.

1347 days, 14 hours, 46 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

> It's incumbent on us to mimic the site; this keeps us on the straight and narrow.

Yes it is, but that has argument has nothing to do with using, or not using, a core reference document that we have no control over (can't update) and usually takes months to fix.

Thanks for the non sequitur. Got a valid argument?

1347 days, 14 hours, 43 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

You can summon Furey by discussing this topic, whom will then provide the exact mathamatical formula... things run pretty good around here.

1347 days, 14 hours, 41 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

:o) Agreed, @Glyn.

@Whisperer: That is a valid argument. I'll justify it once RL settles down a bit; hopping a train to another damn funeral today.

Hooray for Amtrak.

1346 days, 12 hours, 30 minutes ago

nanning

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

"To be precise you will sweep a webfield as long as [distance to center from your sweeper] - [radius of field] < 1." (thank you @Furey)

Then this should be in the documentation. "Partially inside" is a meaningless statement as ships have no size, and several players I met believe you /must/ be /inside/ the webminefield as shown, based on the current documentation.

Something like "You can sweep a web minefield from the outside, but you must be very close to the edge; to be precise [include Fureys explanation]"

1346 days, 8 hours, 19 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Good to clarify for Details page. We'll make a note.

1346 days, 5 hours, 0 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

My apologies if this has already been discussed, but this thread and its predecessors are just a bit too much to sift through with any efficiency.

I'd like to spearhead Race Guides for inclusion either on NU, or perhaps on Planets Mag if more appropriate. Is anybody already working on this?

The old guides archived at Donovan's are pretty poor and have no consistent layout or content. The "guides" here are too short. I think that by using a consistent template we could put together some solid info to help people understand races that are new to them, without getting into the goofy "this is how I play them" guides that are common on Donovan's.

1345 days, 8 hours, 35 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Marklein,

> I'd like to spearhead Race Guides for inclusion either on NU, or perhaps on Planets Mag if more appropriate. Is anybody already working on this?

There are stubs for the guides, but we haven't filled in most of them. If someone writes some race guides, we'll be happy to host them here.

1345 days, 2 hours, 17 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I think until we've got some basic guides done, we should restrict ourselves to purely beginner content and leave the more intensive guides to external sites.

It would be useful, for example, to present a Fascist shiplist with comments by each vessel, thus:
- D19B: Lacking torpedo tubes and fighter bays, this vessel seems like a complete fizzle on the firing line. However, it has the ability to detonate itself in order to damage other vessels (hopefully enemy) in the same point of space as itself. This makes it the key to any successful Fascist strategy.
- Vicky: Probably the weakest heavy battleship in the game, the Vicky is nevertheless the mainstay of the Fascist battle fleet. With ten beam weapons, it can blast through the fighter cover of even the heaviest carriers, surviving exactly long enough to fire several volleys of torpedoes before (inevitably) dying. When stuffed with Supplies and backed by D19Bs, however, there's no vessel in the cluster that won't fall.

Fascists can build other ships, but why bother?

---

Admittedly, that last line is a bit much; there's uses for every ship in the Fascist arsenal. But it'll do for an example both of how to do it and why we don't really want advanced guides here, blessed by even the semi-official sanction of the Documentation setting.

1344 days, 17 hours, 40 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Standing as the "official NU documentation" I think they do indeed need to have limits as to what is appropriate. After all, if NU hosts a guide that is really bad it also makes NU look bad and the rest of the documentation look bad by association. The NU documentation should remain "just the facts".

Allow me to elaborate on my Race Guides plan and let me know what you think and if I should proceed.
What I want to create would be more accurately called a "Guide to the Races", not a guide on how to play each race. The purpose would be to help players understand what a race is all about, their mechanics and special abilities. What they would specifically NOT include is "how to play race X". So the focus would be on facts about the races as opposed to strategic tips or ideas about how to play them. The players should figure that out on their own.

Since I am by no means an expert in all races I would like to solicit writings from a number of top players for each race (min 3, max 10), the results of which I would combine into one guide to each race. The resulting drafts would be resubmitted to the editorial staff for review before being posted online at NU.

To keep all contributors on the same topics they would be asked to fill out a framework document, which I have outlined below.

