Talk:Ice Sheet Guide

Consensus doesn't mean a third party revisioning.

Consensus can be achieved by:

• Third opinions (3O)
• Request for Comments (RfC)
• Watch for Pitfalls and errors
• Read more: Determining consensus

oh dear... my bad I guess?

I told you he wouldn't accept anyone changing his guide.

So Yoshida, you normal now? did you read the changes I did for you before reading about consensus and undoing everything again?

Again, we can make changes to improve or be stuck on Alpha16

For future reference, this is being written in October of 2018 for those who may come in times ahead. Basically, Ludeon Studios did some setting changes stealthy without publishing any change log and the Community was unaware until trouble shooting raised, most notably the inability to post in talk pages for the period of one month. This lead to new users performing multiple changes while the rest of the contributors couldn’t communicate with each other.

I would like to recognize User:Gottoni withheld further edit warring for a full month and came back to re-discuss a topic that cooled down. He also did not resort to any kind of personal attack. To which we can say this member can sit at a table without escalating into aggression. The only behavior that needs adjustment is the spam at the Recent Changes due to not using the “Preview” button before saving.

Now, responding to the question directed to myself:

I have always been cool and so far managed to cooperatively work with Pigeon Guru on many other guides, so it’s pretty clear that I know the mid-ground when different opinions about a same topic need to coexist on a same page. And I have been writing guides elsewhere with other people too, so this is a field I’m very comfortable in.

You should not mistake my responses when I’m strict with certain aspects, maybe I need to make it more clear but, some answers are entirely from “another gamer’s angle” and other responses are entirely from an “Administrative” perspective. I have experience with guidelines and policies in other wikis too. I consider what I’m about to type below standard common knowledge, but I see that we must address them here as well.

Rewrites, Reverts & Redos:

A user willing to edit a page has to weight in how much content is pretending to change, if it is small or large. If it is small, previous editors will likely not care much. But if it is a vast majority of content modification, then it is best to discuss the changes before starting an edit war in which we go back and forth non-stop. Compared to regular pages, it just happened that the Ice Sheet Guide was entirely written by one single person as opposed to the majority of pages that have multiple input by various users, so there’s a more dedicated aspect.

One of the most frequent interactions in a page suffering edit warring is the re-re-reverts. Any user that “puts” something back after it was changed more than once, already puts himself in line of a “ban punishment”. So far, I always dealt with disagreements without resorting to it. We need to stay out of “Looping”. Unless a new contributor is already experienced and has mastered Wiki-Fu, he/she shall not come home and “charge in” changing everything to his will (When in Rome…do as the Romans), and at least dedicate sometime into seeing behavioral patterns from other editors, to learn traditional steps taken by the rest of the community. The single facts of Recent Changes spamming and the need to mention basic Wiki principles already point out lack of understanding.

Back to me, Yoshida Keiji, as another gamer:

I don’t understand why there is need to back-roll to square one. The Wiki is not hurt in any way by having “one extra page”. As of now, this Community has three most active guide writers with some others on a secondary laidback stance. What exactly weights heavier to say “there must only be one guide”? Answer to this question.

Clearly the Rim World Community is divided into two type of players:

• Those who want easy wins and use overpowered mods.
• Those who like hardcore experiences and play without killboxes or exploits.

You and I, are on different …opposed…pools.

Guides have a narrative, a water flow that carries the spirit of the author, when multiple users contribute to a single page, it is important to keep that line of storytelling (Noise vs Sound ratio).

I’m willing to take “another” look at your guide, mostly out of kind gesture, but then again, I don’t really see the need to.

As Tynan Sylvester stated himself, Rim World is a game of story telling in which not all will end with a happy ending, some stories will end with Colony wipe out. This philosophy is entirely accepted and understood by the whole Community, and when we talk about “Ice Sheet”, the very first thought that comes to mind is: “Cannibalism”. Your first original walkthrough was completely “circunvating” the most elementary feature of this exclusive biome. I don’t know if this was out of a moral/ethic background or because you have a religious practice/belief, but to me, you looked as a “runner”. If you were just telling your story of a single game, that was absolutely fine. The problem here is that you are in a biome “specific” page. I am a bit busy now and I don’t see myself heavy editing the wiki in the foreseen next two weeks, end of month is always tough in my current situation. I do not pretend to withheld your contributions, but I did thought you deserved an answer, so I decided to reply to you. What comes next I cant really promise you anything.

After given 2 months to answer: "Why there must only be one?", no constructive elaboration was provided. While the "Runner" guide version is subpar at best, we will keep it. There is no single benefit to deletion and no problem in keeping them either. Both stay.

500px

Observation: Narcissism, Manipulative behavior in switching pictures at the Colony Guide (https://rimworldwiki.com/index.php?title=Colony_Building_Guide&oldid=58338) with non-sensical images of over bloated content (28 Hospital Beds? Common on...), failure to address other contributors at discussion pages when contended, misusage of maintenance templates.

Yoshida Keiji(Let's talk)

15:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll give you the green light in terms of applying some of the changes, seeing that we are already in 1.0.

For any major edits, you might want to talk that out with the other guy first.

Dude you gotta stop using outside references to explain your thoughts because it is really not helping.

I spam minor changes after I make one major change, like one letter that I misspelled and didnt see in my first change. Everyone does that, the diference is that I read things I write one hundred times and ended up doing one hundred minor fixes.

The only thing I was able to conclude is that you think caravans makes the game easy, and because you are a "hardcore gamer" you wanna win in the hardest way possible. Thats you, and not how the average RimWorld player thinks.

