Talk:List of ships

Wouldn't it be better if we removed the crew and cost info? Valaggar 18:43, 27 August 2007 (CEST)

I'd be fine with that. The extra information does distinguish the list from the category, but even without those numbers (which do look kind of awkward in the list) the inclusion of the race and organization by race is enough to distinguish the list and warrant its existence IMO. --Fyzixfighter 23:42, 27 August 2007 (CEST)

With the existence of Table of ship values, isn't this a bit redundant? I know this entry predates the Table, but should we not rethink the existence of one of the two? --PsiPhi 19:02, 15 October 2007 (CEST)

Not entirely imo. Both of these articles though should have some purpose for existing that distinguishes them from the category and from each other. The table of ship values fulfills a distinct purpose, organizing some of the important quantization values for the ships. This list used to have some of that information, but it was removed (rightly so for redundancy reasons) when the table was made. So the question is what makes, or should make this list unique? It already distinguishes itself from the category by listing also the race names with the ship, but that's a very simple thing. I think here is where we should include the images of the ships - the images don't really tell us anything more about the ship values but they do help to identify the ships, which I think this list should do. There might be some other general details that we can provide here. I do think you're on to something PsiPhi, but I think the answer is to really make this list stand out on its own, just like the table stands out on its own by presenting those values in a cogent and coherent way, rather than getting rid of it. --Fyzixfighter 06:16, 16 October 2007 (CEST)

OK, I can accept that. I think a list of the ships along with their images is needed somewhere. We already have the ship images in the wiki, if I'm not mistaken, so it'll come to putting them all here in a clean, clear presentation. One thing Valaggar, when you removed the crew/cost info, you forgot the comment at the top that goes with it. That confused me the first time I read this yesterday. Simple fix. --PsiPhi 13:22, 16 October 2007 (CEST)

I've done a bit of a reorganization and reformatting of this list (in part to make it stand on its own), which can be found here. I added images for easier navigation and alphabetized them by the ship name instead of race, and moved the race to the third column. For the SC1 ships, I included the comsim description. I haven't got around to updating the "unique ship" format at the bottom, but I imagine it will be something similar. Does it look like a suitable replacement? Anything that anyone would like to see added or removed? Comments before I make the switch (including "Don't make the switch")? --Fyzixfighter 20:47, 26 January 2008 (CET)

It looks really good... but why are you alphabetizing by the ship name instead of race? People are generally used to alphabetizing by race name (DOS melee, 3DO melee) and might be confused by this. Valaggar 09:09, 27 January 2008 (CET)

Yeah, that's one of the things I'm on the fence about. I alphabetized by ship to emphasize the "ship" in "list of ships". I can see how it would be confusing, but part of me likes putting the emphasis on the actual ship name. I don't know, it's something I'm still toying with and it was one aspect that I was specifically hoping to get feedback on. I wonder if the sortable wikitables work in this mediawiki... --Fyzixfighter 10:23, 27 January 2008 (CET)

Well, I went ahead and updated the list with the images - I finally have more time after taking my quals/comps on saturday. Anyways, I went in favor of alphabetizing by ship name mainly, as I said above, to emphasize the "ship" in "list of ships" - organizing by race name we also require switching the columns, but again I feel that this de-emphasizes the "ship" too much. I don't think this will cause too much problem in navigating the list now that there are also images. If we could get the sortable tables working, that would be ideal for handling any confusion. Additionally, we could add a little for why some ships don't have a ComSim description (ie they don't appear in SC1) and maybe a very short note for why the list is organized by ship name. --Fyzixfighter 19:28, 25 February 2008 (CET)

Yeah, it looks really good. And you're right that the images do help a lot in navigating the list. Now, I'd be in favour of a note explaining what's going on with this ComSim, but I don't think it's necessary to explain why the list is sorted by ship name rather than race name — this is after all obvious (it's a list of ships!), and such a note would probably be quite ugly and would make the article a tad too self-referential for my taste. Valaggar 19:36, 25 February 2008 (CET)

How about adding short descriptions for ships that don't have ComSim descriptions, and then using (for example) asterisks and a footnote to indicate which of these are from ComSim, and which were added here? - (Guest) 18:40, 1 March 2008 (CET)

I, for one, would definitely agree. The main point of ship descriptions is to describe ships, thus giving some information about them. It's not like ComSim descriptions are gospel or anything. Instead, they're included because they're short descriptions. But short descriptions are short descriptions too! So why not add them? Valaggar 18:54, 1 March 2008 (CET)

Added... I hope it is okay! ^_^ - (Guest) 19:42, 1 March 2008 (CET)

I'm actually surprised, Val, given your recent attempts to remove fanfic from other articles. And, the ComSim descriptions are found in the Star Control Gospel as provided by the Twin Gods, as opposed to player-created descriptions. If we include player created descriptions, why not allow the fanmade SC2 pseudo-ComSim images (like the one for the Avatar)? The original reasoning for including a short description in this list was to make the list useful and unique - and the only canon short descriptions I could find were the brief ComSim statements. However, this field isn't essential to the completeness of the list, and so I don't mind leaving some entries without a short description. In fact, I'd prefer that over including player-created descriptions - I'm a bit of a purist that way.