CONTRIBUTOR TEMPLATE:
*Race overview (what is on NU already)
*Racial abilities/traits
*Race’s disadvantages
*What makes playing this race fun
*Why the race might not be fun for some people
*Ship list review. List each hull and what it’s useful for, any specific attributes the player should know about and how to use them.
*Useful allies. List ways in which you and this race can benefit by an alliance or trading agreement.
*The Solar Federation
*The Lizard Alliance
*The Empire of the Birds
*The Fascist Empire
*The Privateer Bands
*The Cyborg
*The Crystal Confederation
*The Evil Empire
*The Robotic Imperium
*The Rebel Confederation
*The Missing Colonies of Man
*Dealing with enemies. Try to limit this to common problems and solutions when encountering other races. We’re not looking for advanced maneuvers or tactics here, just what to watch out for in general and general ways to deal with it. Limit scenario talk to scenarios the player would almost certainly see every time, not things they might only see once in a while.
*The Solar Federation
*The Lizard Alliance
*The Empire of the Birds
*The Fascist Empire
*The Privateer Bands
*The Cyborg
*The Crystal Confederation
*The Evil Empire
*The Robotic Imperium
*The Rebel Confederation
*The Missing Colonies of Man
*NU Campaign specific changes
*Common pitfalls to avoid. Try to limit these to things that you can accidentally do to yourself, not tactics that apply to combat. For example, accidentally chunnelling because you forgot to reset friendly codes, or not understanding how tow capture works. Also avoid general pitfalls that would apply to any race since this is means to be a race specific guide.
*Any content you feel is necessary that was not covered by this document’s outline

Thoughts and opinions?

1344 days, 17 hours, 39 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

The post stripped my formatting, many of those bullet points are subgroups.

1344 days, 16 hours, 37 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Marklein,

> if NU hosts a guide that is really bad it also makes NU look bad

Absolutely. If we receive a guide, or a link to a guide, that we don't believe is good enough, we won't host it or link to it. We also reserve the right to edit for format (no author approval needed) and content (with author approval).

> The NU documentation should remain "just the facts".

We had this discussion quite some time ago. The Guides section is exempt from that requirement. We expect to have opinions there, and opinions can differ (there's more than one way to play a race).

> What I want to create would be more accurately called a "Guide to the Races"

What we currently have is http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/race-advantages, plus a link to a video (http://www.youtube.com/embed/1hF8_c775YE) from CenturionPrime. I believe that a more in-depth analysis would be useful.

Gnerphk has been working on the race pages almost since the beginning of this project, and he's not finished yet. I believe that he's having problems with his muse. Perhaps what you write will provide him with the additional ideas to complete that task, or at least get a bit closer.

> not a guide on how to play each race.

I think we need those too, at all three levels (beginning, intermediate and advanced). The off-site guides are mostly for VGAP, and Planets.nu is a bit different.

> I would like to solicit writings from a number of top players for each race (min 3, max 10), the results of which I would combine into one guide to each race.

I would like to suggest that you start with the players who have been (or currently are) in Championship games.

1344 days, 15 hours, 25 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Interesting approach. I would have chosen instead to do a "How To Start" guide for all races treated individually, with observations like, "Never build a Scorpius" interspersed with "Crystals win through flooding queue control".

I'm eager to see how this works.

1344 days, 15 hours, 4 minutes ago

decius

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Arguably, the project Marklein proposes has been started already, but at an external website: http://vgaplanets.org. It has not been completed, but may be a place to start.

1344 days, 14 hours, 44 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Decius,

One of the directives that Joshua gave to the documentation team was to not copy documentation from an external website. I believe that this is because he wishes to avoid potential Copyright issues.

Because of this directive, it would probably not be wise to do as you suggest. If we believe that what we receive is "too close" to something at en external website, it will be rejected.

1344 days, 14 hours, 33 minutes ago

decius

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Makes sense. Thanks for the info. Nothing more to see here...

1344 days, 12 hours, 5 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Aye. If it were complete, that would be another thing entirely; we could link to it and all would be good.

Likewise, since I've got some editing privileges out at Planets Mag, we can vet entries for content, screen, possibly adapt if needed, and link.

But -- heck, I've got stuff I've personally written for use elsewhere, and I opt not to include it here for copyright reasons. It makes sense.

1344 days, 11 hours, 46 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Decius,

> Makes sense.

As you can see from above, Gnerphk and I don't always agree, but on this item, we are in complete agreement with Joshua.

1343 days, 18 hours, 44 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Bladze,

> The Cobol Class Research Cruiser's Bioscan link is broken.

