From StrategyWiki, the video game walkthrough and strategy guide wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current staff lounge page.

July 2012 | August 2012 | September 2012




AoE2 walkthrough

Not sure if this is the way you want this done, but it looks like the best approach, after several minutes of browsing this site.

I have recently been working through the campaigns in AoE2, and creating walkthroughs as I did so. They are long, detailed, and imho, more accurate than anything else I have seen out there. I realize that this is an old game. Interested? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VictorInThePacific (talkcontribs) .

Yes, of course, that would be wonderful. The guide here is already started and has many pages filled out. If what you have is completely absent from the guide, feel free to start new pages or add to existing ones, or you can integrate your stuff with the info we do currently have. Let us know if you need any help! Happy editing, — Najzere · Talk 07:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcoming response.

Now I have some hard questions.

First of all, I have spent a lot of time with AoE, and I think that I am an expert on the game, at least in a theoretical sense. I cannot move my hands fast enough to stand up to a competent human opponent. Second, and related to the first point, I play the game at the slowest possible speed, while I think most players use the fastest possible speed. This has a huge effect on the complexity of tactics and operations that can be used. Third, I have developed a set of tactics and operational methods, and I have assigned certain names to them. Fourth, I use certain English conventions in my descriptions of the game. So far, none of this is problematic, but it all needs to be stated somewhere, and distinct from any walkthrough.

The hard questions follow, although I am sure you have already answered them all. I understand that any writings that are posted on this site are the property of the community, and I don't have a problem with that. But how do you determine whether a game description posted here is accurate or good? For example, as regards AoE2, I have seen some walkthroughs that are incorrect, some that are inaccurate or too brief to be useful, some that are questionable, and some where variations are possible. I propose to simply delete those in the first two categories, and to add the alternative to the fourth category, but I don't know how to deal with the third category. Then the question arises, once I have posted my analysis, which is accurate, how do we prevent it from being edited incorrectly, which I believe you might consider vandalism?

VitP—The preceding unsigned comment was added by VictorInThePacific (talkcontribs) .

What you are talking about goes to the very heart of what being a wiki site is all about. These problems exist as much on Wikipedia as they do here. The bottom line is inaccuracies will be added, and vandalism will occur. What prevents these from happening is "you", and by "you" I mean the general SW community at large. That's just the nature of the beast. Our admins do an excellent job of removing blatant vandalism, so I'm not concerned about that. As for edits that appear legitimate, it's impossible for the staff to verify every change in each guide for each game, so we rely on those users who consider themselves experts at a particular game to vet the changes.
It is fine if you wish to remove content that you are certain is incorrect. Try to be as respectful to the original content as you can, but feel free to drastically alter things as necessary. Also be aware that, with a strategy game such as the one you are proposing to write about, your strategy will only be one of many strategies that people may wish to employ. It's not like a walkthrough where there is pretty much only one path to completion. Procyon 13:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The speed issue is an interesting one and I personally think more people than you think play on the slow setting too. Insight on different tactics is always wonderful. RTS games generally have a whole lot of different approaches that are all legitimate in their own right so I do hope to get to see how you play it. One approach I like using if a game can have several approaches to an area or scenario is to use either/or statements. As long as what you add, take off, or change improves the guide in your opinion then give it a try. If an accident or misunderstanding is made worst case scenario is someone who thinks it was ok information will re-add it. For as nice as a lot of our guides are there will always be ineffective or outright bad advice hidden in places too. Thus if you see something bad or even rude don't hesitate to fix it. My only request is a section that is too short to be truly useful is still better than a completely empty one. Just blanking information without replacing it isn't helpful. Also please don't be afraid of making a bad edit or mistake. We all have made mistakes when starting out and are pretty understanding and love to help. This post of yours actually looks pretty responsible in my book and I'm happy to meet you. --Zaiqukaj (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Speed is all relative to APM in RTS games. Although you may have less time to think, memorizing the patterns/responses necessary to defeat your enemy at normal or fastest speeds is where the difficulty of an RTS really comes into play. I've known some of the best StarCraft/SCII players in the U.S. and watching them play is ridiculous. What is most interesting is playing an RTS on slowest speed in a multiplayer game, because those used to the fast speeds will usually lose against those who have better strategies.
Now, as far as multiple strategies are concerned, there are usually other ways of doing things, but there are also counters and such. The best thing to do is to be comprehensive and be critical of the content on the page, sometimes going so far as to adding a little bolded section such as ";Criticism" right above the notes about why the strategy is poor. In many cases, strategies can be scrapped if there is compelling evidence against it. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 15:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Added an entirely new walkthrough for Barbarossa campaign. Still need to put in tactics page. How do I add an entirely new page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VictorInThePacific (talkcontribs) .

