[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.

[WMCoolmon]

Have a page with all ships listed in alphabetical order with a short description for each, make the names links if they have much history.

As for ships, if we want stats to be in the wiki, they should be in the table, not on the ship page. I don't care so much if a ship has "100 shields" unless every other ship has 500. Ship pages should be for history, description, and hints and tips, not stats you can figure out by reading the table files. A table, OTOH, is useful because you can't compare ships as efficiently with .tbl entries.

[FireCrack]

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.

just so people know, the way to add that sidebar is to start the page wiht:

{{FS12_Ships}}

on the first line

[Black Wolf]

Have a page with all ships listed in alphabetical order with a short description for each, make the names links if they have much history.

Wanderer's doing that - converting CP's list to Wiki format.

As for ships, if we want stats to be in the wiki, they should be in the table, not on the ship page. I don't care so much if a ship has "100 shields" unless every other ship has 500. Ship pages should be for history, description, and hints and tips, not stats you can figure out by reading the table files. A table, OTOH, is useful because you can't compare ships as efficiently with .tbl entries.

I think shields and hitpoints should stay, as they're a very easily comparable, quantified way of comparing hull and shield strength. You can no know a thing about tables, look up two ships and know exactly how much stonger one is that the other. Useful, IMO.

[Wanderer]

I added a link to the sidebar to the CP's list... you can access it through any entry that has thesidebar included

WMC might be partially right, though there might need for some small details about the general performance of the ship, like in latest revision of Colossus. Though it still has all the subsystem data which IMHO is not needed for the players to know. i like that page, it has all the relevant data but nothing too much (apart from the scan time and subsystem data) so it is just great. Some small details like number of fighters carried and the crewnumbers are nice also.

So i'm with Black Wolf on this one

For true comparisons we would however indeed need an organized table (so do we need comparisions?). Like different ships on the rows and attributes on the columns, though which attributes should be added to the table? Just by looking to the VPView gives an image of the amount of data available but we can not include every value to the table. Name (obvious), Lenght (from POF files), Velocity + burner velocity, Turn rates, # PBanks, # Sbanks, Hitpoints, Shield, # Turrets. There is no point in including all the entries to the list as VPView does that trick already.

[Eishtmo]

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.

I agree with that.  I'm thinking though, how do we determine whether a ship deserves a good/poor rating?  And once determined, how do we justify it?  We can't strictly use the tech database for each ship since in some cases they vary between the games.  I'm thinking if we do define it, we should have rating, then justify it with a subsection containing the data.  In a sense, it makes it easy for someone who doesn't know what rotdamp means to still understand that the ship is good/poor at a glance, and gives modders a chance to see what makes it good/poor.

As for ships, if we want stats to be in the wiki, they should be in the table, not on the ship page. I don't care so much if a ship has "100 shields" unless every other ship has 500. Ship pages should be for history, description, and hints and tips, not stats you can figure out by reading the table files. A table, OTOH, is useful because you can't compare ships as efficiently with .tbl entries.

I can't disagree more with this sentiment.  I think have the stats on the ship page can be pretty important, speed varies greatly between the different ships, so does the maneverablity information and such.  I'm thinking that this should be the comprehensive guide to everything Freespace, starting with canon, which includes the stats and table data, then moving on to opinions, histories, etc.  Say, something like this.  Sorry, the Tomcat's my favorite.

The point is, when listed, modern planes have their physical characteristics listed out, alongside the specs for it.  The ships we're covering are virtual, so their specs are table entries, so they have just as much importance as anything else.  I see each page as being useful for everyone, very comprehensive but at least readable.  That's why I think we need to figure out what about the table data is important and what is not.  100 shield probably isn't important if they're all the same, but whether a ship is shielded or not may be.  We still need the history and stuff, but we should have the specifics to back up our claims.

Now a comparision table would be a nice addition, but a pain to impliment, unless you wanted to reorginize the fighter/bomber/auxilary catagories and such.  Or set up a completely seperate page.  Still hard though.  Probably worth it in the end.

[WMCoolmon]

I like this: http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/GTVA_Colossus

I don't like this: http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/GTF_Ulysses

But, do what you want. Just make sure it's at least standardized among ships of the same type.

[StratComm]

at the Ulysses entry.  That's absolutely NOT what to do.  If that data is going to be in there, it HAS to come last so that it doesn't dominate the page.