It should be fixed now. Big Beefer changed the links in the racesheet to "bioscan" (most were "bioscanners"), and I changed the name of the page, and all the references to it.

If anyone notices a problem with the bioscanner pages, please refresh your page and try again. If the problem persists, report it here, and we'll try to fix it.

Sorry for the delay.

1342 days, 18 hours, 19 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I just changed "Rebel Ground Assault" to "Rebel Ground Attack", which is what it's called in the Officer Advantage Interface. I also changed a few instances of "imperial assault" to "Imperial Assault". Finally, I made some minor changes to the Empire description.

1342 days, 17 hours, 17 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

Is there any chance you could add information about senting messages to either the Dashboard of Diplomacy pages? Possibly a dedicated page linked from both?

1342 days, 12 hours, 49 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Hm. It should be pretty easy to manage, I think; there's a bit on it in the Site documentation that could be easily copied over; with a quick blurb on the complexities of addressing, it would likely serve almost verbatim.

I'll take a look once I'm off the train. Quirky internet on Amtrak sometimes.

1340 days, 16 hours, 55 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I added a link to Stefan's Ion Storm paper to the bottom of the Ion Storm page (http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/ion-storms). Until someone finds the time to write a Details page on Ion Storms, this will do.

Could a Developer verify whether or not that page is still accurate for Classic Ion Storms? Also, how does it apply to Complex Ion Storms?

1337 days, 16 hours, 44 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

I found information on weapon degradation with damage. Do you have a suggestion as to which page it should be added to?

1337 days, 13 hours, 28 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

What -- you mean for starbases and planets, how they lose weapon tech number levels between combat rounds?

Because starships have no weapon degradation with damage except the normal reduction in numbers. Or is it that to which you refer?

1337 days, 13 hours, 27 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Both.

Here's the page (just getting started): http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/damage-details

1337 days, 12 hours, 41 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Good approach.

You might want to add in shield and weapon discharge effects as well. In addition, a reference to Host Order Of Combat with regard to the timing of supplies and repairs would probably be useful.

1337 days, 12 hours, 15 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Is that really true about a Lizard ship being destroyed if over 100% damage and approaching a planet?

I am sure it is only destroyed when fighting a planet or star base and over 100% damage. It was something about the gravitational forces destroy the ship if attacking a planet causes it to explode.

I am sure I have had Lizard ships over planets over 100% damage and not blow up if they only fought ships.

I am sure this was mentioned in another thread many months ago.

1337 days, 12 hours, 10 minutes ago

decius

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Neat page, and a good reference. Another possible correction, and I could be wrong, but an old forum post by CSY backs me up on this:

Lizard ships can survive with exactly 150%. However, if they don't get repaired, they'll begin the next fight with no weapons. They also cannot move.

That said, it's such an edge case I'm not sure it's worth noting, but if I'm right, it's a minor inaccuracy. I haven't tested it.

On a related note, I noticed that the Lizard Alliance page omits this detail and also doesn't really make the bonus clear when a Lizard ship fights a planet. I'm pretty sure ships fight until 151+% damage. At the end of combat, if they aren't dead yet, they die if their damage is 100% or over. This is an important point when, say, stripping fighters off a starbase with a T-Rex.

1337 days, 12 hours, 6 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

> You might want to add in ...

One step at a time :)

@Martinr,

> Is that really true about a Lizard ship ...

The page is just getting started. Errors at this stage should not be surprising. While I believe the numbers to be accurate, the words around them might have errors.

1337 days, 11 hours, 17 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk.

While looking for more information on planet damage vs. weapons, I found some information on the NUK FC. That information was added to the FC page in a comment.

Could you please verify this information, and either delete it or put it into the document? Thanks.

1337 days, 10 hours, 23 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Martinr & @Decius,

I updated some of the Lizard information. I hope it's clearer now.

1335 days, 17 hours, 26 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I believe that the documentation is correct and that intercepting ships move after non-intercepting ships in the host order as the documentation states. Do you have a specific observation from a completed game that you can direct us to that would indicate otherwise?

1335 days, 17 hours, 7 minutes ago

emork the lizard king

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Whisperer: The current host order was basis for my tactics in the last 5 years and I found no evidence it's wrong. Your scenario can be tested in 5 minutes. Just try.

1335 days, 16 hours, 56 minutes ago

emork the lizard king

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Whisperer: Just did the test. No problem to intercept moving ship #6 with ship #1.

