Talk:Hangar pet

From Star Trek Online Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Move[edit source]

Love the page, but not all craft that can be launched from carriers are fighters. I really think we should adopt a more general, MMOish term like 'pet' or 'summon' here. Either way though, something like 'Combat pets', 'Carrier pets', 'Carrier craft' or something. --SomeGuy 09:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The official term seems to be "Carrier pet" based on the release notes. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 12:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
When I made the page I wasn't sure what to call it so I just used "fighters". If the term "carrier pet" is used in the release notes I would go vote / suggest going for that and redirect all related pages / links there (e.g fighter, pet etc).--Novalight 12:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I suggest moving this page to Hangar Pet as they are usually called like that in various forums and post-2012 patch notes. At one point they may have been exclusive to Carrier type of ships but since then other ship types have hangar bays. --Damixon (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I support this idea. --PiralDorrm (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hangar pet modifiers section[edit source]

Is it possible to add icons to the Hangar Pet modifiers section? SFC3 (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, changes can be made through {{Hangar modifiers}} template which affect all pages that use it (some hangar pets also have it). --Damixon (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Procurement section[edit source]

I was going to edit the Procurement section to make Carriers (and the other usages of this type of ship) into a singular form but looks like someone set it up to be plural. It does read right to me the way it is currently. Opinions? --Drmike 14:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Clean up and additions[edit source]

Sorry for all the edit spam, but I decided to bring this a bit more up to spec.

-Added the missing Jem'Hadar carriers from the Dominion Box and their pets.

-Added ability ranks to the relevant pets to reflect their stats more accurately and show the comparison with their advanced versions better.

-Cleaned up a few typos, missing icons and other misc info, and corrected the EC price of Rare pets, since it was well wrong (Confirmed in game)

I did not add the starting pets for the ships still missing them, since I don't have those ships to check, and the ships' own pages did not have the info. 13:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I've also added the Vesta triumvirate to the standard issue section. It seemed unneccessary to me to add all three, since they're pretty much the same ship. I did choose not to list them as an escort carrier, since the game lists them seperately on item cards for weapons and hangar pets. Feel free to change it if you would rather have all three variants for completeness, but I think it looks tidier and more concise this way. 14:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Special Pets Section[edit source]

I thought this needed cleaning up, especially with the knowledge that the Tholian Widows will be moved to the new Tholian Reputation and the fact that new Mesh Weaver pets were coming out.

I therefore renamed the section to Cross-Faction pets to better describe its purpose (though Reputation pets might be broken out into another major section later), and moved the Romulan Reputation pets to their own chart for reference.

I did the same for the Recluse pets, the Jem'Hadar pets, and I added the Mesh Weaver stats from Tribble as far as I remembered them.

Two issues: One, the Mesh Weaver has two Dual Beam Banks and I was conflicted as to how to represent this. I settled on two icons for the Dual Beam Banks, but someone else might have another idea. Second, I was not sure what to do about the fact that the JHEC and JHDC both have the Jem'Hadar Fighters as standard and only the JHDC can mount the Attack Ship pets. If anyone has a better suggestion for this, again, all ears. 03:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hanger pet pages[edit source]

Data can be spread around several pages so I wanted to see how would hangar pet articles look if we merge regular, advanced and elite pet together. Similar to console set pages, it allows easier comparison and preview. If it doesn't look good, we can easily have separate pages like we currently use. See: Hangar - Class F Shuttles. --Damixon (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I like it...Lets do it Jacobsodinforever2000 (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll wait for a few more replies because I may be rushing with radical changes on the wiki. :D --Damixon (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Only flaw I see is the article name and first heading have the same name. Any idea here? Or to keep it that way. --Damixon (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
What would you want it to be? One suggestion I would make is to create a template for the modifiers so there is only one place to add/delete future changes for hangar_pet_modifiers instead of on every single hangar pet page. That and have the Advanced/elite pages point to their appropriate spot on this page etc etc. Asanad (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I already made {{Hangar modifiers}} template so that is covered. Just wanted to see if there is better way to set page that has all 3 types of hangar pets. Hangar - Class F Shuttles is example how it could look. --Damixon (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Until TippingOver feature for infobox is switched off, Hangar - Class F Shuttles can't be the main page for all 3 variants. Instead we could use Hangar Pet/Class F Shuttles as main article. Any opinion on this? --Damixon (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

2019 edition[edit source]

Check the {{test}} page for my attempt to simplify the creation of hangar pet pages (as more and more of them are missing). Idea is to have Rare variant as main page for each pet, which would use tabber to also show the advanced and elite variant. I removed the section with "equipment and abilities" because it is already present in the infobox and page is too short (in my opinion) to repeat the same info two times. I'll probably have to adjust the template for some specific cases, but for now any additional info should go under notes. I'd appreciate if you could help with better wording or any suggestion that could improve it, and let me know if I missed something. --Damixon (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Damixon. I've tried making some modifications to your template. I've added the hangar pet icon, as well as info on whether it is restricted to certain ships. The only downside is that the table is no longer sortable. What do you think?
Role Fighter Squad Weapon Abilities
Romulan Drone Ship (only usable on Scimitar-class Dreadnought Warbirds and Kelvin Timeline T'laru Intel Carrier Warbird)
Hangar - Romulan Drone Ship icon.png Frigate Normal 1/2 Plasma Beam Array icon.png Plasma Beam Array icon.png Plasma Beam Array icon.png Plasma Torpedo Launcher icon.png Beams: Overload I, Beams: Fire at Will I, Emergency Power to Shields I, Multi-Spectral Emitters , Tri-Phasic Emitters
Advanced 1/2 Plasma Beam Array icon.png Plasma Beam Array icon.png Plasma Beam Array icon.png Plasma Torpedo Launcher icon.png Beams: Overload II, Beams: Fire at Will II, Emergency Power to Shields II, Multi-Spectral Emitters , Tri-Phasic Emitters
Elite 1/2 Plasma Beam Array icon.png Plasma Beam Array icon.png Plasma Beam Array icon.png Plasma Torpedo Launcher icon.png Beams: Overload III, Beams: Fire at Will III, Emergency Power to Shields III, Multi-Spectral Emitters , Tri-Phasic Emitters
You can check the whole Romulan table on User:PiralDorrm/Test. --PiralDorrm (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Your version looks better, and gives more info - you can replace current Hangartable template with it. Sorting isn't needed really so it isn't an issue. If you know simpler way to add weapons and abilities (instead of those allA1, r#1), go ahead - I'm still not sure if it was the best approach, but at least it reduces the amount of text. --Damixon (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I'll get on it. I've tried simplifying it, but wasn't successful. I'll try playing with it a little more, but I think it's as simple as it can get. You really did a good job on the original template. --PiralDorrm (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)