User talk:VictorInThePacific

Welcome to StrategyWiki!
Hello VictorInThePacific! Welcome to StrategyWiki. Thank you for your contributions. If you have any questions, just contact a sysop through their talk page or post on the staff lounge, and they'd be happy to help. If you need help editing, check the StrategyWiki Guide or visit the IRC channel to chat, we're usually around. On the other hand, if you have ideas for StrategyWiki, bring them up on the forums. To keep up-to-date with the goings on of the wiki, consider adding the noticeboard to your watchlist.

Please remember to sign your name when leaving comments on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (    ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to delete this message from your talk page if you like, or keep it for reference. Happy editing! — Najzere  ·  Talk  07:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Creating a new page

 * 1) Edit the table of contents for your guide and add a link for the page you wish to create.
 * 2) View the resulting table of contents and click on the red link to the page you just added.
 * 3) Click on the Guide page preload button above the edit box.
 * 4) Add content to the page, and use Show Preview to examine your work before saving it.  Pro  cyon  05:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Guide discussion pages
I mentioned this in the Staff Lounge, but I'm not sure you saw it. Your comments on the discussion pages of the AoE2 guide are not really necessary. In fact, as correct as you may be about the shallowness of the original material, you're coming off quite demeaning to the original author (who's probably never going to read what you write anyway). We get it, the guide was inaccurate and lacking in details. We're glad you're fixing the guide, but there's no need to insult anyone in the process. The talk pages are there to help authors discuss how to resolve unusual conflicts or ambiguities in the guide, not to justify corrections.  Pro cyon  04:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * OK. In future, I will just do whatever I think is appropriate to make the content of the guide better, without providing any commentary as to why I did what I did. I think that this is what you are asking for. BTW, no insults were intended.--VictorInThePacific (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That would be great. Don't hesitate to use the talk page if you feel that something needs to be explained to other authors so that you're not misunderstood, or if you have a question.  But yes, the commentary on your changes isn't required.  Thanks for your contributions and hard work.   Pro  cyon  02:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You can justify your changes a bit in the summary field before you submit your edit. It's not really necessary, but can be helpful to other editors. For major changes/deletions just say "re-wrote section" or something.-- 07:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Header sentence case
Hi Victor, our headings use sentence case, which means only the first word is capitalized unless it is a proper noun. See Guide/Layout for more details. Thanks for all your help, -- 16:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

noted.

However, I have created my own proper nouns, eg. Wall Maze Complex to indicate a specific thing that is not the same thing as would be understood by applying regular English rules to wall maze complex. Another example is cavalier. This word can have many meanings in regular English. But when I capitalize it in my walkthroughs, I am referring precisely to the AoE unit. I have also created a section in the guide describing this, and there is or will be a line at the beginning of each campaign walkthrough referring the reader to the convention section. Thus, where Wall Maze Complex occurs in a section heading, I am not using the standard English title capitalization rule, but my own proper noun capitalization rule. Are you going to disallow this? Assuming it is OK, then I will go back and ensure that all my proper nouns are capitalized, even if they appear in section headings.--VictorInThePacific (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Try to avoid creating proper nouns, but I think we'll allow it for now, given the complexity of the definition. I would also document all of these proper nouns in the conventions page you started to help us and readers out. The nouns can be links to the sections in which they are defined, if not on the conventions page itself. -- 07:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Right then. Will work on that, but it will take some time to implement. --VictorInThePacific (talk) 02:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No rush. =) -- 04:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Multiple guides
This discussion may be better resolved in the staff lounge, but I am going to try and help you understand what we do here. We create our guides by aggregating as much data as possible. This means that the original creator of a guide page may not be the origin for the majority of the content as it currently stands, nor does it mean that content will be preserved (as is evident by your fleshing out of AoE II: AoK). That said, I want to be very clear: we do not create multiple versions of guides (i.e. Age of Empires II: Age of Kings (VictorInThePacific's guide) will not be allowed). We sometimes offer summaries or "quick guides", as seen at Super Mario World/Beating the game in 12 levels. There is, however, one loophole that we usually allow. If you create a subpage for a specific tactic, then we will allow it. Also, a subpage can contain as many variations as are significantly different. If you're worried about variations, I suggest we subpage each level of the campaigns to allow plenty of room for multiple strategies. -- 06:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I will need to think about this. In the meantime, could you please port this topic entire to the staff lounge, and we can hammer it out there.


 * Just to be clear, I am not posting here with any intention of modifying your policies. My only objective here is to put together the most accurate possible walkthrough for AoE 2, but maybe not for all the campaigns, and maybe later I will take on a different game.