1335 days, 16 hours, 22 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Emork,

That's not what I've seen in games, but I didn't see both sides. I'll run a detailed test later.

Thanks.

1335 days, 16 hours, 19 minutes ago

singularity

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Whisperer

I think there is one case in which you are correct - Hyperships.

I think (but not tested enough) that Hyperships always move in "normal movement" even if they have intercept mission set.

1335 days, 14 hours, 13 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Singularity has listed the major exception. I have tested it recently, since there are occasionally changes to Host.

Otherwise, ships move as indicated.

I'm a bit muzzy right now; not feeling 100% today. So I can't tell you with 100% certainty whether intercepting ships move low to high or high to low. My belief is that it's low to high, though. Which means I'm confused by @Emork's statement and yours but that may be because I'm fried.

As I understand it, Ship 1 would move and then Ship 6 could Intercept it, but not vice-versa -- not if they were both set to Intercept.

1335 days, 4 hours, 8 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Just a heads up on this change: http://planets.nu/#/activity/2294190

Also, I got a support request the other day asking about crew, why their ship didn't have the full amount, how to replace them, and why it mattered. So for the to-do list, it might be nice to have a crew page under ships that had this sort of information, though some of it is out there on other pages already.

Here was my response as a starting point:

Crew can be lost in a number of ways, the most common being combat, flying through star cluster radiation, or strong ion storms. In ship-to-ship combat, if all of your crew are killed before your ship is destroyed then the enemy will capture your ship. If all of your crew die due to radiation, your ship will become an unowned "ghost ship" that any player can claim by towing it. To replace lost crew, take the ship to one of your starbases and use the base's "Fix" option.

1335 days, 2 hours, 7 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Working on one aspect of this, Achievements. We'll see what we get.

1335 days, 1 hours, 48 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Now, adding "Crew".

1335 days, 1 hours, 8 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Updated. Now, there was something else... messages, maybe?

1334 days, 17 hours, 55 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Did you have a chance to look at the NUK section of the Friendly Codes doc? I added something as a comment, as I wasn't absolutely sure that it was correct.

1334 days, 4 hours, 49 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> Now, adding "Crew".

I looked at it and felt that it needed something. I added a short paragraph to the front of it and it looks better.

1333 days, 22 hours, 16 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Fair enough! :o)

I've been working on some other projects the past few days; Planets projects will be taking a back seat for a bit. Having said that, if there's anything either quick or urgent, sing out; they say a change of work is rest.

1331 days, 17 hours, 27 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Glyn,

> Only link to this is from Master Race Sheet

We've been thinking about creating a page for Emperor ships, which would include another link, but we haven't had the time.

> the Google search box sucks at finding it

A search for Sapphire should find it. Unfortunately, it doesn't. This is a question for the Admins.

> test if Gravitonic engines affect ability to receive Web Immunity

I don't believe that any of the Editors have researched the Sapphire. We have no access to Campaign abilities that we haven't earned. It would be nice to have a few accounts with access to all of the Campaign abilities, but it hasn't been provided. This is the primary reason that most of the Campaign abilities are so lightly documented.

It you're willing to work with Gnerphk and myself to create a test environment, please feel free to contact me via PM. As most of your request needs to be verified in some manner, it will be delayed until verification can be done.

I have, however, made a few changes to the page.

1331 days, 17 hours, 14 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

i don't know if it's been suggested before but to aid in the ability to search, how about making each item in the host order page a link to its respective topic? it's not quite an index but would certainly help and is an easy addition since you don't need to create any new content.

1331 days, 16 hours, 49 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Jellyfishspam: Ooh, and a link to its place in the Host Order so you can traverse back and forth!

1331 days, 16 hours, 41 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Jellyfishspam,

> how about making each item in the host order page a link to its respective topic?

I've suggested it multiple times. Gnerphk has steadfastly refused.

@Glyn,

> and a link to its place in the Host Order

That's beyond the ability of the tools we have to work with. I believe this is because the documentation is stored in a DB. The JSON that's being used can't handle external tags. Internal tags (referenced from within the same page) can be made to work by the use of the "getElementById" and "scrollIntoView" functions.

1331 days, 16 hours, 25 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk why the resistance? it is futile to resist you know. i mean, it seems simple enough and would add considerable value imo.

1331 days, 16 hours, 22 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

i see further up in this thread you mentioned the desire to add an alphabetical index (which would be time consuming plus you'd have to decide what topics to link to). this would be an intermediate feature which requires little to no maintenance once set up.

