Hard Light Productions Forums
Community Projects => The FreeSpace Wiki Project => Topic started by: TopAce on June 16, 2009, 07:48:15 am
-
I made some updates/expansion (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Veteran_comments_policy) to our Veteran Comments policy page. I'd like to hear your opinions about what other things could/should be added to make it clearer and more useful to new contributors.
-
I like it. I see many entries regarding ships that are
Highly subjective and debatable statements like extremely weak or totally useless.
and
Vulgarities like a piece of crap.
-
/stumble
I'm not so sure about "Blog-like descriptions that point out strengths/weaknesses under rare circumstances."
but if the short version (since blog-like is too long I assume) of the above is the same as some of the later bulleted points under "All articles/Capship articles" then I have nothing to argue about.
Just random $0.02... probably just the way I read the text. :nervous:
-
Discussing about a ship's default loadout that doesn't make an in-mission appearance (The Lucifer in FreeSpace 2)
This is not wise, I think. Veteran comments are allowed to include other information useful to FREDders.
Useless and trivial information.
Is too easily defined broadly to contravene the last rule of of acceptable information, as well.
At this point I think expansion of the rules is not useful, unless such expansion is specifically a forbidding of redundant commentary. Most of these things need only be said once.
-
There shouldn't be any redundant comments either. I was editing the VCs on the GTF Erinyes' article and counted about three instances of people talking about using the Prometheus S or Subach HL-7.
-
I agree with NGTM-1R's vision of the VCs (they should include info FREDders may need to know). The problem here is that many FRED tips could be misenterpreted as useless assumptions.
I also wholeheartedly agree on the objection to the use of vulgarities. I totally dislike barbarian words.
Anyway, you all need to take into account that table entries are not as canon as tech descriptions and certain cutscenes, not to mention weapon alterations made with FRED. The following statements, IMO, should not be removed from the Wiki:
- The GVC Mentu's tech description clearly says that the cruiser has beam cannons at its disposal, but none can be seen in the table entry. The tech description even says that the Mentu was designed for the specific purpose of using beam cannons. This apparent contradiction may be given by the fact that a Mentu cruiser armed with beams, the Yaaru, may have caused balance issues in the mission "Rebels & Renegades". It may be a good idea to change the armament of 2 turrets out of the 4 that (turrets 06 through 09) seem capable of firing beams with SVas Vasudan beams;
- The Iceni has 3 BGreen beams at its disposal, which is the way too much for a ship of that size. It's worth noting that one of the turrets equipped with those beams, turret 08 (port flank), seems too small to fire a beam of that magnitude. turret 16 (starboard flank), which is located in the opposite side, is equipped with Piranha warheads. This oddity may be explained by analizing the mission Rebels & Renegades, during which the Iceni uses its extra power to handle a Mentu-class cruiser, the Yaaru, and a Sobek-class corvette, the Asar. In the mission "Endgame", the Iceni is equipped with SGreen beams, not BGreens, so the damage inflicted to the Colossus is very limited.
- The Shivans are known to have weak primary weapons and the same secondary weapons as the Terrans or Vasudans. Weak primary weapons affect the performance of virtually every single spacecraft in the Shivan arsenal, so it has been assumed that the Shivans use weak primaries for balance issues. Their usage of Terran/Vasudan secondary weapons is far less acceptable;
- The GTD Orion-class destroyer is known to have considerable firepower if compared to the destroyer class that, at the time of FreeSpace 2, is supposed to replace it. According to the table entry, in fact, the Orion has 3 BGreen beams while the Hecate has only one of them. It's woth noting, however, that one of the Orion's beams is mounted on a three-barreled turret which theoretically shouldn't be capable of firing a beam - especially a beam of that magnitude. Additionally, by looking at the Hecate, it can be easily noticed that its beam weapon turrets are very, very big - far bigger, in fact, than those of the Orion. Although it's not plausible to assume that the Hecate should be armed with 5 or so BGreen beams, it may be appropriate to assume that at the beam turret mounted on the rear should have been armed with a BGreen. Again, table oddities can be justified by balance issues - had the Aquitaine had more powerful beams, its encounters with the Moloch-class corvettes Tiamat and Abaddon would have been more favorable to the GTVA without any particular effort by the player and his wings.