 * I am flagging the data for one scenario as having certain deficiencies. I am referring to structural deficiencies, not content deficiencies. So far, I have posted a walkthrough for one campaign in a way that I was comfortable with, and no one else has yet objected to, and a walkthrough for 4 scenarios of a second campaign in a way that I was comfortable with, for which objections have been raised. But there is one scenario for which I have no solution that would make me comfortable, to wit AoE2 - JoA5.


 * I will be visiting this site about once a day, so there will be significant delays in the flow of the discussion.

--VictorInThePacific (talk) 02:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That's fine. Can you clarify this for me? "I have posted a walkthrough for one campaign in a way that I was comfortable with, and no one else has yet objected to, and a walkthrough for 4 scenarios of a second campaign in a way that I was comfortable with, for which objections have been raised." What page has had an objection raised, and by whom? You can just link the page to me if you find it again. I haven't noticed any problem with your edits. If the previous guide content sucks, replacing it is fine. If there is some truth in it, then it may better be assimilated into your content. It's not a big deal at the moment, since no one else is working on the guide. -- 18:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

When I did the Barbarossa campaign, I just deleted the old version because it was much too brief and put my own version in. Nobody objected to that. When I did the Joan of Arc campaign, I didn't want to use the same procedure, because there was enough meat in the existing walkthrough that I didn't want to just delete it. However, ultimately I considered it to be appropriate to delete it, as long as I provided reasons for doing so. I put those reasons in the discussion section. Procyon objected to the comments I put in the discussion section. His objections are stated on this page, higher up. --VictorInThePacific (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

And this long one:

This is an extremely long post for what is really a minor point, although the minor point broaches a large issue. If you do not have time to deal with the large issue, you could just read paragraph 9. However, the rest of the post provides useful background; I did not write it just to amuse myself.

I am currently working through the AoE2 campaigns. For my own amusement, I am writing walkthroughs for them. Without too much extra effort, I can modify them for inclusion here.

You have certain policies regarding structure and formatting of the walkthroughs, and other issues. I may or may not agree with your policies, but that doesn't matter. I have no particular interest in modifying your policies, and will abide by them as best I can.

At the same time, I am an experienced writer and editor, among other things, so I have certain policies. For example, when editing, I try to preserve everything the writer wrote, but I do not tolerate anything that is factually incorrect, even marginally. I also think that it is appropriate to state my reasons for any modifications that I do make.

Clearly, I have a certain amount of responsibility for familiarizing myself with your policies, and to do so without making you guys do any extra work, and I have spent some time doing this. However, I have limited resources at my disposal for this project, and, from my perspective, it is often more efficient for me to ask you guys questions, even if it makes you do extra work. Somewhere there is an optimum.

Now, in the AoE campaigns, there are different approaches to most situations. For example, some players want to know what will happen in the future or what is going on somewhere they can't see, and will play the campaigns accordingly. I take the position that prescience and clairvoyance are not appropriate in AoE, indeed are tantamount to cheating, and I do my best to avoid using such things when I play a campaign. Clearly, a walkthrough based on prescience and clairvoyance is incompatible with one that is not. Another example is the rate at which the game runs. AoE2 has a feature - not a bug - that you can execute all game functions (except advancing the clock) while the game is paused. I have discussed this in my "tactics" section. Using the Pause feature is not possible in multi-player games, but we are discussing single-player mode here. Clearly, a walkthrough based on this feature will be at least somewhat incompatible with one that is not, but the walkthrough can be written in a way to minimize this effect. (There are actually a number of scenarios where the Pause feature has virtually no effect.) A third example, somewhat related to the previous one, is that some players may prefer a macro game, while others may prefer a micro game. Walkthroughs based on these two approaches will look very different. There are other reasons why a scenario might play out differently, so that, really, there could be a whole bunch of walkthroughs for it, all incompatible with each other. Furthermore, even when describing only one specific game, different writers may focus on entirely different points. Personally, I explore a scenario as deeply as possible, investigating all possibilities, and I tend to discuss it all in the walkthrough, but I omit any mention of basic procedures.

The reason this is not just a theoretical matter is that the practical reality of having incompatible walkthroughs conflicts directly with your policy of having only one walkthrough. However, this is not the reason I am raising this matter here. My interest in this matter arises from a much smaller question.

You have an existing walkthrough for AoE2 - Saladin 3 (The Horns of Hattin). So far, I have not had anything to do with it. Basically, what happened is that somebody wrote a walkthrough, and later, somebody else wrote a walkthrough disagreeing with the first walkthrough. These walkthroughs are titled [nothing] and “alternative method by somebody”, and this seems to be inconsistent with your title convention. Personally, I don't agree with either walkthrough entirely, although I think the second one is more accurate. If it were up to me, I would delete the first one, leave the second one alone, and add a section for the part I disagree with. My own walkthrough will look very different (it hasn't been written yet), but the existing one is good enough that I would probably not bother posting mine here. In any case, I will not be touching it for at least some time.