1331 days, 14 hours, 35 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Host Order needs to be simple and clean.

That and the Ship List are the only two bits of primary documentation that we have, and we treat them as sacrosanct -- not that we can modify the Ship List in any case; it's code generated.

There's a process for any change to the Host Order primary document. I've interrupted my work on reviewing two minor changes over the holiday; once I'm back I'll deal with those. There's also some research that could be done on the items at the bottom.

But no, we're not adding live links, explanatory text, sparkly lights, or anything else to the Host Order. SIMPLE. CLEAN. BASIC.

1331 days, 13 hours, 27 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

If you want to add details to a host order documentation page, maybe add it to this wiki page - http://vgaplanets.org/index.php/Host_Order

1331 days, 12 hours, 17 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

there are links on the ship list page. certainly you don't find those detracting. and host order would still be sacrosanct if it had links. this wouldn't make it incorrect or any less sacred. you're simply saying "for more information about raining duck soup click here". it's unobtrusive and works a lot better than the search and would help solve a lot of questions before they arise.

1330 days, 17 hours, 40 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk,

> SIMPLE. CLEAN. BASIC.

I believe (and apparently others here agree) that adding links would have little or no impact on the readability or understandability of the Host Order.

@Rbos,

> maybe add it to this wiki page

It is my belief that the official documentation should reside on this site. It appears to me that Joshua agrees, or he wouldn't have started this project.

It is also my belief that the documentation should be easy to find. The current TOC does not do that for us, and apparently the Google Search sometimes has problems as well. For this reason, I believe that it's time to start making the pages "tightly coupled", which requires making LOTS of interconnecting links. This includes the Host Order.

The tools we've been given aren't working for us. That means it's time to change the way we're using them.

1330 days, 16 hours, 8 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@whisperer - Fine with me.

I think you guys have done a bang-up job with documentation. Really, top notch. The vgaplanets.org wiki may be redundant; the changelog has certainly dried up in the last year, probably thanks to your efforts. So well done, there.

That said, I think it's good to have alternate documentation for those things where you don't want to, or can't, provide supplemental info. Like, if there really is demand for a hyperlinked host list, and you don't think it's worth the effort, well, maybe someone else does. If they're willing to put their time where their mouth is, then maybe it'll be useful for someone.

So there's probably a niche for a wiki. You probably don't want to put one up, but that's fine, you don't have to.

1330 days, 13 hours, 5 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I'm fine with someone doing a hyperlinked Host Order; in point of fact, I've got a commentated and annotated version that I've been working on for quite some time, and putting in-line links into that would be ideal. There should not be a third full copy; maintaining manual changes in multiple copies is difficult at the best of times.

There do need to be two perfectly unadulterated forms of documentation, in my (militantly vehement) opinion: the Ship List and the Host Order. These should be changed ONLY after a very difficult, frustrating process; this will prevent frivolous and unnecessary alterations.

And we have that.

I am eminently satisfied with both subpages. Neither is quite perfect, but we're getting there. There are two minor bugs in the Ship List, and I believe both are well on the way to becoming acceptable.

What we need at the moment is some research on timing plus a few minor holes filled. It would also be useful if we could better document some of the less-used advantages and their interactions.

But we have an excellent system here. I'm quite proud.

1330 days, 12 hours, 56 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

OH: And someone needs to document the API.

1330 days, 9 hours, 33 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

i'm not sure i understood that. you are advocating for 2 copies of host order, one as it is now and another with hyperlinks and additional documentation?

i'd be happy to help with research, as long as it doesn't require campaign points of which i have none. set up a test game and i'll join and help.

1330 days, 9 hours, 30 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Aye; that's the problem, Spam. It's all cornercase stuff about really weird Campaign interactions -- the timing of the Emork spirit drop, the precise impact of Tantrum liners on Sapphire movement relative to Command Ship minelaying, et cetera. I mean, it's all very odd stuff.

1330 days, 9 hours, 27 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

'fraid there's not much i can do 'bout that. i have no interest in grinding/farming campaign points.

1330 days, 2 hours, 49 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Rbos,

> there's probably a niche for a wiki

There's absolutely a niche for a Wiki, but I'm not interested in updating an off-site Wiki.

@Gnerphk,

> There do need to be two perfectly unadulterated forms of documentation

As adding links does not need to change the text, it is (and will continue to be) my opinion that links are not an adulteration. I consider them to be an enhancement.

