STO Rise of Discovery.jpg

Talk:Playable starship

From Star Trek Online Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

turrets[edit source]

Is the restriction of not being able to mount turrets in the forward weapon slots true as stated here? --Swordmage 03:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Merging articles on playable starships[edit source]

We have too many articles about playable starships:

I want to delete "Starship (types)" and combine/merge all the other ones in this article (i.e. "Playable starship"). Any objections or remarks? Especially with the release of Season 6, maintaining and updating all these pages is just not feasible. --Akira-sensei 18:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea and imagine a comprehensive article that could be featured as one of the top material of STOWiki. However, would it also be a good idea to transform "Starship (classes)" into "Non-playable starships", or is that superfluous? Either way, I would like to help you. --Markonian 20:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I too think this makes a lot of sense! Will pitch in if possible. --Walshicus 21:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll give it a start. We just tackle this step by step. I'll combine all of those articles and get rid of the bulky tier charts by SpiderMitch. Don't get me wrong, they are beautiful, BUT they take a lot of space for information, which (as part of this wiki) can better be displayed in a sleak, functional table. --Akira-sensei 22:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please give me a hand redesigning the ship lists at Starship tier chart!!! I will later incorporate them on Federation playable starship and Klingon playable starship. I already replaced Starship (types) with a redirect to Playable starship and moved Starship (classes) to Non-playable starship. --Akira-sensei 01:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see someone tackling this at last! Messing around with starships has always been my favourite part of the game. I had planned to do this myself but never found the time, and recently I've gotten bored with STO to be honest! :(

The most important thing, in my opinion, is for you guys to re-write as much of this as possible so that it all shares the same writing style and terminology, and then to link them all together with a sidebar nav template thingy (e.g. w:Science fiction), so that it all flows together as a single piece.

The stuff that I was going to address with the individual articles were...

  • As you've suggested, unifying the various articles about ships, and tidying it all up
  • Clear separation between playable and non-playable ships, especially for Klingon and Federation vessels. It ought to be clear to readers that, for instance, the playable Exploration Cruiser is completely different to the NPC Galaxy Class Cruiser.
  • Clarity on which NPC ships you'll see in combat and which are like non-combat 'set pieces'. Also classification of combat NPC into types, i.e. Fighter, Frigate, Cruiser, Battleship (or something along those lines)
  • Basic instructional articles, all linked together, about ships and space combat..
    • Types of ship and the difference between
    • The different types of space (system vs sector space) and how to move around and get to places
    • Basic space combat information (think this already exists)
    • Power levels! The current articles on power levels are really out of date and not very useful at all.
    • Weapon and energy types (again exists, but should probably be re-written)
  • A separate set of guides or tutorials on which is the 'best' ship, or how to take down some of the tougher opponents
  • Note that its VERY IMPORTANT to distinguish articles which should have a neutral point-of-view, and 'guides' that can include the author's opinion.

I had also tried to classify playable ships into broad categories to simplify these articles, i.e. Cruiser, Escort, Science Vessel and Raider, Raptor, Heavy Warship, however Cryptic have been screwing with that by adding loads of new ship types. I'm sure you guys can come up with something.

Edit: Also, MORE SCREENSHOTS! The articles are really dull and wordy. A picture tells x1000 words. Some cool action shots of the various ships could really spice things up. Best way to get smexy action shots is to make a simple foundry mission (tip: use a console in spacedock/qonos as the first mission gate), then play the mission and record it with demorecord. Then when yo play it back write down the exact timestamp of when something cool happens, and then play it back again at super-slow speed and pause at that moment. Thats how I got stuff like this File:USS_Lhasa_fights_Remans.jpg.