First, sign your posts on talk pages by ending your message with --~~~~; that's how we get our signature to appear. Secondly, you can create a new page by going to it (changing the URL in your browser's address bar, or by creating a link or previewing a link on a page and then going to it), like so: Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings/New page. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 15:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
VitP, you might want to read through StrategyWiki:Guide if you haven't already.--Pelago (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Added tactics section. Next up: Joan of Arc. I think I will just replace the existing one as well. Although it's better than what was there for Barbarossa, it's still too brief. --VictorInThePacific (talk) 06:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Make sure you don't just remove accurate information. Integration and clarifying things tends to be a better guide writing tactic. That isn't to say if its simple and of poor quality you can't just scrap it. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 16:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Working on Joan of Arc campaign. Although the existing (short) walkthrough has some merit, there are a lot of incorrect statements, so I am just replacing the entire thing. I am listing some reasons in the "discussion" section. Perhaps someone who is actually invested in that game would care to have a look at that? --VictorInThePacific (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably not. That guide has been in shambles. Thanks for fixing it up. Suggestion: throw in an image once in a while, maybe of the map or something would be a simple one to add. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 22:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC
Also, while your effort to account for all of the inaccuracies in the existing guide is appreciated, it's not necessary. If you're certain that what you're writing is more accurate, you don't have to justify it. Most of what you wrote in the discussion pages will largely go unnoticed. Talk pages within guides are typically used to point out, and/or discuss, some point that's unclear or ambiguous and the fix is not obvious. Procyon 00:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The most common use for the talk page of a subpage is for negotiating an edit conflict, where two or more parties are fighting over some part of the content. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 03:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Watch whole game guide

Hopefully this is an ok place for this kind of thing. From what I can gather, watching a page automatically watches the talk page as well, and watching a game's main page does not watch any of its sub-pages. Is there a way to watch every page within a game's guide without actually clicking watch on every page? (So in other words, this would be an option to say, if I watch Portal, watch all pages under that, like Portal/Getting_Started, and Portal/Chamber_19, etc.) If not, is that easily added to our available options? -- Ceegers (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Go to Special:WatchSubpages, enter the name of the guide you want to watch, tick the pages you want to watch, and click "Add pages". --Moydow T · C 21:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks! Then perhaps can that link be added to StrategyWiki:Guide/Basics#Watching_Pages and/or Special:Watchlist? Looks like I can edit the guide, so I'll go ahead and add it there if that's ok. -- Ceegers (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Does Special:WatchSubpages watch new subpages that are created in the guide later on, or just the subpages that exist at the time?--Pelago (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
At the time. When you run it, it will go through and poll for a list of all of the existing pages, and then list all of those subpages and enable you to select all or some of them (all is selected by default) by unchecking a box next to each. If you just click add, it will add all (or the ones you didn't already have) to your list. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 15:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It will not automatically add new guide pages to your watchlist. At a later time you can visit the page again, and just click add, and it will list out the new pages that were added to your watchlist. -- Prod (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


A recent anon added {{sort}} so that columns with spelled out dates (e.g. August 1, 2012) will be sorted correctly in a table with sort enabled. Is this something we want to keep? It seems useful, though rarely used. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 16:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a very useful template, and in its current use, redundant to {{sortkey}}. The template has extra functionality besides sorting dates though, as it can sort anything, although so far we've pretty much just used these for dates. Either way, if extra functionality is wanted it should be merged into sortkey and if it's only to be used for dates it can be safely replaced and deleted. — Najzere · Talk 21:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Logos images

By checking out Unused Images i found quite many unused Logos, Buttons, Icons like Gamecube Logo, reflink Button, C16 Icon, NIWA Logo just to name a few. Can someone from the Admins look in it and check which need to be added or deleted? In next days i will look in the normal stuff like Screenshots, Sprites, etc. Paco (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)