Those comments may sound like useless assumptions, but I have the right to voice my opinion and post this. I based that (incomplete, because it serves as example) list on my gaming/FREDding experience.
More in general, table entries should not be considered the most accurate source of canon info, or things wouldn't make sense (GVC Mentu). The game is not the universe, and taking this into account may help. I have personally never played a game in which the differences between the game itself and the universe it was intended to represent/show are nonexistent. In the SW and BSG universes, for example, 1-2 rounds of a primary weapon are enough to take an enemy fighter down. The same principle is not applied to the games based on those sci-fi universes for obvious balance reasons.
FreeSpace paid the price of those differences with modified table entries (balance is extremely important) while other games paid the prince in their own different ways.
-
More in general, table entries should not be considered the most accurate source of canon info, or things wouldn't make sense (GVC Mentu). The game is not the universe, and taking this into account may help. I have personally never played a game in which the differences between the game itself and the universe it was intended to represent/show are nonexistent. In the SW and BSG universes, for example, 1-2 rounds of a primary weapon are enough to take an enemy fighter down. The same principle is not applied to the games based on those sci-fi universes for obvious balance reasons.
You're defeating your own argument right here. Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica were well-established universes before anyone thought about making games based on them, and because said universes weren't explicitly designed for the purposes of balanced gameplay, the games based on them had to make necessary tweaks in order to play well. In contrast, the FreeSpace universe was designed for the sole purpose of the games that comprise it, and the combat mechanics inherent to that universe were designed for the primary purpose of playing well. In short, despite what you say, the game is the universe. We all know that, from a real-world standpoint, the reason that certain ships have different armaments from mission to mission or have weapons set to turrets that don't make much sense visually is for game-balancing purposes, but within the confines of the game, what we see is what we have to work with. Discrepancies between table loadouts and in-mission armaments might be interesting footnotes in individual mission articles, but the whole "universe vs. game" nonsense belongs squarely away from the VCs.
-
The game is not the universe, and the principle applies to all universes with games based on them. Even if you don't consider sci-fi shows, you have certain differences between the universe those games are based on and the games themselves. Those differences are notable when watching cutscenes and/or reading references to the universe (descriptions and stuff like that) - you'd never, ever notice them if you base your analysis on the game, only.
In many games, for example, there are cutscenes in which spacecraft are fragile and have no shields (Star Trek: Invasion, Starfighter 3000, Colony Wars 1, 2, 3, StarLancer, several Star Wars games, etc. etc.) only to see shields during the game. I've also seen altered speeds and weapons, but that's another matter.
The GVC Mentu's description and the Orion's BGreen fired from a three barreled turret are enough to justify that. I don't see why this kind of info should be banned from the VCs even if it's pretty clear that the game and the universe are two separate things. If there really has to be a hierachy in canon, let the tech descriptions have the importance they deserve.
EDIT: Writing all notable differences (or apparent inconsistencies) in a single article may be a good idea, no doubt about that. It would let the VCs focus on game/FRED, and this choice may have its advantages...
It's denying that those differences exist to be a serious problem, IMO. No offense to anyone, but talking about how the game should take precedence over the universe is, giving the number of proofs, a sign of poor gaming experience (not in FS2, but in general).
-
Mongoose is correct. The game is our number one source for information on the way the Freespace universe works.
Mobius, you do not dictate canon, you have no special position of authority in experience in the Freespace community, and while you often contribute productively, your rants on this topic totally overstep the bounds.
While there are plenty of irregularities, inconsistencies, and odd things in the game (Shivans using T/V secondaries is a great example), we are not at liberty to speculate about how they should be. Please don't attempt to do so.
Furthermore, keep in mind that you are not a Wiki administrator. Do not attempt to dictate canon or policy.
Thank you.
-
The game is not the universe, and the principle applies to all universes with games based on them.
That is very much your opinion.
For all wiki-purposes, the game dictates what canon is, and not what you think should be canon.
-
Sorry, but I can provide canon proof. Namely, the tech descriptions.
