Forum:Village pump

Line 188:

:Maybe we could include transcripts of those in the "descriptions" sections, and also list in the notes if something was planned for that update but got delayed. For example, the 51.0 page would include a transcript of the "looking forward" section from its official patch notes, while the notes section would mention that a new boss (presumably [[Diamondback]]) was planned for that update according to the 49.0 update notes, but got delayed to 52.0. [[User:Polavux|Polavux]] ([[User talk:Polavux|talk]]) 00:32, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

::I should say on the whole that I don't think update pages should be a copy-paste of the official patch notes, they should focus on what actually changed in the update in as much detail as possible. Developer comments, jokes, and errors should be treated as supplemental, not actual parts of the update. [[User:Polavux|Polavux]] ([[User talk:Polavux|talk]]) 00:34, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

== How should we cover development versions? And how does this affect how we cover update histories? ==

So, when I started this wiki, I made the executive decision to use the term "update history" instead of "version history" because "version history" implies things that I consider unnecessary. For example, there's no reason to make pages for the launch versions of games, because it's hard to define what is an "addition" if it came in the base game. Technically ''everything'' pertaining to the game at launch is an "addition". Every sound effect, texture, item, menu, glitch, line of text, etc could be considered an addition, and I think it's an exercise in frustration to try to narrow down what is worth counting and what isn't. Even if you did narrow it down to just interactive elements (items, levels, etc), I don't see the value of having a page that just lists what was in the game at launch. It makes sense for the Minecraft Wiki to use the term "version history" because most of that game's entire development cycle was released publicly, so they can document everything that was added to the game bit by bit since the game's inception as Cave Game, but for most Bloons games, this just isn't the case.

However, there are now more than a few Bloons games that have development versions that made their way onto the internet. Some are publicly released beta tests ([[Bloons Monkey City Flash]], [[Bloons Card Storm]], and now [[Bloons Blitz]]), some are pre-release builds that weren't meant to be publicly released (development builds of the original [[Bloons (Flash)|Bloons]] saved by the Wayback Machine, [[Bloons TD 5 Mobile]] builds found on TestFlight CDNs, a near-final build of BCS, and version 0.5 of Bloons Blitz), and some are development builds of content updates (asset bundles from builds of [[Bloons TD 6]] updates, closed beta tests of BCS updates on Steam, and I think there was a TestFlight build of a BTD5 update, but I'm not sure). For Bloons and BCS, we have builds close to the game's inception, kind of like Minecraft.

My idea is for development versions to cover their differences from whatever came next, while we still refrain from having a dedicated page for the launch versions of games. For example, for BCS, the build 1050 page covers the differences from 1.0, the full playable test page covers the differences from build 1050, and the firstlook test page covers the differences from the full playable test, while the pages for every version post-1.0 remain the same. This would essentially be the opposite of how we cover updates, which focus on what changed from the previous version. Theoretically, this would also apply to development builds of post-release updates; for example, there are leaked asset bundles of development builds of {{BTD6 version|6.0}} of BTD6 that have a different version of [[Quad]] and different [[Scientist Gwendolin (BTD6)|Scientist Gwendolin]] voice lines, but honestly, the differences are small enough that I think you could cover those under a "development" section on the 6.0 page instead of giving it its own page. Same thing for the playtester builds of BCS updates.

I think this makes the most sense in terms of covering development versions on this wiki... in a vacuum. I have no idea how that would extend to the update history sections on pages in the mainspace. Like, would you continue to list changes in the development versions of BCS under update history? Would you move those under a "development" section instead and list them in reverse chronological order too, just for the sake of consistency...?

I'm also not sure if we should count the soft launches of Bloons Blitz and BATTD as development versions. Technically, they could be considered beta tests, and the soft launch versions of Bloons Blitz are numbered 0.x instead of 1.x, but they feel more like launch versions than development builds to me. Covering version 0.7 of Bloons Blitz falls into the same trappings as covering the launch version of BTD6, where it'd just be a list of what was in the game at release. Maybe that'll feel different once the full game is out, but for now I think we should treat Bloons Blitz's update history the same way as a fully released game. I feel the same way about the soft launch of BATTD.