Good luck! :D --Zutty 12:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Me and User:Karika already solved some of the issues wrt the ship lists (e.g., the new currencies, smaller font etc.). I will also try to tackle most of the organizational end editorial tasks you've outlined, but I still need some technical assistance on the following issues:
  • Template:Playableshipsbytype and Template:Playableshipsbyquery both do NOT accept any faction-parameter, i.e. it is not possible to display a list of ALL klingon or ALL starfleet vessels (at least that option is apparently not working). Also, is there a parameter option to EXCLUDE certain types, i.e. small craft?
  • The sort by rank function in the lists seems to be screwed up somehow.
  • I've added device slots and impulse speed as values to both templates, but neither displays the values in the respective columns (e.g., see the list on Small craft).
  • Someone skilled (i.e. you?^^) needs to add the option of specifying MULTIPLE classifications for 1. ship type (e.g., Catian Atrox is BOTH a science vessel AND a carrier) and 2. cost & costunit (the new fleet ships cost fleet credits Fleet Credits AND fleet ship modules Fleet Ship Module icon.png - both currencies should be listed on the ship articles and in the list-templates, either in a row or below each other).
Thanks!!! --Akira-sensei 13:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Not familiar with wiki editing but:[edit source]

It seems to me that the should NOT be listed in the fleet section for ships. It only has 9 console slots and is missing the Fleet prefix. If the justification is that it is only purchasable from a fleet starbase, then the category should be renamed to Fleet Starbase Shipyard or something similar. 22:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Ship class standardization[edit source]

Original discussion: Talk:Carrier#Testing sorting for new charts

{{Playableshipsbytype}}: So unsurprisingly the warbirds refuse to play nice. The Scimitars show up twice, once for dread in the top chart and again for warbird in the bottom. The 'multi-mission science' Explorer Warbirds don't show up in the second as they're only typed as warbird. The Command Battlecruiser Warbirds are tagged as warbird and carrier but not battlecruiser.

Tagging the Command Battlecruiser Warbirds as battlecruiser seems appropriate. It's their name, and mastery set.

Is it reasonable to either make a category for Science Warbird (for the three Explorers and the Laeosa and Ha'nom), or add the Science Vessel tag to these the way the Dyson Sci-Birds have?

Either way, they'd still show up twice, in the bottom category since "warbird" is such a catch-all, but that seems better than leaving them off the cruiser and science charts completely.

Arkhain (talk) 10:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I think Explorers should get Science Vessel as second tag: "Warbird/Science Vessel". And I'm not sure if Command Battlecruisers should have a Carrier tag (too much weapons: 4+4, and battlecruiser mastary) . --Damixon (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, Jem'Hadar Dreadnought Carrier (T6) is tagged as "Dreadnought Carrier", while other Dreadnought Carriers have "Carrier" as ship type. What do we do here? Science Dreadnought could be tagged like that, or separated into sci vessel and dreadnought. I guess if we have Dreadnought Cruiser, we should also have Science Dreadnought and Dreadnought Carrier tag. --Damixon (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The Explorers are sci vessels so..Id support that tag.

