Forum:RTS missions

I make this post because the missions of the RTSs, well, seems to be a complete mess. Every mission seems to follow it's own format, others seems to have speculation mixed up with correct information, etc. So, I want to decide a good way to make the missions look good. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 02:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've created a prototype in The Brothers Stormrage, I'll describe the format that I used below:
 * Battle box
 * Image
 * Must be loading screen for WC3 and the minimap for WC1 and WC2.
 * Combatants
 * Should be the teams exatly as told in the RTSs, except if another source of lore mentions another faction, then it should be mentioned in a separate list.
 * Commanders
 * Should be listed everyone mentioned, if not from the RTS it should be cited and in a separate list.
 * If it is a randomized hero then it should follow the following format:
 * The number of heros - the word unknown with a link to the randomized names - the hero linked to it's RTS article.
 * Example: 2 unknown Liches
 * Units
 * Linked to it's RTS unit and not to the Lore unit, it should be capitalized or as it appear in the RTSs.
 * Example: Footmen
 * Should list the number of starting units (just for the playable ones) with a plus simbol. This will apply to the player's units and the enemy units, but not for the allied player's units (as they don't affect the gameplay nor give any lore status, furthermore they would overlap with the player's units and will cause confusion).
 * Example: 3+ Grunts
 * Units obtained in a quest should have an asterisk that link to its respective quest.
 * Example: Riders*
 * The Lore units should be mentioned in a separate list, all cited and without mixing with the RTS ones (the ones used in the mission).
 * Cassualities
 * Should have a note telling why it is light, considerable, heavy, massive, etc.
 * First paragraph
 * Should include the name of the mission, its campaign, number of the mission (with both number and letters) and a little description of what happens in the battle.
 * Transcript - In WC1 and WC2 should include the briefing and in WC3 all the text featured in the mission.
 * Quests - Should have the image of quest of WoW ([[Image:Quest Avail 16x16.png|20px]]) and the icon of the quest in WC3 (Icons can be obtained from: WC3 Icons/Icon List), the objetives and description.
 * Main
 * Optional
 * If failed what is told to the player.
 * Hints
 * Hints
 * Notices
 * New ally acquired
 * New unit acquired
 * Warning
 * Quotes - With icons for every character, preferentially the ones in List of race icons, if there isn't one for the unit then a icon of the WC3 Icons/Icon List resized to 18px (Example: BTNPriestessOfTheMoon.png).
 * Intro cinematic
 * Between the battle
 * Optional Quest cinematic
 * Middle cinematic
 * End cinematic
 * Units
 * Named characters
 * Creeps
 * With their numbers.
 * Critters
 * With their numbers.
 * The battle
 * The battle as most expanded as possible, with both RTS-only information and other lore sources, all cited correctly (even if it's from the same mission).
 * Screenshots of the mission and other sources of lore can be included here.
 * Notes
 * Technical information, bugs, glitches, tactics, etc.
 * Items
 * Gallery
 * For the minimap if its a WC3 mission.
 * If there are excess of images in the battle section.
 * References

Comments
I based this format so that the half of above the article could be a source article, while the below could be a lore battle. What I really want with this is to clean up every battle article just once and have easy access to Warcraft RTS lore without having to play the missions again. I would like to hear suggestions of how to improve my format, remember to check and correct the prototype mission: The Brothers Stormrage. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 02:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Rolandius capitalized every unit in The Brothers Stormrage, I reverted the edits because I want to discuss it first. (Note: I don't want to be agressive, just want the best for the RTS mission articles) I think that the units should be linked to the Warcraft III unit but the name should be displayed as the Lore unit, any thoughts? Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you explain why you want a disparity between the link and the display? Seems like it would just add confusion. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 6:21 PM PST 13 Jul 2009


 * First, I thought since Warcraft III units were now being capitalized that they should be, you know, capitalized. Second, the units I capitalized were under your "RTS" heading. The units under your "Lore" heading I left alone. Why do you have two headings for units, "RTS" and then "Lore", if you are going to use lower case for both anyway? Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 02:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking of which, I do not think a consensus about that was reached on Forum:RTS capitalization. The care sort of fell off.-- 02:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Somehow it was because Gourra starting moving RTS articles to the capitalized form awhile ago. I asked when was this finally decided but he never replied. So I just thought some admin meeting had decided the issue somewhere else and it wasn't required of anyone else to know. To me it was just another mysterious new rule that I had to watch out I didn't break. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 02:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Fandyllic and Rolandius I think both of you are right, it will cause confusion and it will be useless to separate the Lore and RTS if both will be lower case. I'll revert my edits, thanks for telling me now before I do that to all articles :) Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that G0urra deleted the lore units, I would like to know why. Also I want to know if everyone agree that separating them is a good idea. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please list some examples of what G0urra deleted. I will review them. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 11:20 AM PST 17 Aug 2009


