Topic on User talk:Gottoni

The talk feature among editors was under maintenance for some time and it just happened to match the same timing you started massive edits. I was the one who spotted the malfunction when I attempted to send you some messages.

• At first, I wanted to ask that you add the "Planning Grid" to spaceship screenshots so that the viewer can "easily" see how much space is needed. The white squares can help count how many tiles does the total length takes, which is very important, and now more than ever as we will need to defend it for a full season once activated. The design or simetry has no relevance, so as compact as possible shall be the focus.

• Secondly are the guides. Normally, when we "do" have the talk feature available, we address some disagreements on time before edits spread too much, but as mentioned above, we couldn't talk to each other. I will be reverting to the previous version, just before you. The guide itself totally needs an update because the original writing was set during Alpha 16 and we are not on Beta 19, three builds afterwards. However, there is a disapproval in your approach, which is why I'm entitling this discussion as "Input perspective". The angle from which you viewed narration introduces the following problem. The reading suggests that the "game setting" had more prevalence over the "player" game skills. Giving very little merit to the gamer. I will proceed to show you some examples:

• • Location: Selecting landing zone "Cheeses" the game too much. Convenient to escape the Ice Sheet to other biomes and closer to other outposts. But that completely removes the merit of actually winning an Ice Sheet game. If we are making a guide of Ice Sheet, then we shall stick to that biome, otherwise it's NOT Ice Sheet.

• • Character selection: This is also a bad guidance, because literally anyone who is not disabled can cook. Telling that your butcher should be either Cannibal, Bloodlust or Psychopath reads almost mandatory and lame. Again it is a victory heavily relying on the "start settings" than "player merit" itself.

The "Dream Team": Also dilutes "player effort" considerably as there is no restriction or impossibility or specific traits to finish the game alive. A good game shall take all character variables until the end. Of course, sometimes (for those who don't save scum in particular) the enemy will just one-shot-kill one of your own pawns and oh well... people die. Sure, you can equip them as best as possible but nonetheless bad luck makes you lose someone. There is no immortality, except maybe for the resurrect serum, but the thing is that: there is no such thing as a particular trait not being able to cope with the challenge.

Basically, you have a problem in Input Perspective because the approach is limited or causes misunderstanding. There are several real life examples to this:

• If you watched the TV series LOST, Jack tells his son: "-Opening a cereal box is not making breakfast.-"
• If you are an outdoorsy like myself, you shall understand that going to the nature on a RV is not the "real" camping as of someone who goes with tent, sleeping bad and wood fire as opposed to having air conditioning, beds, kitchen and TV...that's not real outdoors.
• If you like races, you can have to pilots of equal driving skills but you give one a F1 and the other a bicycle, you just can't say that the F1 driver was better. What made the difference was the vehicle, not the pilot skills.

Your guide contributions have input perspectives of the lucky F1 driver, which had absolutely no merit into winning the race.

Writing the wiki on secure and controlled scenarios misleads the reader into thinking that there is "only that way" (mandatory and restricted). What we need you to do, is to write "open mindedly" to welcome all possibilities. Your current Input perspective feels more in line with cheat guides, shortcut tips or exploit techniques. Because of this, your contributions shall remain as part of "User Guides" (I have my owns too by the way.).