As for the Jem'Hadar Carrier.....Sure Tag as a Dreadnought and a Carrier but I dont think the ship lookup (at the Bottom of ship pages) need to be changed.Jacobsodinforever2000 (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the tagging system could use a bit - or a lot - of standardization. Right now, the "Dreadnought" tag is only used for the six Rom dreadnought warbirds (Scimitar and co) and on two of the three 26c Heavy Dreads. Every other Dread-type is categorized as "Dreadnought Cruiser" or "Dreadnought Carrier" or "Science Dreadnought". The "Warbird" tag is still a mess, too. The shared singularity core is the only real identifier, and it clumps up the tiniest T'varos in with the biggest D'deridexes. There should be a better way to differentiate the tac birds from the eng birds from the sci birds.
Some tags are semi-abandoned, too. "Support Vessel" is only used for five ships, the leveling Gorn ships. All of the higher-tier ones are simply "Science Vessel". Those could be standardized, maybe retiring the category of Support Vessel in favor of Science Vessel (The Phalanx Science Vessel is called a Science Vessel anyway, and the Varanus Support Vessel uses the Science Vessel mastery) or making every Klingon sensor-analysis ship a Support Vessel? What separates the two, anyway?
I'd like to put forth for consideration the idea of basing the ship type on the mastery package. The mastery type describes the ship at the core, and the categories for Playable ships are almost entirely based on them too, with just a little combining for tiny categories like the different carriers. Add on necessary qualifiers on top of the base from the mastery package (something to separate cloaking Raptors from Escorts and battle-cloaking BoPs from Raiders, for example, and maybe the Dreadnought tag for Sci-Dreads) and there'd be a good deal more order. Arkhain (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Moved this converasation here as we are no longer talking about Carriers. I like the idea of tagging Warbirds with additional class based on their mastery package. Support vessels should get Science Vessel tag and we retire the support vessel category, what do others think? Related to Science Dreadnoughts - I'm not sure how to tag them, but if we decide to add another ship type based on their mastery package, I'm ok with it. Having a Dreadnought instead of Science Dreadnought is imprecise and unspecific imo. --Damixon (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the move. Science Dreads are the category that falls through the cracks here since they have Sci-Vessel mastery, but also have separating features like 4/3 weapons slots. So, new tag "Sci Dread", or two tags "Sci V/Dread", or just "Science Vessel" alone if the similarities outweigh the differences.
I don't love the idea of two tags with "Sci V/Dread", since "Dread" is more an abandoned tag category. The rest of the Dreads are separated into dread cruiser and dread carrier, and science dreads don't really have a whole lot in common with them.
Just "Science Vessel" would work, since they're still just the same as slow Science Vessels playstyle-wise. The addition of an extra fore slot might be enough to warrant its own category too.
Also, the "Special" tag, what's it used for? As far as I can tell, it's placed on some of the early cross-faction lockbox ships, and a few other seemingly random ships, and then the special-utility-bridge ships. I'd say the special bridge ships might deserve the tag, but doubt the rest are "Special" enough to warrant it. Arkhain (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Experimental weapon[edit source]

Now that I'm adding an experimental weapon to the {{Shiptypeinfo}} template, do we need a separate section for exp.weapon under "Abilities" for ships that don't have a unique experimental weapon? --Damixon (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

If a ship doesn't have a unique exp. weapon, it just gets the Hyperexcited Ion Stream Projector. we could put that there instead? SFC3 (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Exp.weapon is mentioned on the Shiptypeinfo sidebar, and under Standard Configuration. I was thinking if the ship has the regular one (Hyperexcited Ion Stream Projector), it doesn't have to be mentioned under Abilities section too. Similarly, secondary deflector isn't mentioned under "Abilities" section (outside of infobox) - but it is listed under standard configuration and I'm putting it on shipytpeinfo sidebar as of today. I was thinking we could highlight only unique exp.weapons under Abilities section but need help in deciding it. --Damixon (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

By species[edit source]

Discussion copied from Scientifictheory userpage, for continuity;