 * I've already added them back because there wasn't anwer, but it would be better if you review them. Here is the edit: . Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

My opinion:

Everything is pretty fine, good work. For the naming, I agree, too. Capitalized only in gameplay.

I'd just change one thing: the Units section. Here's my idea:

We should list the numbers of units in each side. You know, the starting units and stuff like that. We could use the Strength section of the table. We would just be adding numbers, like heroes'. For chapters where you can build more units, well, just put the name with the number of starting units and a "+". For units that can't be used yet, just don't put them. For units that need a quest or an event to be available, put a link to the quest in the same page.

Also, I don't think that the race needs to be included. After all, the units are linked to the right unit. An example of this would be "Night elf huntress". Just put Huntress and avoid redundant information. The name of the unit is the name of the unit.

Finally, I don't understand why you put "RTS:" in the Strength section of the table. It's because, well, the battle could be replayed in WoW somehow and then include new units that should be listed, too?

That's all.--Lon-ami (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestions. I agree with the race shouldn't be included becase it will now redirect to it's WC3 and not to the lore one which may include other races. The "RTS:" was put because it used to have a "Lore:" section but G0urra deleted it for unknown reasons. The number of starting units would be interesting, and, about the link to the quest, I think something like this should be done: . I'll make the corrections to The Brothers Stormrage and see what you think. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I added the number of units of the player and allies, but I didn't add the units from the enemy because I think it would be pointless, the computer will make the most units as possible and continue producing them until they lose; while the player can decide to use or not use the other units. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've decided to not add the number of starting units of the enemy or allied computer. This because the computer will do as many as he can before he loose, while the player can decide to make the units or not. If it conflicts with the units of the allied computer it will just have the starting units of the player not of the ally. Any thoughts? Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd add them. Why?
 * 1-No melee maps, where they can't build more units.
 * 2-Strategies. In some maps, 2 players are 1, and one of them is passive and just defends the other one. Also, it's good to know how many enemies there are since the beginning, for if you want to raid their base with your starting units.--Lon-ami (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought these were RTS missions and not player versus player? Is it both? Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 10:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Campaign chapters. Chapters can be melee (normal gameplay) or "RPG" (some units and you can't build more).--Lon-ami (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh. So I guess I have only played melee or something. I don't think I remember raiding the computer's base with my starting units only. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 10:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Adding them may be a good idea for strategys, I hadn't consider that, I'll add them later. And Rolandius the RPG is for example The Founding of Durotar, Chasing Visions or The Defense of Strahnbrad while the normal gameplay are missions like Blackrock & Roll, Blackrock & Roll, Too! or Where Wyverns Dare. A mission that can be win with just the starting units is, for example: Sunnyglade (WC1 Human), I just took my units and sent them against the orcs, released the prisoners and defeated the orcs in some minutes instead of the normal gameplay. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Boilerplates are nice. I think the focus should be on transcripts and walkthroughs. There should also be a section describing how the mission appears in other sources, if it does (Twilight of the Gods as Battle for Mount Hyjal, The Cult of the Damned in Arthas: Rise of the Lich King). I was thinking of labeling such a section "discrepancies", but it does not always contradict, so I do not have a non-long-winded title. What would a section like that do to the statistics? Sorry if I am not adding anything.-- 20:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that, if the sources doesn't contradict each other, then it should just be incorporated the information from the other sources to the RTS info. If there is a contradiction then a section titled "Discrepancies" should be made, but the information of the source should be merged into the section of the RTS battle and just leaving the discrepances in it's own section. But, if the battle happens completely different in another source, then there should be two sections, one for each battle.
 * And a section like that would not affect the statistics, actually the statistics are shown in different sections from "The battle" section. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll start doing the format that I described above for all the missions, if there is any opposition this is the time to ask. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)