Here is the specific issue from which this discussion arose. There is an existing walkthrough for AoE2 - Joan of Arc 5 (The Siege of Paris). It is essentially correct, but provides very little detail, and omits some crucial points. What I have added gets into enormous detail, while still remaining at an advanced level, and introduces some questions for further exploration, especially at the last challenge. The main point is that both walkthroughs have some merit, so deleting either of them would be a poor choice, but they are incompatible, and cannot be reasonably merged. In terms of quality of information, they should both be there, but this appears to violate one of your basic policies. Since I was not aware of this policy, I did what I thought best, which is to present both versions. But how should they be titled? One accurate way would be "my walkthrough" and "somebody else's walkthrough", which is certainly factually correct. Of course, I understand that in a community project like this, claiming specific authorship is entirely inappropriate, and I don't have a problem with that. Another accurate way would be "short version" and "long version", and that is what I used. But the titles have been changed to "summary" and "detailed version", which is factually incorrect, because the short one is simply not a summary of the long one. So, instead of changing the titles back to what I want, which would lead to an edit war, which I would not be able to win even if I wanted to fight it, I am raising the matter here.

Some comments about basic game procedures: An AoE player needs to know how to do certain things. At the most basic level, you need to know how to select a unit and how to attack an enemy unit, and many other things as well. At a slightly more advanced level, you ought to know how to use hotkeys and how to apply the rock-paper-scissors concept, and so on. All of this information is covered in the extensive help features that are built into AoE. I take the position that none of this is appropriate for a stand-alone walkthrough. Of course, somebody else may have a different opinion, but the practical reality is that, as a volunteer, I have limited resources available for this project, so I am only going to work on issues that I want to. Corollary to this is the practical reality that, due to the age of this game, it is unlikely that anyone else is ever going to be working on this game.

If I were going to discuss general basic procedures, I would do it in a separate "basic procedures" section, not in any of the walkthroughs.


 * I was answering all of this, but my content was lost. Argh. I'm going to skip some of the pedantic stuff - basically, just make your guide and don't worry about the other versions. Since a single aggregate strategy isn't acceptable, alternates can be placed just fine underneath headers. Some of us are aware of this limitation. The Saladin page that you referred to is very unpolished, and so it is not considered a model or standard. We also do not allow signatures/author credits on the page itself, so that must be removed before it is considered finished. That is something that no one has corrected. Also note: I subpaged all of the Joan of Arc pages. This is how the guide should be set up to allow for alternate guides, since they will have more room and will each be able to have their own level 2 header to separate them. -- 19:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I know you want answers, so I'll try and continue:

-- 20:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Not knowing the policies is fine. Knowing them will improve your experience here.
 * 2) Using strategies based on "Pause" should be in their own section.
 * 3) Each mission now has room for easily discernable alternate guides.
 * 4) You may put your guide at the top as the main one, since you actually are spending the most time on it, and seem like you are the best at the game (compared to previous writers).
 * 5) All of our guides are clairvoyant, however we try to postpone spoilers until they occur. Try to write your guide in the most efficient way. There's no need to leave out details about the map, but you don't have to talk about future events early in the guide if preparation is unnecessary. This is difficult for me to explain, since a good guide has so many facets. At the start of a good guide with multiple strategies, readers want to have commonalities (e.g. the map) and key points explained. Trying to lead people blindly with a walkthrough isn't the best idea. There are different situations where people look for guides: people who just want to follow one from start to finish, people looking for help after failing, and people looking for ways to improve their strategies or verify that they hadn't missed key details.

NMH, I appreciate all the assistance you are giving me. It is a pleasure working with you.

2 additional comments. 1) I discuss the use of the Pause feature in my Tactics page. 2) In the game, I tend to do what seems best based on information obtained up to that point, and that goes for the walkthroughs as well. The most common phrase in my walkthroughs for AoE is probably "scout aggressively". --VictorInThePacific (talk) 05:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Pretty much everything we say in a guide is going to be straight forward for a player, so long as they can read. "Scout aggressively" should make sense to anyone. We're not worried about you, otherwise we would be intervening, so feel free to proceed as you see fit. Since we review all of the edits that occur on the wiki, you won't go unnoticed. -- 18:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

NMH, I appreciate the confidence you have in me. I intend to work over the remaining AoE2 campaigns. The timescale will be weeks, if not months. I will not be here regularly, and perhaps hardly ever after that. I expect that I will be doing a lot of deleting (and replacing, with tons of new data). Since I am unlikely to be around later when or if any questions arise, please, if you have any questions whatsoever about why I did something, ask up front. --VictorInThePacific (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries. I've been here on and off for almost six years now. Guide writing takes a LOT of time. Some people invest 1-2 years on a single guide (this applies to other sites and mediums, too). Professional guides requires teams of like 50 people. It's ridiculous, but I understand. In our eyes, no guide is ever really complete. There will always be more hacks, more tweaks, Actions Per Minute optimizations, alternate strategies, etc. Also, the better the guide gets, the more likely it is that other contributors for AoEII will appear (nobody likes starting from scratch). -- 04:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Age of Kings campaign mission titles
Hi Victor,