Wheter or not the tech descriptions should "overwrite" the table entries is an opinion and is therefore open to debate, so I do apologize for the related accidents. The presence of certain canon sources that contradict the table entries, however, is not open to debate - it's a fact. The Wiki has good coverage when it comes to jump node maps inconsistencies, but the coverage on table entries is all but nonexistent. Yet still, no one can claim that those inconsistencies don't exist and/or aren't notable enough.
And finally, please note that the tech descriptions come from the game. They're as canon as the table entries, and surely a hell lot more valuable than my (and your) opinions.
-
:rolleyes:
This is why you are unpopular.
-
Please wait until the end of the month... ;)
-
Let us apply some rationality to the situation then.
FreeSpace exists, first, foremost, and only, as a game. From this we can naturally infer that gameplay is the core of its existence, and must therefore take the highest precedence in its design and creation.
And canoncity.
The table entries are directly bearing upon the gameplay; in contrast, the tech descriptions do not even have to be read. (Something which I tend to enjoy crucifying campaign makers for when they forget to update their descriptions.)
This is not opinion; this is perfectly logical deduction and fact. We players are not in the business of encouraging Gameplay And Story Segregation, and we rather tend to dislike it. It is of course true that discrepencies exist, but unfortunately for you, they have in fact been commented on already. That's what Veteran Comments are for, and what they have accomplished.
You grasp at straws that do not exist. Stop while you are behind.
-
Please wait until the end of the month... ;)
Yeah and I'm guessing that'll be INFASA's big release huh
-
I partially agree with NGTM-1R - although the differences do exist (the importance given by players is purely subjective) they shouldn't be in the Veteran Comments.
Yeah and I'm guessing that'll be INFASA's big release huh
I was refering to the Wiki's coverage on inconsistencies, not to my levels of popularity.
-
Oh ****. Wiki rape coming up huh.
-
Mobius, if you want to make a new article on techroom-table inconsistences, that's a great idea, but other than that you're outvoted on this issue.
-
Yeah, that's what I'm planning to do. And it'll also have a big "non canon" template (or something similar to it) to prevent further confusion. :nod:
-
I would vote for Mobius on this one, though. For me, tech description > table entries. The table for me is nothing more than a list of "placeholders". I believe that the universe is different from what the game shows us, and that the game "simplifies" the universe so it is playable (and easier to create for the developers). Hence, the Shivans using Terran weapons.
Table entries comes last for me in order of canon, even after cutscenes. Yes, this is subjective.
I don't want to bring forward any new argument in favor of Mobius, I just want to say there are other people thinking like he does.
-
That's a fine supposition, and one that I think most would agree with. I don't think anyone believes the Shivans really fire Harpoons.
But we have to keep in mind that all our ideas as to how things should be are pure fanwankery. Mobius' common assertion that the Mentu should have beams is something I agree with (it's explicitly stated in the tech entry). His assertion that the Hecate should be more heavily armed...isn't. Many fans interpret the Hecate as a C&C ship/carrier, one that shouldn't be bristling with BGreens.
Disagreements like this are why Mobius is wise to confine these things to a separate article.
-
I would vote for Mobius on this one, though. For me, tech description > table entries. The table for me is nothing more than a list of "placeholders". I believe that the universe is different from what the game shows us, and that the game "simplifies" the universe so it is playable (and easier to create for the developers). Hence, the Shivans using Terran weapons.
That's exactly what I was trying to say. For the sake of storytelling, using text is (IMO) much more reliable than using table entries and/or other game-specific settings that have been created with balance in mind.
Writing a text (like a tech description) allows the creator of a sci-fi universe to describe the universe imagination dictates. Table entries are the result of that writing, but with certain touchups whose origin may be various.
That's why I had a couple of ideas:
1) Creation of a new category, named "Fan-made Articles" (or similar). Shivan theories and other articles that represent the point of view of 1 or more FS community members (but not the point of view of :v: and/or the FreeSpace community as a whole) go to that category. The new category should be, IMO, a sub-category of "The games".
