Talk:Proteus 2

=current= 1) Maybe add aliens here? --Coniaric (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we can add a list of alien species living on Proteus 2, linking to the main article about aliens. I will take a look at this next week. Gharolan (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

2) I think we have to discuss the content of this page, especially the resource location part. One of the issues is that node locations are not really consistent anymore. While coordinates or areas don't change much, certain node types will change randomly. Also, every patch something is different which makes certain coordinates obsolete. This is causing confusion and with the current amount of nodes it is simply impossible to check if the entries are still valid or not. Crate content does change with reloading, since there are certain "drop chances" involved. This makes any information on crate contents unreliable because players still will have to check each single crate themselves. On twitch, the devs announced that Site A and Site B are just the beginning. There will probably be at least 6 different maps on Proteus 2 in the future, same for all other moons and planets. The amount of data that will accumulate will be too much and all planet/moon pages will be filled with long tables and hundreds of coordinates. I'm not sure if that is a good solution in the long run. I don't really have a better idea atm how to do this which is why I would like to spark a discussion on possible solutions. Gharolan (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. I'm glad the table have already been split by site, but if there are eventually up to 6 per planet, it can get very crowded. Any thoughts as to maybe adding only general areas if named? I've been adding pages for Landmarks, such as Fungal Thicket. We could have these, craters, and maybe other large landmarks added as general areas to find certain materials? -Seesharpist (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it could work to just have landmarks and POIs and give some nearby resource info, but I would place that information on each landmark/POI page instead of the planet/moon page. About the actual maps: we'll have to see if we can come up with a good solution, not sure if there is something inside the game files Gharolan (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Good point. If we can figure it out, I'd love to have something similar to the Ark interactive map, which lets you selectively turn landmarks and node types on and off, and shows coordinates on hover. Much more complicated, but would certainly condense the information on the page. First step: finding those map files. I have a hunch that the maps are an augmented top-down view of the various levels (That's how I do it in UE4) rather than a static image for the entire map. Not sure how it's normally done in Unity. Worst case then, the levels could be imported to unity and top downs viewed, captured, and stitched back together. I'll work on figuring that out. Nice job on the skill tree btw! We could easily make that interactive as well since you got a clear image of the whole web.


 * I checked out the interactive map. Something like that would be awesome. Interactive skill trees would be nice too, but I don't know how to do it. Is there a tutorial somewhere? Gharolan (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I think for the skills something similar to the Tyranny map Tagz pointed me at would work well. https://tyranny.gamepedia.com/World_map . It would also work for the maps, granted we have a static image, we just wouldn't get the ability to turn nodes on and off. If I knew where to write some javascript to work with markers directly.... :)

=resolved= 1) I was wondering if it would be better to split up the resource table into each resource. Right now, when sorting for coordinates one has to go through resources that are not of interest when looking for a specific location. Having a seperate section for each resource would speed things up.Gharolan (talk) 09:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'd set the table at an absolute width or 66% of the page, given that 21% will look weird on some displays. I am, however, very much for organizing it like that. To maintain consistency, we can also add widths to headers, so that they're the same between tables. Tagaziel (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I edited the tables, should be fine now. Let me know if changes need to be made. Gharolan (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)