I have no intention of creating yet a third Host Order document. It makes no sense. IMHO, the annotated Host Order is bad enough. A Linked Host Order? If it gets created as anything except the main Host Order document, it won't be by me.

The main problem is that these alternate documents are too hard for the newbie to find. A secondary problem is that it makes even more copies of the same information that need to be kept in sync.

I see this as a user support issue. Isn't helping the users the reason the project was started?

@Jellyfishspam,

> i have no interest in grinding/farming campaign points

And those that already have the points and/or advantages aren't willing to assist us. This is why the detailed information on Campaign abilities is so sparse.

1330 days, 0 hours, 8 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Whisperer - It's a grand thing that we have such vehement disagreements on precisely how to provide the best product. I love working with you, man.

Of course, I still disagree, but I'm glad it's these things that we discuss.

So it's precisely this point on which we seem to split: I view inline links as a distraction for the intelligent reader.

Most people who have trained themselves in methods of reading comprehension read using a scanning method. They absorb words in a different order than that in which they are written. Some skip from point to point within a sentence, paragraph, or block; others move back and forth, absorbing the words at a different rate than that which they use to comprehend them.

(These latter find my infamous "walls of text" very tough to follow. Sorry, guys.)

In cases where the key subject words are those very items which are linked, there's no major loss of comprehension. Likewise, in a format which doesn't use widely varied colors to differentiate links, again, we find little decrease. However, in any compressed text -- that's a purely informational format without color on inflection -- links should be avoided so they don't weight any portion of the text more than any other. If they are required in such an instance, segregating them offsides (left for Hebraic texts, bottom for Chinese, right for western) is acceptable, since the eye is required to traverse the important text to reach the emphasized word.

Specifically with regard to the Ship List, I'd recommend a right-side link for each of the advantages, one that matches in pattern the ship ability links in the main list.

If they were to be included in the main Host Order, it would need to be a right-justified column in a tabular list using meaningless repetitive words (link item 42, link item 43) in order to minimalize the impact. Tabular format, however, would vastly decrease the readability of the document -- more so with visible lines, the which would be required as link pointers if indeed non-meaningful words were employed as anchors.

Hence my disagreement: There's no non-impactful method to introduce them into the primary document.

Now, it's different when using a block-text enriched format such as an annotated Host. There, a link would be emphasis for both entry titles and meaningful words within text blocks. It would be useful to employ significantly different fonts for each of the two in order to differentiate the value of the classes of link (entry titles substantially more visible), but with that caveat, both styles could be employed.

I do agree with regard to the increase in maintenance.

1329 days, 23 hours, 33 minutes ago

olegboleg

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

i like that you guys discuss this, and i can use the info given to me :) great job!

On the subject at hand: i (mostly) disagree with you @gnerphk.

I think most of us have grown acustom to reading websites and other annotaed text with links and we read them differntly then text on paper.

I agree that they can bis distracting from the actual text - espeically if placed and/or formated unfitting.
Also i agree, that they are espeically "harmless" if they are in a list or table (as you said).

However they can also help structure a text and highlighting the keywords if used correctly.

I am not that good with words and englsih is not my native language so i will try to show this with an example.

Imagine the short description of the races. If you highlight their abilites, thats a good thing. Now if i move mouse over that ability and get additional infos, thats also good (just like in the game actually ;) ). And if i click it i get the detailed description, thats perfect. At least imho.

1329 days, 22 hours, 30 minutes ago

nanning

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Error in /howtoplay/leaderboard

"The Mercenary leaderboard tracks players according to their average rank in all available races here on Planets Nu. Each rank promotion earned by a player grants them one-eleventh of a point. These points are awarded in races where a player has advanced beyond the rank of Midshipman."

This must be "one-twelfth of a point, the total rounded to the nearest integer"

1329 days, 20 hours, 16 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

hopefully not an integer ... more a decimal with two decimal places ;-)

1329 days, 19 hours, 49 minutes ago

nanning

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Ok, @Frostriese:

"one-twelfth of a point, the total rounded to the nearest integer for rank determination"

1329 days, 19 hours, 41 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

I don't think many people 'read' the host list in the same way they'd read a block of text. Usually they're scanning it to answer a specific question. At least, I usually am. "why did X happen" is my main concern. So it's ctrl-F, "mine", and in that use case, hyperlinks might be a big help.