The Non-canon template, although useful, works (IMO) well only when it comes to ships, campaign-related articles and stuff like that. A contributor's description of the differences between table entries and tech descriptions should be defined with a specific template for fan-made articles.;
2) Creation of the following article, which may be expanded:
Table inconsistencies
{{fanmade article}}
Default table entries are considered a reliable source of canonical information, but there are several inconsistencies between those configurations, other canon sources (such as tech descriptions) and what can be considered plausible assumptions. Those differences may be justified by the need of balancing missions in the main FreeSpace 2 campaign, since modifying a table entry probably seemed much more convenient than changing weapon configurations in FRED. Changes made using FRED can be noticed in later appeareances of a given warship, like the Iceni - therefore, the "default" weapon configuration usually is the one that fits in the first appeareances.
==Notable examples==
===Ships===
====Performance of the [[GTB Artemis D.H.]]====
According to the tech description, the Artemis D.H. is faster and more maneuverable than the standard [[GTB Artemis]]. The table entries of those two bombers, however, are basically the same: the only noticeable difference is given by the different textures.
====Possible purpose of the [[GTCv Deimos]]====
According to the Deimos' tech description, the purpose of the corvette is replacing the cruiser classes [[GTC Fenris|Fenris]] and [[GTC Leviathan|Leviathan]] as the foundation of future Terran fleets. The [[GTC Aeolus|Aeolus]] is not mentioned at all because its production stopped early and only 24 warships of that class were produced, meaning that it's far more rare (not to mention the Aeolus cruisers sided with the [[Neo-Terran Front|NTF]] which have been lost during the rebellion) than Fenris and Leviathan cruisers. The tech description leads to assume that, unlike the Vasudans (who developed the [[GVC Mentu|Mentu]]), Terrans would no longer make use of cruisers in their fleets.
====Firepower of the [[GTD Orion]]====
It is widely known that, according to weapon configurations, the Orion class of destroyers is more heavily armed than the Hecate. The Orion's most powerful weapons, in fact, are 3 [[BGreen]] beams (compared to the sole beam of that kind mounted on the Hecate). One of them, however, is fired by a three-barelled turret which, theoretically, shouldn't be able to fire a beam of that magnitude.
====Hitpoints of the [[GTD Hecate]]====
The Hecate's number of hitpoints is the same as that of the Orion, 100,000. The Vasudan [[GVD Hatshepsut|Hatshepsut]], however, has 140,000 hitpoints (20,000 more hitpoints than its predecessor, the [[GVD Typhon|Typhon]]). According to the Hecate's table entry, however, the destroyer is more heavily armored than the Orion and therefore should have had a higher number of hitpoints (comparable, if not higher, to that of the Hatshepsut). It is unclear why the Hecate's hitpoints haven't been changed according to the warship's tech description - it's possible that altering the hitpoints may have made missions like [[Proving Grounds]] and [[Argonautica]] easier, so Volition decided to use the same hitpoints as the Orion without having to make substantial FRED changes to those missions.
====Firepower of the [[NTF Iceni]]====
The Iceni is armed with a total of 3 BGreen beam weapons, one of which is fired by a very small turret (which, in theory, shouldn't be able to fire a beam of that magnitude) that, giving the warship's symmetrical turret placements, should have been armed with [[Piranha|Piranhas]]. In [[Rebels & Renegades]], the Iceni uses its beam cannons to eliminate the Vasudan warships [[FreeSpace 2 Vasudan Ship Database#GVC Yaaru|Yaaru]] and [[FreeSpace 2 Vasudan Ship Database#GVCv Asar|Asar]] with ease, since no other [[Neo-Terran Front]] units in the area were capable of inflicting a comparable amount of damage to those warships. It's worth noting that the Iceni was armed with [[SGreen]] beams in [[Endgame]]: it has been assumed that the Iceni was quickly re-energizing its subspace drives to jump to the [[Nebula system|nebula]] and therefore had to divert part of the energy used by weapon systems to the subspace drive.