Finally, where do we cover development versions? Do we create a new namespace for them, or do we add them to the update history namespace and rename that to cover development builds as well? Personally, I see namespaces as a way to denote pages that are structured differently from pages in the main namespace. Galley pages are just collections of images, strategy pages have a different writing style, and stats/event history/update history are mostly tables of data. I feel like development versions have enough of an overlap with our style of update history pages to warrant covering them in the same namespace. I can't decide what the namespaces should be called, though. If separate, I think "Development:" is too broad because there's more to game development than just builds, and I don't want to rename to "Version history" for reasons I already mentioned. [[User:Polavux|Polavux]] ([[User talk:Polavux|talk]]) 22:48, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@@ Line 188: / Line 188: @@
 :Maybe we could include transcripts of those in the "descriptions" sections, and also list in the notes if something was planned for that update but got delayed. For example, the 51.0 page would include a transcript of the "looking forward" section from its official patch notes, while the notes section would mention that a new boss (presumably [[Diamondback]]) was planned for that update according to the 49.0 update notes, but got delayed to 52.0. [[User:Polavux|Polavux]] ([[User talk:Polavux|talk]]) 00:32, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
 ::I should say on the whole that I don't think update pages should be a copy-paste of the official patch notes, they should focus on what actually changed in the update in as much detail as possible. Developer comments, jokes, and errors should be treated as supplemental, not actual parts of the update. [[User:Polavux|Polavux]] ([[User talk:Polavux|talk]]) 00:34, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
+== How should we cover development versions? And how does this affect how we cover update histories? ==
+So, when I started this wiki, I made the executive decision to use the term "update history" instead of "version history" because "version history" implies things that I consider unnecessary. For example, there's no reason to make pages for the launch versions of games, because it's hard to define what is an "addition" if it came in the base game. Technically ''everything'' pertaining to the game at launch is an "addition". Every sound effect, texture, item, menu, glitch, line of text, etc could be considered an addition, and I think it's an exercise in frustration to try to narrow down what is worth counting and what isn't. Even if you did narrow it down to just interactive elements (items, levels, etc), I don't see the value of having a page that just lists what was in the game at launch. It makes sense for the Minecraft Wiki to use the term "version history" because most of that game's entire development cycle was released publicly, so they can document everything that was added to the game bit by bit since the game's inception as Cave Game, but for most Bloons games, this just isn't the case.
+However, there are now more than a few Bloons games that have development versions that made their way onto the internet. Some are publicly released beta tests ([[Bloons Monkey City Flash]], [[Bloons Card Storm]], and now [[Bloons Blitz]]), some are pre-release builds that weren't meant to be publicly released (development builds of the original [[Bloons (Flash)|Bloons]] saved by the Wayback Machine, [[Bloons TD 5 Mobile]] builds found on TestFlight CDNs, a near-final build of BCS, and version 0.5 of Bloons Blitz), and some are development builds of content updates (asset bundles from builds of [[Bloons TD 6]] updates, closed beta tests of BCS updates on Steam, and I think there was a TestFlight build of a BTD5 update, but I'm not sure). For Bloons and BCS, we have builds close to the game's inception, kind of like Minecraft.
+My idea is for development versions to cover their differences from whatever came next, while we still refrain from having a dedicated page for the launch versions of games. For example, for BCS, the build 1050 page covers the differences from 1.0, the full playable test page covers the differences from build 1050, and the firstlook test page covers the differences from the full playable test, while the pages for every version post-1.0 remain the same. This would essentially be the opposite of how we cover updates, which focus on what changed from the previous version. Theoretically, this would also apply to development builds of post-release updates; for example, there are leaked asset bundles of development builds of {{BTD6 version|6.0}} of BTD6 that have a different version of [[Quad]] and different [[Scientist Gwendolin (BTD6)|Scientist Gwendolin]] voice lines, but honestly, the differences are small enough that I think you could cover those under a "development" section on the 6.0 page instead of giving it its own page. Same thing for the playtester builds of BCS updates.
+I think this makes the most sense in terms of covering development versions on this wiki... in a vacuum. I have no idea how that would extend to the update history sections on pages in the mainspace. Like, would you continue to list changes in the development versions of BCS under update history? Would you move those under a "development" section instead and list them in reverse chronological order too, just for the sake of consistency...?
+I'm also not sure if we should count the soft launches of Bloons Blitz and BATTD as development versions. Technically, they could be considered beta tests, and the soft launch versions of Bloons Blitz are numbered 0.x instead of 1.x, but they feel more like launch versions than development builds to me. Covering version 0.7 of Bloons Blitz falls into the same trappings as covering the launch version of BTD6, where it'd just be a list of what was in the game at release. Maybe that'll feel different once the full game is out, but for now I think we should treat Bloons Blitz's update history the same way as a fully released game. I feel the same way about the soft launch of BATTD.
+Finally, where do we cover development versions? Do we create a new namespace for them, or do we add them to the update history namespace and rename that to cover development builds as well? Personally, I see namespaces as a way to denote pages that are structured differently from pages in the main namespace. Galley pages are just collections of images, strategy pages have a different writing style, and stats/event history/update history are mostly tables of data. I feel like development versions have enough of an overlap with our style of update history pages to warrant covering them in the same namespace. I can't decide what the namespaces should be called, though. If separate, I think "Development:" is too broad because there's more to game development than just builds, and I don't want to rename to "Version history" for reasons I already mentioned. [[User:Polavux|Polavux]] ([[User talk:Polavux|talk]]) 22:48, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Forum:Village pump: Difference between revisions