  • PiralDorrm: Hey, great job on editing the Wiki - it's nice to see new contributors eager to help. However, I noticed you have been adding playable starships to articles about various NPC species. That info doesn't really belong there, as these pages should only focus on non-playable side of the things (except the articles about the four playable factions of course), such as NPC lore, faction history, characters, their space and ground forces, etc.
  • While reverting the pages, I accidentally removed some of your other updated. Not to worry, all of your info boxes have been restored.
    • Arkhain: Can we get this up for discussion? I think the playable ships are relevant and useful and belong on the page.
      • Scientifictheory: It's okay, but I'd prefer when reverting that much work that it is discussed first (not that I want to start a huge debate on the topic, I'm not married to any changes I do, but just as a matter of courtesy). If it is out of the question to put it there, I think we do need some listing of starships by species. If I want to see all the Andorian starships I could buy, it should be easy to do so. Currently, it is hard to even find some of them (i.e. like Gorn ships which I never got around to, they don't even have it in their name so you can't even Ctrl+F on the page for them, and even that isn't the way the average user will want to search for them).
        • PiralDorrm: Well, if you want, we can start a discussion. It's not a problem. However, might I suggest an alternative? What do you say if we place this information on Playable starships page? I think it would be much more fitting.
Putting discussion here for now.
Reason I don't think it would work here though is you're duplicating a list already on here in a different way. I looked at whether adding a "theme" column of some sort to the existing lists would work but to be worthwhile every ship would have to be in the same table (i.e. ships are currently split across raider/carrier and crossfaction/fed-only and so on).
Reason I picked the species pages is from my point of view those pages are not strictly about NPC mobs, but about that species as a whole. On the page about Andorians, I'd expect to find details of everything relating to Andorians. After all, you can play the Andorians so how is there a distinction between playable toon and playable ship? You can have a Kobali bridge officer and you can have a Kobali ship - both of these should be covered on the Kobali page because it is a logical place to look for it.
In this vein, perhaps something like an advanced version of the Race page might be a place to look - so instead of just tick boxes it lists the exact bridge officers available, and lists the ships in the same way I was doing before at the end. Still sketching ideas on this and I'm going on holiday for a week in a few hours so I won't be in a position to implement anything until December anyway (which is also why this is a thought dump when I said I wanted to keep it brief). When I get back I'll check on people's thoughts and try to action something more workable.Scientifictheory (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
We could also add those Gorn playable ship into category named "Gorn playable ships" (or something like that), and then on the faction page add a line: "For Gorn playable starship, see Category:Gorn playable ships/starship. --Damixon (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I would agree with that. It would not clot the article with info that isn't really suitable for that page but would point to playable species-specific ships, which is what Scientifictheory wants. I also believe that full table with info how to acquire the ship, how much does it cost etc, etc, isn't really necessary as it's a little repetetive - that info is already listed on starship's page (as well as in most cases on its console page) --PiralDorrm (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I think the info is suitable for the page. As ST said above, when I read a race's page, I'd expect to find info about more than just the NPC side - I'd expect info about whether they're playable, whether they're boff-playable, doff-playable, and definitely ship-playable too.
If the full table is cluttersome, a simple list the way the NPC ships are listed or on Cloak could be a possibility, or maybe a {{Playableshipsbytype}} by name. But I would, personally, expect to see exactly what was up before: a picture, name, type, tier, and price, because is relevant and useful information to people interested in a race's playable ships. And I think people interested in a specific race's playable ships should be able to find that info, on that specific race's page.
It would be good to have this info also sorted on a separate page ((Ship Set is woefully underused)) but I think the race page should be a collated point for all relevant and useful information about the race, not just from the NPC aspect. Arkhain (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I still strongly disagree with that idea. Not only do photos of playable ships clash with the page gallery which is just underneath them (and which contains a photo for each ship class), but as I've also said, most of that information is already on other pages - we really don't need multiple pages to say that one ship costs 3,000 zen or that you can get it from Year of Hell Lock Box. (this is one of the things we have actually trying to do lately, so you are kinda undermining us - for example, we have been working on changing ship articles so they don't include information about consoles because that info is already contained on console pages.) However, I agree with Damixon and have nothing against his idea of putting a link to such a list from the species page is a good idea.
I didn't invent the structure for this page, but I've worked on faction pages since I joined the wiki (which has been shortly after DR if I remember correctly), and since then helped create and expand pages for most of the Delta Quadrant species and most of the species that came afterwards. That is the reason why I stand firmly behind this decision and why I reverted Scientifictheory's work. The way the page is structured works fine and gives all the necessary info for those visitors who want to learn more about the enemy they are fighting.
