Community Projects > The FreeSpace Wiki Project

Ship and weapon entries for wiki

(1/10) > >>

Wanderer:
Lets start with ships:

When you check the file like GTD Orion, you get a lot of irrelevant data from it. It has ALL the turrets listed though the contents of some turrets has been left out with hitpoint and rotation data (these two are of no practical use to players). Also IMHO subsystem hitpoint data is of no use for players.

My proposal for ship data entries.

1. List the texts in FS techroom reports, as it defines the ships quite nicely.
    - Freespace 1
    - Freespace 2
    - Other general and descriptive texts (like current 'veteran comments')
2. Short list of general attributes
    - Type or definition: Destroyer
    - Maximum velocity
       - Afterburner velocity
    - Either rotation times or general descriptive term for manouverability
    - Shields
    - Hitpoints
    - Weapons
       - Not per turrets but like in the animation about Colossus. All again divided to FS1 and FS2 sections
            # Antifighter Turrets (ie. Terran Turret or similar)
            # Antifighter Beams
            # Flak Guns
            # Missile batteries
            # Heavy Turrets (ie. Terran Huge Turret or similar)
            # Beam Cannons ('normals only', not BF-class or bigger)
            # Special Stuff (BFBeams and other such stuff, Lucifer beams, Sathanas subspace thingye)
       - For fighters/bombers
            - Default weapons
            - Available options
            - Short note if the ship has turrets and also the armament of the turrets
 I think that also stuff like power output could be put here but that is not so important to players. IMHO that is already in 'modders section'
3. Links to renown vessels of this class and to other places of knowledge (like in Orions case to Bastion and Galatea and others)

For weapons i thought that again good descriptions like The Eishtmo (??, log in to post something so we can give credit of it to you!) has written followed by somesort of entries for damage (perhaps even 'opened damage' like damage x armor factor etc.), range, rate of fire, followed by notes if the weapon is particularly energy hungry, huge, anti-subsystem etc but so that the rest of attributes are more on the descriptive side than on plain numbers or copy/pasted from table entry.
Again modder reads stuff from his own weapons.tbl, not from wiki. Random player might use wiki to check the general performance of the weapon...

Black Wolf:
That looks good - we also need to add the sidebar used on the GTD Orion entry, assuming that links to all the correct places (I haven't played with it enough to be certain). It might also be worthwhile adding the FS Reference Bible data to the FS1 ships in addition to the techroom stuff - it's similar, but not the same.

As for ships of the class, I'm torn between adding only noteworthy ships and adding all canon ships by name, perhaps also with when they were seen and if they were destroyed. Any ship with more than simple encountered/destroyed data (like, say the Einstein or the Galatea) could have their own pages, and be linked to. It strikes me that that'd be useful for mission designers wanting canonically named, non destroyed ships without having to wade through the big list. On the other hand, this is supposed to be a page for players rather than modders... difficult.

Wanderer:
Good about the database is that you can quickly move to the particular entry via Table of contents, so when searching for Orion destroyers mission designer can just click on the first GTD or NTD entry in their respective Table of contents... Quite easy and fast.

Eishtmo:
I think we could, probably should, list all ships of that name, but we don't have to write out a page for all of them (that would take a long time).  Maybe we create a list page for all named ships, divide it by class, give linked entries for the important ones, but leave the rest with maybe just a simple entry.  Say:

Fenris Class Cruiser

GTC Orff - Appears FS1, Mission 1-1.

It was a Fenris, wasn't it?  Doesn't matter, just list them out.  Then we list the names on the class page, but just link it right back to the overall list.

As for the manuverablity entry, which of the entries has the greatest effect on that?  We could then highlight them and leave the rest off.

StratComm:
I think a system similar in classification to the tech descriptions would be best (high, average, low, whatever) since trying to quantify manuverability by a single number is going to cause problems no matter how you do it.  Rot. damp is meaningless to a player, and just because his ship is more responsive because of it's value doesn't need to know that value.  And that's pretty consistant about all of the manuverability stats, they're part of a greater whole, not something that can be viewed in isolation.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page