I have a question about the campaign missions. Let's look at Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings/Lord of Arabia as an example. You recently updated the page with a header of "Saladin 2: Lord of Arabia". Is this the actual title that appears in game? I have not been able to find mission title images anywhere on YouTube. If you could upload a small picture of the title, it would help the most, but basically I just want to verify its form. If that is really the title, then the page should be renamed to it. Otherwise, we can remove the header since the page name counts as a level one header (the one you added is considered level 2, which makes sense because you wrapped it in two equal signs). Right now the headers are duplicate. That is, the page title and the initial level two title are basically the same thing, and redundant. This issue persists across all of the campaign missions so it is important to get it straight. -- 16:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There are 5 campaigns in the AoE2 group. The William Wallace campaign is also the tutorial, and I am not doing a walkthrough for it. None is really needed in any case. Each of the 4 other campaigns is labelled with the name of a particular historical figure. Each of the the 6 scenarios in each of those campaigns has a title given by the game designers. For example, scenario 2 of the "Saladin" campaign is titled "Lord of Arabia". This guy gives at least some of the titles: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LJjltRsdAw). In any case, all the titles I have listed are correct. I vouch for myself. I am glad you raised this point. Actually, I did hint at it in an earlier post, but hadn't finished this part of the work yet. Overall, and I think we agree on this point, a campaign should be titled, and each scenario should be titled -<#>, or -<#>,.


 * Graphics may or may not happen. Are you perhaps suggesting a screenshot of the final, revealed map at the beginning or end of the scenario to go with each scenario header?


 * Incidentally, I totally do not recommend the procedure he follows in that video.

VictorInThePacific (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me. Thank you for that video. I fast forwarded to find an official name and the best I've seen so far is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6_TojwKlJM (14:46) where it shows the campaign map with each mission's title. # looks to be the best, and since we can easily omit the number from the title by using a numbered list, as is currently used in our table of contents, no changes need to be made to the page naming I already put in place. Do you agree that the current situation is ok? If so, then "Saladin 2: Lord of Arabia" is acceptable, but not a precise title. In addition, I also saw that the mission "Horns of Hattin" is actually called "The Horns of Hattin" so I changed it. Please verify the other mission titles via the campaign maps. -- 06:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You found an image of the Saladin scenario menu. The scenario titles given there are correct. I didn't bother with the title for "The Horns of Hattin" because I didn't actually post my own walkthrough for that scenario. All of the walkthroughs I write should have the correct title. I have done Barbarossa, Genghis Khan, Joan of Arc (not yet the last one), and am completing Saladin today.

I have to say that I don't like the headers on the very top of the pages for the individual walkthroughs. For one thing, when I am reading a particular walkthrough, I already know what game I am reading about, but I would like to be reminded of the campaign name and scenario number, and the scenario title is nice too. But I didn't write the style guide for this site, so you get to make the final decision.

Incidentally, aren't the ToC entries supposed to use sentence case?

Did you know that there are actually 5 AoE variants? The games list only gives 4. The missing one is the AoE expansion: "The Rise of Rome"

--VictorInThePacific (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The page title should be the official title, e.g. the one in the screenshot. Page titles also follow sentence case, but official typecasting precedes sentence case (a title as a whole is like a proper noun). A mini title is okay at the start of a page. I've adjusted Age of Empires_II: The Age of Kings/The Siege of Jerusalem to have one of those mini headers. Note that I adjusted all of the other headers, as they should be as low level as possible (level 1). The page title is level 0. See Guide/Wiki markup for a simple comparison of headers.


 * Header "titles" (ToC listings) should be sentence case, however, again actual titles (such as the mission) should be capitalized like the in-game typecasting.


 * 5 AoE variants? Let's not talk in numbers as this is confusing. Here are the games I am aware of for the first two AoE games (note AoE3 has a game and two expansions). Here is what exists, below. What are we missing?
 * Age of Empires
 * Age of Empires: The Rise of Rome (not created yet)
 * Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings
 * Age of Empires II: The Conquerors


 * Were you referring to the Nintendo DS version, titled Age of Empires: The Age of Kings? The Nintendo DS games are in their own row in the series template.
 * -- 20:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll just leave most of that stuff to you and concentrate on content. The "variant" I was referring to is "The Rise of Rome". It's not mentioned on the games list. Eventually, I may get to that one. I'm almost done with AoE2 basic and am writing for AoE basic.--VictorInThePacific (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)