Talk:Mission: Facility 4028
Lethal vs non-lethal comparison[edit source]
I've returned my "There appears to be no difference in outcomes between the lethal and non-lethal methods of securing the facility." line that someone removed. I've played both versions and also verified that there's no difference between the two with other players in game. If someone can provide such a difference between the two versions, I'd love to here about it because to be honest, I'm surprised by this. I would have thought the lethal version, if you were Starfleet, would have dinged you on points and it didn't as far as I could tell. --Drmike 21:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've played the mission several times and noticed a minor difference. Non-lethal does not give you item drops from prisoners shot AFAIK, and non-lethal also requires you to tag prisoners for transport after you subdue them. Beyond that.... doesn't matter. It's a pretty straightforward mission.--Marhawkman 16:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Both paths were tested after the addition of the accolades and there was no difference in the outcome. --Aoav160 05:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Do we really need that note about Gary Seven's cat? It's not at all relevant to the article. - Mitchz95 23:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- I cleaned up the notes a bit since they were rather sloppy. I left in the cat reference simply because I'm not sure how we stand on trivia around here. I know I could have added dozens on interesting and highly boring comments along the way but left them out. --Drmike 00:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see how the cat reference can be anything more than coincidence, which in general is not noteworthy enough to keep as trivia. Dr ishmael 17:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I've noted several things in the FEs that are similarly vague references to old stuff. Might they be coincidences? yeah, but the number seems a bit suspicious. http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Isis One thing I feel compelled to point out is that it's not clear from the episode whether Isis was actually a cat or a humanoid who disguised herself as a cat.--Marhawkman 21:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm going to write an ISIS page within this week or early next. The cat-trivia will fit there much better I'd say. Trivia that includes meaningful references are welcome on the Wiki, AFAIK. --Markonian 21:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry for sounding harsh like that, I didn't mean to. At GuildWiki we have a mostly anti-trivia culture due to everyone and their hamster posting trivia for the most ephemeral connections imaginable. (It didn't help that the devs often made the most ephemeral connections possible on purpose.) Luckily that's died off in the past couple years, but we still tend to only allow trivia that is bleedingly obvious or is confirmed by the devs themselves.
- Anyway, yes, it would fit better on an ISIS article. Dr ishmael 21:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ya' know... when the devs start writing in obscure references maybe it's better to just go with it rather than trying to pretend it didn't happen. :p--Marhawkman 21:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Confusion in the sentence being removed[edit source]
There seems to be some confusion in the sentence that keeps getting removed. There is no difference in the outcome of the mission if you chose lethal or not. The mission still gets solved, you still pretty much get the same response from the mission giver. Same rewards I believe.
If there is a difference between outcomes, I would love to know it because I didn't notice one.
If the sentence discussed the playing method or the course of action of the mission, I would be the first one to change it. It does not.
Please stop removing that sentence. It is correct. There is no difference in the outcome of the mission.
--Drmike 02:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- I rewrote it to more clear that the effect under discussion is indeed the outcome of the mission. Hopefully that will be acceptable. Dr ishmael 03:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Future STF[edit source]
- sigh* All this discussion for one little article....
I'm having a problem with "Children Of Kahn" being called a future STF. My understanding is that this STF has been for quite some time, been taking off the table at least once, and I gather from reading this we're expecting it again.
I rather not put negative language in there like "We're still waiting" especially since I;m not a STF player but maybe planned or something else would work better there? --Drmike 11:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- During the Beta it was planed as a STF. Then it became a future Feature Series. And currently we just don't know what it will become when (if at all) it shows up in the game at last. --Dukedom 12:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)