====Possible additional turrets of the [[GTSG Mjolnir]]====
According to the Mjolnir's tech description, the advanced sentry gun is armed with a variety of weapons that go well beyond the single anti-warship beam cannon seen in the game: according to the tech description, in fact, that Mjolnir is equipped with two anti-spacecraft beam cannons and three missile batteries. It's not known why all weapons other than the anti-warship beam are not in the table - the model file itself doesn't even have the required gun placements and submodels.
====Designation of the [[PVFR Ma'at]]====
Unlike any other old Vasudan asset that was in service at the time of the [[Great War]], the Ma'at kept the old "PVFR" designation. This did not happen to other ship and spacecraft classes, such as the [[GVF Seth]], the [[GVT Isis]] and the [[GVFr Satis]].
====Armament of the [[GVC Mentu]]====
Although no anti-warship beam cannons appear in the Mentu's table entry, its tech description clearly says that the cruiser has been designed for the specific purpose of using that new kind of weaponry.
===Weapons===
====Shivan armaments====
The Shivans' primary weapons are much weaker than their Terran/Vasudan counterparts, possibly for balance purposes. The fact that the Shivans use the same secondary weapons used by Terrans and Vasudans, however, is far harder to explain: there have been several unofficial attempts to provide the Shivans with specific secondaries (recent [[Media VP|Media VPs]], [[Inferno]], the "Shivans" mod), and we know for sure that they don't make use of Terran/Vasudan warheads in the FreeSpace universe. In the FreeSpace 2 intro cutscene, for example, a [[SF Manticore|Manticore]] fires a missile of obvious Shivan origin on a [[GTF Hercules|Hercules]].
====Vasudan turrets====
Without considering beam weapons, Vasudan ships don't have any specific turret types: they make use, in fact, of Terran weapons (such as the [[Terran Turret]] and the [[Terran Huge Turret]]). Both the [[GVG Anuket]] and the [[GVC Mentu]] have a turret equipped with the [[Subach HL-7]] instead of the Vasudans' legitimate counterpart of that primary weapon, the [[Mekhu HL-7]].
[[Category: Fan-made Articles]]
That's a fine supposition, and one that I think most would agree with. I don't think anyone believes the Shivans really fire Harpoons.
But we have to keep in mind that all our ideas as to how things should be are pure fanwankery. Mobius' common assertion that the Mentu should have beams is something I agree with (it's explicitly stated in the tech entry). His assertion that the Hecate should be more heavily armed...isn't. Many fans interpret the Hecate as a C&C ship/carrier, one that shouldn't be bristling with BGreens.
Disagreements like this are why Mobius is wise to confine these things to a separate article.
My assumptions on the Hecate are based on FreeSpace 2: Colossus, in which the Hecate was clearly supposed (if I remember well) to be more heavily armed and armored than the Orion. The "armored" part remained in FreeSpace 2, but it doesn't match the hitpoints seen in the table entry (both the Orion and the Hecate have 100,000 hitpoints, although the Hatshepsut has more hitpoints than the Typhon).
Also, seeing a three-barreled turret firing a BGreen is not that wise from a in-universe point of view.
-
The only problem I have with this whole problem is that Mobius is presenting his opinion as fact.
-
Didn't you get the "Fan-made Articles" idea, plus the fact that the vast majority of the content I posted is based on canon? A fan's analysis of the game is not canon and is not necessarily shared by the rest of the community - yet still, it doesn't mean that the analysis itself should be banned. If a good template saying "The following article has been created by a member of the community and therefore does not represent the point of view of Volition, nor the point of view of the FreeSpace community as a whole" is used, why would you prevent someone from saying something that has more fundaments on canon than, let's say, Shivan theories?
It's funny how you pretend to say that about me even if I clearly state that my opinions (which aren't opinions, are the result of reading) should be marked with that kind of template. I'm not great at all at writing in English (fortunately), but I do understand it. Please read the tech descriptions and see if your assumptions on the matter are any different from mine. I hard believe you will disagree with me on the Mjolnir, Deimos, Artemis DH, Mentu and Ma'at affairs. Any member reading those tech descriptions would come out with the same (or, at least, very similar) conclusion.
-
Didn't you get the "Fan-made Articles" idea, plus the fact that the vast majority of the content I posted is based on canon?