1329 days, 16 hours, 45 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Olegboleg,

> if i move mouse over that ability and get additional infos

I don't believe our Interface has that ability, but I'll have to check it. While this would be useful in some places, I believe it would be very much out of place in the Host Order.

@Gnerphk,

> in any compressed text links should be avoided so they don't weight any portion of the text more than any other

This appears to be the core of your technical argument, and I'll agree that in some circumstances, particularly those where the links are sparse, this argument might be valid. On the other hand, I expect that most of the Host Order entries will be links, virtually eliminating this as a valid reason.

1329 days, 16 hours, 36 minutes ago

singularity

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Gnerphk
>OH: And someone needs to document the API.

If no one else wants to tackle this, I can in a few weeks.

1329 days, 16 hours, 31 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Nanning,

> Error in /howtoplay/leaderboard

Fixed.

1329 days, 13 hours, 21 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Singularity,

> If no one else wants to tackle this, I can in a few weeks.

I started this some time ago, but encountered some issues, including limited time. At this time, the pages that exist are as follows:

API
API-game-loadevents
API-game-loadinfo
API-game-loadturn
API-games-list
API-login
site-API
site-API-example

@Gnerphk,

> And someone needs to document the API.

Agreed. Someone also has to finish the race description pages. From my point of view, this is the primary roadblock for having Joshua start the documentation translation process.

1328 days, 17 hours, 48 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

> I have a starting point for the Accelerated Start page. Please have a look at it and find it a home (I don't know where it will fit best).

I found a home for this page and linked it in. I'm a bit early, as the page mentions the ability to set it for custom games, but hopefully not too early.

http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/accelerated-start

1328 days, 16 hours, 23 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

http://help.planets.nu/warp-chunnel
http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/warp-chunnel

(major flaw) Doesn't mention order ships Chunnel in.

Repeats itself and wastes way too much text on explaining the technology rather than function.

(suggestion) Doesn't mention allies can match just FCC Friendly Code to ferry along with just one Chunnel, while rest may perform another Chunnel.

____

"(and any other starships that were in the same point in space as the Firecloud)"

Misleading, allies ships that aren't cloaked, out-of-fuel, warp0 or don't match FCC Friendly Code don't Chunnel. Mentionend later but why contradict when you don't have to.

1328 days, 15 hours, 9 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Glyn,

As you've never played as a Cyborg, I'll have to ask for a source before I update the documentation.

> (major flaw) Doesn't mention order ships Chunnel in.

First, that's a MINOR flaw. Second, I don't know what the order is, and don't have time to find out right now.

> Repeats itself and wastes way too much text

It probably could use a rewrite.

1328 days, 13 hours, 34 minutes ago

singularity

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Hi guys,
Yes definitely put me down for the API section of the documentation. @Whisperer the page stubs you made seem a sensible starting point. I've started planning them out mentally already.

I thought now was the time that I'd ask @Big+Beefer for editor rights, which he granted me yesterday.

I'm going to be busy over Christmas / summer school holidays (I'm in NZ) but after that I'll start working on it. It is a large section so will take a while to write.

For now I don't plan on doing general documentation editing, but after the API I may be available to contribute in other areas.

Is there a page somewhere here on editing style?

Singularity

1328 days, 12 hours, 19 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Welcome aboard, @Singularity.

The Admin Interface is here:
http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/AdminInterface

It contains links to a dozen different subpages with useful information. The Style guide is here:
http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/editorial-guidelines

There are others that are worth the time to read.

Generally, the best bet is to avoid stepping on people's toes so as to avoid duplication of effort or (worse) corrections that reverse other people's corrections. Major pages like the ToC, the Host Order, et cetera shouldn't ever be changed without discussion and review, and if someone's got a pet project, the rest of us tend not to interfere without an invitation.

But that's basic politeness, and I'm pretty sure you don't need my lecture. :o)

1328 days, 4 hours, 28 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

@Singularity,

> I'm in NZ

A Kiwi huh? It's good to have a fruit to go with all the nuts around here :)

If you have questions, please feel free to ask.

One important thing to remember is that we do NOT have access to all HTML5 features. Please look at the HTML guide (http://planets.nu/#/howtoplay/EditingHTML) to see what we know we can do.

1323 days, 5 hours, 57 minutes ago

RE: Documentation Editing Thread, Part 3: The editors are...

Due to the length of this thread, we'd like to discontinue its use, and move to the Part 4 thread.

http://planets.nu/#/activity/2311539