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.

I agree with that. I'm thinking though, how do we determine whether a ship deserves a good/poor rating? And once determined, how do we justify it? We can't strictly use the tech database for each ship since in some cases they vary between the games. I'm thinking if we do define it, we should have rating, then justify it with a subsection containing the data. In a sense, it makes it easy for someone who doesn't know what rotdamp means to still understand that the ship is good/poor at a glance, and gives modders a chance to see what makes it good/poor.

I would certainly say use the table stats to come up with the classification rather than relying on the tech descriptions, but the stats are clutter.  Use them as a criteria, but don't post them I say.  Speed/afterburner speed are important enough to be listed (but then they are listed in the tech descriptions too), the manuverability stuff is not.  A modder can and will know how to find the specific stats themselves, since they're almost certainly going to be editing tables anyway.

[Black Wolf]

How about we have the key stats (Say, shield, hitpoints, speed, afterburn speed, a rating for maoeuvrability (justified somewhere separate like Eishtmo said) and weapons compatability) and then link to a full table entry on a separate page?

[NGTM-1R]

In the interest of accuracy, someone needs to make alterations on the shiplist if it's going into the Wiki. (Yay me.) There are inaccuracies in listing the fates of some of the NTF ships lost during the run to Gamma Draconis. Specifically, the shiplist gives them as having been destroyed by the Colossus; the Command Briefing in question says, however "a number of them have been destroyed running the gauntlet of our node blockades."

It's also a little too free with the ships that got blasted by the supernova, listing some that were not actually seen to be there at the time.

[StratComm]

How about we have the key stats (Say, shield, hitpoints, speed, afterburn speed, a rating for maoeuvrability (justified somewhere separate like Eishtmo said) and weapons compatability) and then link to a full table entry on a separate page?

The only way that the justifications should be listed IMHO is to have a link to a generic page that says what formula was used.  I see absolutely no need to archive the default tables on the wiki in a place that's not clearly labled as a table entry.

[WMCoolmon]

Well, here are the formulae I used in the code...they're based on the table stats for all ships, I basically tried to come up with some kind of formulae that made sense and fit with the table classifications. There were a few that made no sense whatsoever, but for the most part, these give the same results as the table tech descriptions.

Maneuverability (sum = horizontal rotation time + vertical rotation time):

Code: [Select]

if(sum <= 6)
strcpy(str, "Excellent");
else if(sum < 7)
strcpy(str, "High");
else if(sum < 8)
strcpy(str, "Good");
else if(sum < 9)
strcpy(str, "Average");
else if(sum < 10)
strcpy(str, "Poor");
else if(sum < 15)
strcpy(str, "Very Poor");
else
strcpy(str, "Extremely Poor");
Hull strength (sum = max hull strength + max shield strength, since that's the only way table classifications made sense):

Code: [Select]

if(sum <= 600)
strcpy(str, "Light");
else if(sum <= 700)
strcpy(str, "Average");
else if(sum <= 900)
strcpy(str, "Medium");
else if(sum <= 1100)
strcpy(str, "Heavy");
else if(sum <= 1300)
strcpy(str, "Very Heavy");
else if(sum <= 2000)
strcpy(str, "Ultra Heavy");
else if(sum <= 30000)
strcpy(str, "Light Capital");
else if(sum <= 75000)
strcpy(str, "Medium Capital");
else if(sum <= 200000)
strcpy(str, "Heavy Capital");
else if(sum <= 800000)
strcpy(str, "Very Heavy Capital");
else
strcpy(str, "Ultra Heavy Capital");

[Wanderer]

Please go and see GTB Athena. I used tables to make it clearer and WMCs criterias for descriptive values.

[Spicious]

It's nicely done, especially compared to the other entries, but I think compatible and standard sound better than allowed and default, respectively.

[Wanderer]

Yes they do. And will be changed soon...

BTW does anyone have FS1 at hand? Or more precisely the information about the weapons in turrets, i was making a new entry for Medusa and just noted that i have no data about the weapon in the defensive turret for FS 1 era. Or data about any of the turrets for FS1 era...

[Spicious]

The Medusa turret uses an Avenger.
I've also attached the ST ships.tbl which should be of some help for the rest of the turrets.

[attachment deleted by admin]