It's funny how you pretend to say that about me even if I clearly state that my opinions (which aren't opinions, are the result of reading) should be marked with that kind of template.
There it is again.
You're trying to say that your deduction of canon is somehow the right deduction or something. You say it's not an opinion and a "result of reading" or deduction. That's not what they are. They are your opinions. Nothing more.
-
Can you please read those tech descriptions instead of falling into the classic "You wrote it, ergo it's wrong"? You may be able to come out with long and detailled statements on how my opinions are not the opinions of the FreeSpace community as a whole, but I see stuff in the Wiki which is the direct consequence of reading.
Also, you're behaving as if I'm taking this personally and/or I want to be credited for that - I don't care about credit, I simply want the Wiki to be expanded with that kind of information. Table inconsistencies aren't covered while node map inconsistencies are - may I know why?
About the Wiki - who came out with the "Pseudo-canon", "Apocriphal", etc. etc. definitions of jump nodes that don't appear in the main map? Why no one is complaining about those definitions, which obviously aren't a ":v: product"?
Wait a second - maybe you're refusing to accept the existence of the Mentu affair, just to mention an example? Because, from what I read, it's pretty much what you're trying to say. Saying "Oh, the Mentu's table entry shows no beam weapons even if the tech description says that the cruiser is armed with that kind of weapons" is not an opinion. Explaining why no turrets are armed with anti-warship beam weapons is an opinion.
-
Okay, I give up.
Alright, I actually do agree with your observations about the tech descriptions contrasting game mechanics, and TBH I don't really care about what your deduce from this. What you deduce doesn't matter half at all to me, all I really want is for this to be presented as just one man's opinion. The {{fanmade article}} template is pretty good for that I guess so I'll STFU.
-
Amen to that... :yes:
EDIT:
P.S.
No conclusions are needed. Saying that some table entries don't match their respective tech description has no influence on anything - my point is that those inconsistencies need to be enlisted somewhere, just like the node map inconsistencies. :cool:
-
Amen to that... :yes:
Yeah, sorry for getting up your ass on this one... :(
-
No problem... :)
-
As long as someone (any one) does not try to take the FSU to task to correct these "inconsistencies", the information is sound and valid.
But I do have to wonder: Why does it HAVE to posted? I mean, seriously.
Yes, it's a wiki. Yes, those do contain information. But how is this information in any way relevant?
Personally, I also think that it would not be necessary to lay out the entry as a fan-made article, as it is representing factual information.
-
It should be presented in the same way that the old Volition Watch articles on the Wiki are, I think. Those are pretty good.
I like the idea of an article analyzing these differences. I'll polish up the quirks in Mobius' writing style as I've done for some of his past articles, but he does some decent analysis.
-
As long as someone (any one) does not try to take the FSU to task to correct these "inconsistencies", the information is sound and valid.
But I do have to wonder: Why does it HAVE to posted? I mean, seriously.
Yes, it's a wiki. Yes, those do contain information. But how is this information in any way relevant?
All info related to the FreeSpace universe should be added to the Wiki, IMO. Articles don't necessarily have to be useful. The starmap inconsistencies are not useful, but they're on the Wiki.
Personally, I also think that it would not be necessary to lay out the entry as a fan-made article, as it is representing factual information.
If the ideas aren't widely accepted, they should be considered "fanmade articles". That definition is, IMO, a good compromise between canon sources and analysis of canon sources - although some of my assumptions on the Hecate and Iceni are not "facts" (we know nothing about the energy reactors of those ships to determine their true firepower), stuff like the Mentu affair is not open to any debates, IMO.
I'd like to end my comment by saying that it's nearly impossible to see what the community thinks about a certain subject. Both here and on the Wiki, I see 4-5 people partecipating to a discussion until someone says "No one agrees with you" or something like that. It should rather be "Out of the very limited number of members that partecipated to this discussion, no one agrees with you" or similar.
Seriously, how can <10 people determine what's widely accepted by the community and what's not? Sadly, however, it's how threads and Wiki talk pages work - you have a limited number of people who may be sentencing a potentially valid idea to death and/or considering valid a potentially pointless idea. Although voting is a democratic solution, it's still not a perfect system.