Because it is for the average player that I write guides, I believe it is wrong to not mention caravans. I will re-write the guide again with a "trading" approach and a "isolated" approaches and let the reader decide that he thinks it is best.

Why you calling PigeonGuru narcissist? You got a problem?

I had to revert this page to the older version of it as there seems to be quite some disagreement on the contents of this page.

Before updating the page, please reach a consensus on the content of this page.

Yoshida Keiji claims that making caravans in Ice Sheet is cheesy and lame. So since that is only one of the nine parts of the guide, I re-added it so he can change that part if he thinks that caravans are unworthy.

RimWorld is a Colony simulation game with other genre mixes such as survival and strategy. Survival is going to dictate you to do anything to live another day and that is indisputable.

I looked at both versions of your "perfect" landing zone and your third agenda section. Basically, to you caravanning is "NOT" a game feature as you attempt to "excuse" yourself. You are just "escaping" Ice Sheet. Putting this into practical application:

• Start in Ice Sheet.
• Caravan out for whatever event (item stash, incapacitated refugee, enemy outpost, caravan request, etc).

So when you make a full game length analysis, you have spent 5% of your whole game in Ice Sheet, then 50% in Tundra and another 45% in Boreal Forest. Is that really an Ice Sheet game?

Of course, survival will naturally dictate anyone to move to a better location, but if you are going to keep doing that, then it's not an Ice Sheet guide but more like a Nomadic Life Guide.

Events are meant to be played when reasonably and rationally possible, it is a game feature. However, you display then in a perverse way as your main source of hunt and harvest...again... in "ANOTHER" biome...

I'm an ex-bodybuilder and you remind me of some people who always used to claim in social environments that: "they go to gym." While it is completely true that they enter the facility past its door. Whether they actually lift weights or not... is totally another matter... Then we ask ourselves...: Are "these" guys really going to Gym? Not only that they don't lift, they also occupy the power rack and spend half an hour scrolling their smartphones, making loud and disrupting chats and sitting another half hour on the bench machines. Only becoming a total annoyance for "real" sportsmen and sportswoman.

I don't know how to put things simpler than: "-Get Real.-" It's already simpler as it is.

Right... Yes... Caravans are NOT a game feature. Hard to answer when someone has such a good argument.

Like I already mention, the guide does not change if you land in the north pole, you still do quests to survive. And no, quests are rare in any biome, and many of them like peace talks and caravans request dont help you at all, the real values would be 95% ice sheet and 5% tundra and no, I never mention Boreal Forest because thats way too far.

You do quests and caravans in EVERY SINGLE biome, the difference here is that you wont just complete your object and run away because you want to stay a little longer to harvest local resources, which is the only reason I even write about it. Even if the quest happens in another ice sheet, caravans are still worth it and you should still try harder to harvest the local resources. I didnt write and it is not even possible to be perverse and use quests as main source of food since you cant force them to happen to begin with, it is something extra you do after you got clothing to tolerate the cold and thats what I wrote. Didnt you say we should "open mindedly" welcome all possibilities?

The landing zone is a recommendation and not required, it is a guide and we are suppose to give advises to help people survive. Not getting a good landing spot does not invalidate the guide. And like I said, if that bothers you so much I will make a separate page for it.

Good, you are bodybuilder, I am a computer science researcher. You teach me to lift weights and I teach you to write articles. Deal?

Let me put it simple for you: "You dont know what you talking about". Now quests are closer, more rewarding and viable, but they are still an extra and I never said you should rely on it. But they are important enough to deserve a topic about it.

This is starting to heat up quite some- I thought this was a place to actually discuss things, not to argue?

Anyway, I was thinking that the new guide would include something from both versions of the ice sheet guide. It's a compromise so that the two of you won't be arguing that much over things.

By the way, name-calling isn't the right thing to do when confronted with this issue- we each have our own playstyles and other things, and they might not disagree with each other, but name-calling alone isn't going to solve these issues. So, please keep things civil.

I went ahead and made a compromise- combining content from the two guides. From now on, you are free to edit it, just make sure not to argue over the edits.

Since I don't know an awful lot about ice sheet survival, I'll leave it to the two of you (and any other willing editors) to deal with this page.

I told him from the very beginning that he can go edit what he feels wrong instead of removing the whole thing and I will even help him to do so. And I dont know why he is telling me to "Get Real".

I dont think he will accept your version either, because he keeps saying that making world quests removes the "merit" of playing ice sheet... even if they are also in ice sheet.

We'll see on that. In the meantime, feel free to port sone of the content from your own ice sheet guide into this page.

Maybe later, to give him time to cool down.

I made some changes to my guide:

• I made it more obvious that the landing spot is only a recommendation and only "Not surrounded by mountains" has a big impact.

• I made it more obvious that starting traits are a recommendation and removed most of them, except for the butcher ones.

• I made it more obvious quests will not happen often and are only a addition to your raider meat diet. Also specifically mentioned quests in both ice sheet and tundra, so that everyone understand both are important, and no, there is no boreal forest.

More specifically, quests that matters and can provide any food are expected to happen only once per season. And you can not do it in the first season. You wont spend more than one day doing them, so if you get all quests in tundra you still only spend 3 out 60 year days in tundra, which is 5%.

And yes, I tested it. But I am not going to write that because readers only need to know that they need to go to any quests can be an opportunity to get food, even if they are not interested in the main objective, like rescuing a refugee.