If I may suggest, when you have an idea such as this playable ship tables which will affect a large number of pages, first apply it to only one page and then give it a few days to see how your fellow editors will react. Then, if no one is against it, feel free to continue. --PiralDorrm (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
(As a quick aside, if any of my edits are interfering with any other projects, please let me know! I'm just trying to help out, so if I'm causing conflict with consoles I'd be happy to get on the right track.)
As to the topic at hand, you're right about pictures and boxes. I was originally only looking at pages where it wasn't as bad, but on some pages like Na'kuhl there's already too many. And if more and more ships end up becoming playable in the future, it'll get even worse. Even without pictures, the boxy template is a little weighty. A text list is probably as far as it should go - but
A thought for an unobtrusive method could be to mark playable ships in the NPC list. Using Na'kuhl again, have
* Critter Rank 1 icon.png Tadaari Frigate (Playable)
* Critter Rank 2 icon.png Daemosh Destroyer (Playable)
etc (just add a second (T6) for breen and such who have both). It might require adding playable ships when there are no NPC options, like for Xindi who aren't otherwise present. But it would be very unobtrusive and wouldn't cause a lot of problems you mentioned, like data redundancy and clash and such.
I've put it up for review on the Na'kuhl section.
A normal list is up for review at Tholian Assembly as well, for a comparison. Please take a look!
(As a final note, trying to limit derailing, I'm also interested in the topic of data redundancy and consolidation, can I get a loop in on the issues at hand there?) Arkhain (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
This is a good idea. Good job! My only suggestion: maybe switch the P to lower case (it'll look more elegant) --PiralDorrm (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
What about other usable na'kuhl stuff? How about adding a new section, similar to the Na'kuhl#Duty officers, which would be called Na'kuhl#Usable ships and items with line bellow: See List of Na'kuhl themed ships and items usable by the player. This would link to category which has following pages inside: Na'kuhl Tadaari Raider, Na'kuhl Daemosh Science Vessel, Na'kuhl Acheros Battlecruiser, Na'kuhl Temporal Operative Set, Na'kuhl Assassin Plasma Blade, Outfit Box - Na'kuhl Operative Uniform, Na'kuhl Lock Box, etc. Alternatively, we could list these items directly to that section, instead of category. So if someone wants to do a full na'kuhl rp, this would be useful link to see. Just an idea. --Damixon (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I absolutely love the idea of having a page for comprehensive Na'kuhl Playable Stuff. How do we best implement that while keeping it tidy? Separate page, list on page, infobox or nav template? A link to a category page is pretty solid, maybe a little basic. Maybe a great place to start, with a page that could be spruced up later. A list on the page might be a little unwieldy, especially if the list grows longer. I think something like Template:Factionnav could be utilized for this really well. As long as it's hidden by default on the species page, it's unobtrusive while still being useful. 01:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Hej all, okay let me hit a few select points;
"photos of playable ships clash with the page gallery" - Galleries are used in Wiki's when the content is under-developed. Really, you shouldn't just have an all-encompassing gallery at the bottom, images should be supporting the detailed written content throughout the article.
"we really don't need multiple pages to say that one ship costs" I'd agree broadly with that idea as it increases maintenance costs, which I'd say is the number one argument against doing this but I figured the benefits outweighed it. Ideally, if we could transclude all ship data from a central source it would be much easier to do these projects, but my knowledge does not extend to designing a system that complex.
"we have been working on changing ship articles so they don't include information about consoles because that info is already contained on console pages" What exactly does this strategy cover, is this just playable or NPC? I'm just noting this as google lists PC stuff much higher so most console players will be coming into the wiki to PC articles, expecting console info. We need to be careful with signposting.
"The way the page is structured works fine and gives all the necessary info for those visitors who want to learn more about the enemy they are fighting." - but the point Arkhain and I are making is that it should not be limited to fighting enemies. Do you spend more time fighting Breen or playing their ships? The articles already include duty officers for example, that's not enemy info. Splitting this section of playable info off seems arbitrary.
Pushing forward the idea mentioned above, if all non-NPC elements (duty officers, bridge officers, devices, ships etc) were put as subheaders under a single header, then all enemy-faction stuff as subheaders under another single header, you'd have a clear line between what to expect from an enemy and what is playable with no chance of confusion, but you also don't need to hunt down lots of different articles to get what you need.Scientifictheory (talk) 11:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
"we have been working on changing ship articles so they don't include information about consoles because that info is already contained on console pages" - He actually meant Universal Console section on Playable ship articles, not the platform STO can be played on. It was about not having duplicate info on two pages so we removed description of universal console on ship article as it is already present on the Set or individual U-Console page.
Arkhain can you sign pages by clicking that button next to the I (Italic), on the editing navbar? It reads Signature and timestamp when you hover mouse over it (it will add --~~~~ when clicked on, which is turned into signature after saving). Related to your last reply, I'll try to realize my idea with categories so we can see how that looks. I think it would be useful if we could use category to jump from playable ship to other items with same faction theme, but another factionnav-type template wouldn't look good on ship pages in my opinion. --Damixon (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)