It should be presented in the same way that the old Volition Watch articles on the Wiki are, I think. Those are pretty good.
I like the idea of an article analyzing these differences. I'll polish up the quirks in Mobius' writing style as I've done for some of his past articles, but he does some decent analysis.
Thanks. The reason why I haven't done that already is simple: my Wiki account has been recently temp-blocked due to my comment on the edit of a person who decided to play Sisiphus with me even if he could have posted here to make his point of view public. (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,63703.0.html) :rolleyes:
-
I know it was blocked, and I agree with the decision to block it.
However, I look forward to this contribution.
-
Well, blocking a contributor's account does not help the Wiki (unless we're discussing spambots here).
-
Well, blocking a contributor's account does not help the Wiki (unless we're discussing spambots here).
The lesson here is don't f*ck with Goober. Or simply, don't piss off admins or powerful doods.
-
I don't care. If I consider someone's edit a semi-act of vandalism, I'm likely to make it public if the person is an admin.
-
It wasn't vandalism. Furthermore, calling it vandalism was basically trolling.
As nice as it would be if everyone was judged based on some kind of mathematical contribution matrix, the way you act matters, and your personal history influences the way people treat you. Be polite and respectful, especially to those who put in a ton of effort to keep this place running.
-
I don't care. If I consider someone's edit a semi-act of vandalism, I'm likely to make it public if the person is an admin.
Only fight battles you can win.
-
As amazing as it feels, I actually agree with several of the points that Mobius makes in that pseudo-article. Things like the Artemis D.H.'s lack of upgraded stats, the Mentu's lack of beam cannons, the Mjolnir's lack of additional small-caliber turrets, and the Iceni's ever-changing and strangely asymmetric loadout are the sort of inconsistencies that tend to jump out at you. (I'm not so much in agreement over things like the Shivans' duplication of Terran secondaries or the Orion turret.) I do think these sorts of little factoids are worth mentioning somewhere in the wiki, even in the sort of article that Mobius is proposing, though I would advise against excising as much personal opinion and/or "interpretation from source material" as possible. And as I stated previously, I'd fundamentally reject any assertion that "the game" and "the universe" are two separate quantities being written up, since that's purely a matter of personal opinion and interpretation.
As far as the overall question as to whether table stats or tech room descriptions should be given greater canonical presence, my personal feeling is that it all depends on the particular situation. For instance, the Artemis D.H. being explicitly listed as a special-ops bomber with enhanced capabilities yet playing like a reskinned Artemis would have me come down on the side of the tech description, since having it play identical to the original would serve no purpose at all from a development perspective; if I had to guess outright, I'd say that someone just forgot to tweak its table stats before the game was released. In contrast, for something like the Orion's assignment of a BGreen to that three-barreled turret, I'd come down squarely on the side of the tables despite the visual oddity, since the Orion's powerful anti-capship armaments are the backbone of its presence and effectiveness in FS2. Overall, like NGTM-1R mentioned, the FS universe exists solely for the purposes of gameplay, so when there's any doubt, I think one should try to err on the side of what we actually see in-mission.
-
Only fight battles you can win.
QFT.
And Mobius, if you're going to call something I did vandalism, at least have the sense to do it on an article I actually edited. :p
As amazing as it feels, I actually agree with several of the points that Mobius makes in that pseudo-article. Things like the Artemis D.H.'s lack of upgraded stats, the Mentu's lack of beam cannons, the Mjolnir's lack of additional small-caliber turrets, and the Iceni's ever-changing and strangely asymmetric loadout are the sort of inconsistencies that tend to jump out at you. (I'm not so much in agreement over things like the Shivans' duplication of Terran secondaries or the Orion turret.) I do think these sorts of little factoids are worth mentioning somewhere in the wiki, even in the sort of article that Mobius is proposing, though I would advise against excising as much personal opinion and/or "interpretation from source material" as possible.
Also QFT.
-
Seems like we've reached a decent consensus here?
As long as Mobius doesn't mind editing he can post that article. It's pretty good.
-
Sorry again for being a ****head here.
