Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Vehicles"
From Cantr II Wiki
| (9 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
****Well, I have to say I really don't like the new layout... but anyway, if it remains the way it is, the vehicle pages should be updated to say "requires an engine" or "does not require an engine" as the new layout doesn't show that. [[User:The Surly Cantrian]] 16:17, 26 Sep 2005 (GMT) | ****Well, I have to say I really don't like the new layout... but anyway, if it remains the way it is, the vehicle pages should be updated to say "requires an engine" or "does not require an engine" as the new layout doesn't show that. [[User:The Surly Cantrian]] 16:17, 26 Sep 2005 (GMT) | ||
| − | Could we have a new sub-section, listing things that can't be built inside a vehicle? Or would that fit better in the [category:Water Vehicles]] | + | Could we have a new sub-section, listing things that can't be built inside a vehicle? Or would that fit better in the [[[Category:Water Vehicles]]] page? (can't figure out how to link to it, it just adds a category) |
| + | *I think the best way to do that would be to make a new page about locations in general, or about where things can be built. THere are several pages that would benefit from a link there. And you can link to a category by prepending a colon: [[:Category:Water Vehicles]], for example. [[User:Sho|Sho]] 11:49, 6 January 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | *The base speeds are not consistant. Example, [[passenger car]] says 0.54 while [[sloop]] says 50. [[User:Ceselb|Ceselb]] 13:54, 6 February 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | ** They don't have to be consistent - Land vehicles use a different movement algorithm to Water vehicles - see [[Vehicle speed]] for more details --[[User:Chris Johnson|Chris Johnson]] 18:31, 6 February 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | FOR ANYONE STILL LISTENING TO THIS: | ||
| + | What is the definition of real capacity? | ||
| + | -Spider | ||
Latest revision as of 12:20, 1 September 2011
Whoever changed the menu on the vehicles, please change it back. It was much more user friendly the previous way.
The alphabetical listing under manufacture it NOT GOOD.
It was more user-friendly the other way listing boats vs non-engined land vehicles vs engined land vehicles. Please change it back.
- Forum post and message by AngelSpice
- The current system for manufacture information was decided on by, if I recall correctly, me, User:Nick_Roberts and User:Kabl00ey. It makes maintenance easier and parallels the in-game manufacturing system more closely. I'm working on fixing some things with the system (notably the flaw that hides the category list when you first click on a link to the category page), and we could create subcategories for boats, land vehicles, engined land vehicles and non-engined land vehicles. Would that be acceptable? Sho 14:10, 25 Sep 2005 (EDT)
- I do think that separating out the vehicles by type rather than alphabetically is better. This is supposed to help you and it would help better if they were separated out. I don't think that the layout of the wiki needs to exactly mirror the game. (ie: go to manufacture then go to vehicles and get an alphabetical list) It just seems that this last change has made things much more cumbersome and click-intensive to get the information you need. AngelSpice
- What sort of "information you need" are we talking here, and what method of getting to it is it that the current system is interfering with? For looking up a specific vehicle, typing the vehicle name into the search box has always been the easiest way and the way envisioned by the MediaWiki designers. No matter what system we end up using, there's no system that lets you just go to the main page and get any information with, say, two clicks. The old system that you espouse required just as many clicks from the main page as the current one. Sho 15:14, 25 Sep 2005 (EDT)
- Well, I have to say I really don't like the new layout... but anyway, if it remains the way it is, the vehicle pages should be updated to say "requires an engine" or "does not require an engine" as the new layout doesn't show that. User:The Surly Cantrian 16:17, 26 Sep 2005 (GMT)
- What sort of "information you need" are we talking here, and what method of getting to it is it that the current system is interfering with? For looking up a specific vehicle, typing the vehicle name into the search box has always been the easiest way and the way envisioned by the MediaWiki designers. No matter what system we end up using, there's no system that lets you just go to the main page and get any information with, say, two clicks. The old system that you espouse required just as many clicks from the main page as the current one. Sho 15:14, 25 Sep 2005 (EDT)
- I do think that separating out the vehicles by type rather than alphabetically is better. This is supposed to help you and it would help better if they were separated out. I don't think that the layout of the wiki needs to exactly mirror the game. (ie: go to manufacture then go to vehicles and get an alphabetical list) It just seems that this last change has made things much more cumbersome and click-intensive to get the information you need. AngelSpice
Could we have a new sub-section, listing things that can't be built inside a vehicle? Or would that fit better in the [[[Category:Water Vehicles]]] page? (can't figure out how to link to it, it just adds a category)
- I think the best way to do that would be to make a new page about locations in general, or about where things can be built. THere are several pages that would benefit from a link there. And you can link to a category by prepending a colon: Category:Water Vehicles, for example. Sho 11:49, 6 January 2007 (EST)
- The base speeds are not consistant. Example, passenger car says 0.54 while sloop says 50. Ceselb 13:54, 6 February 2007 (EST)
- They don't have to be consistent - Land vehicles use a different movement algorithm to Water vehicles - see Vehicle speed for more details --Chris Johnson 18:31, 6 February 2007 (EST)
FOR ANYONE STILL LISTENING TO THIS: What is the definition of real capacity? -Spider