-
The fact that you're apologizing for a completely normal piece of debate suggests that you're a decent guy, not a ****head. Don't worry about it.
-
As long as Mobius doesn't mind editing he can post that article. It's pretty good.
Well, since my account is frozen, you can easily post it...
EDIT:
Only fight battles you can win.
QFT.
No.
The reason why people with a comfortable number of user CPs keep doing many absurd things (among the notable contributes, of course) is that no one complains about them because they're afraid or something. Abuses shouldn't be authorized, no matter of the individuals who carry on with them.
And Mobius, if you're going to call something I did vandalism, at least have the sense to do it on an article I actually edited. :p
What a vague and inconclusive response. We are playing Sisiphus on an article and you once came out with this:
Stop making stupid changes and calling them "improvements".
...and now you complain about me claiming that a single edit of yours was a "semi-act of vandalism"? That's tragicomic humour and--- oh, wait... I forgot that abuses are totally legitimate for you. :doubt:
-
Will you tell us which edit of Goober's was a "semi-act of vandalism"? I didn't see anything at all wrong with his recent edits. Well, yes, he reverted some of your changes, but that's not vandalism.
-
Mobius, stop.
You're digging a hole for yourself.
What people think of you matters. You need to stop damaging your own reputation or no one will listen to you even when you are right.
-
I am awesame! Treat me like it!
-
:wtf:
-
The reason why people with a comfortable number of user CPs keep doing many absurd things (among the notable contributes, of course) is that no one complains about them because they're afraid or something. Abuses shouldn't be authorized, no matter of the individuals who carry on with them.
If you think one of the admins or moderators is abusing his authority (which is a legitimate concern) then you should do one of the following:
1) PM the person in question
2) PM another admin or moderator
3) Post a thread in the feedback forum
4) Click "Report this post"
Posting several dozen posts where you act like a drama queen or a serial complainer is a) not helpful or productive; and b) makes it look like you are primarily concerned about attention for yourself, rather than fairness and justice being upheld.
-
I'm not so sure about "Blog-like descriptions that point out strengths/weaknesses under rare circumstances."
Seconded. That is actually some of the most interesting stuff.
-
I'm not so sure about "Blog-like descriptions that point out strengths/weaknesses under rare circumstances."
Seconded. That is actually some of the most interesting stuff.
That is stuff like:
"Yeah, so one time in Flaming Sword right there was a Meson Bomb explosion and there was this one Dragon fighter that was weakened to 2%, and it was really easy to kill."
-
Hm, what would be the weakness there? Hardy the fact that a meson bomb may scratch a Dragon?
Anyway, I was thinking more about that kind of rare circumstances where factors like gun/turret placement, ship size, speed, agility etc. result in unobvious events in a mission.
-
I would like to express my dislike for the fact that none of the veteran comments are credited. Looking at who added the comment doesn't necessarily imply who actually said the added comment. So I would like to propose that each and every veteran comment would be credited to whoever really said it. That in turn would also make it possibly to point out that "hey, this is no longer true, care to edit your comment?".
-
The problem is that only the writers of the comments edit their comments. There have been many spelling fixes, rephrases, deletions of sentences by other users.
-
Editing others comments to a degree it changes the meaning shouldn't happen, which is why it should still be possible to give credit to original author. Should complete rewrite be in order, you might just as well remove the old comment and write your own in your own words and give credit to yourself. Either way, I believe veteran comments should have credits. Otherwise it's kinda meaningless to call it veteran comments in the first place. Might just as well call it random comments by some unknown people.
-
It has happened in the past, so it would be cumbersome and time-consuming to track each comment to its original author, and revert those changes that altered their meanings.
-
Wouldn't be needed to apply the policy to already written comments, only to new comments.
-
But if it was convenient in the past, it could be convenient in the future too.
-
Editing others comments to a degree it changes the meaning shouldn't happen.
But did, quite frequently, during the Veteran Comments Jihad when the new rules went into effect. Many comments on long pages were dismembered down to their grain of original thought or useful observation.
-
I even chipped in and removed a few of mine because they were redundant.
-
I admit I trimmed some comments because I believed the policy to be the ultimate authority.