Also, on a technical note, the ref/note tags can't handle multiple instances of the same ref. --Fyzixfighter 20:06, 1 March 2008 (CET)

Sowwies. :( However, maybe adding "non-canon" descriptions is acceptable in this case, since the purpose of this article is only to provide a brief summary of the ships found in SCII, and player-made descriptions based on the game are useful in this regard? I certainly do not think such descriptions are, strictly speaking, 'fanfic,' in that they rely only on what is observed in the game, and do not involve any speculation. For the same reason, I do not feel they are really comparable to player-made ship images... The descriptions can rely on gameplay itself as a source of information, and the game itself is certainly canon... But I am new to this, so perhaps there are conventions here that I am not yet aware of. ^_^ - (Guest) 20:23, 1 March 2008 (CET)

Honestly, one of the reasons I didn't immediately revert was because I do realize there may be an acceptable way to do this. I usually like to mull over new additions that fall into the gray area of my acceptance spectrum to see if they do have any merit. (We do have weak against/strong against gameplay-based descriptions on individual pages.) I think I could be fine with the descriptions as long as we keep them based on gameplay, use correct terminolgy/names and clear descriptions, and avoid some subjective phrases. I've made a few edits along those lines. Though I still need to let it sit awhile in my thoughts to fully work out the dilemma. --Fyzixfighter 22:40, 1 March 2008 (CET)

I think short descriptions are okay if they're tidied up a bit, I mean, my first thought (a few minutes ago) was that they shouldn't be here, but they seem okay to me if we just think of them as one-line attempts to capture the salient and most unique attributes of each ship, which is what Val's saying. Viewed that way, for the SC1 ships, do we even have to stick to ComSim descriptions (and if one doesn't, this needs to be noted to avoid confusion) if there's a better description? Anyway the best short description is probably something very similar for each of those.

There's still a table of ship properties to be created, unless I've missed it somewhere, and if that includes speed, turning rate, damage, crew, battery, et cetera, I'd say adding a link to this in the note could help, such a table would quantify half the stuff contained in these descriptions. --Zeracles 16:51, 2 March 2008 (CET)

(un-indenting) Just some quick thoughts, seeing that the consensus seems to be keeping the SC2 short descriptions with provisions - I'd say it'd be easier and better to stick to the ComSim descriptions for the SC1 - it helps to ground that whole column in the established canon. Also, I've got a mockup of a table of ship properties. I've still got to figure out how to divide it up (a single table doesn't necessarily fit in the screen), I'd like to get the icons at the top to link the ship pages, and there's still some aesthetic issues I'd like to resolve. Now that my quals/comps are over, I'll try and get back to figuring these out. Any thoughts in general on that mockup? --Fyzixfighter 22:53, 2 March 2008 (CET)

Looking really good, and I can't think of any issues just now which you haven't already raised as concerns there.

• I think the derived quantites (I assume you mean acceleration rate, . . .) need to be there, possibly at the expense of the primitive quantities if necessary. Or, one could have a table for derived and a table for primitive quantities. Either way, a note which spells out how the derived quantites are derived could be useful.
• To make it more readable, maybe fiddle with the grouping of the property list - maybe instead of having max crew, max energy, starting crew, starting energy, do max crew, starting crew, max energy, starting energy. Perhaps group together all of the properties which influence the mobility of the ships.

Nice. --Zeracles 15:53, 3 March 2008 (CET)

Another idea popped up. Can we get Vilerancour's ship info screens incorporated into the wiki? --Shiver 10:30, 9 January 2009 (CET)

The main concern with including Vilerancour's ship info screens would be that they are fan-made, and the intent for most of the pages is to stay as close to canon as possible. It's the same reason we don't use RingWraith's his other ship info screens, which I believe are touch-ups of screen gabs from the 3DO spin videos. I think VR did a amazing job with those images and I absolutely love how he was able to recreate the SC1 feel for those new info screens. If VR's images were included in a future release of UQM, then it may warrant incorporating them into the wiki. Another possibility would be to create a "Fan-made SC2 ship info screens", and include VR's and RW's images - my only concern being the can of worms this may open, ie how do we differentiate between the fan art we include and what we don't? As an aside, the link on the forum to VR's pages doesn't seem to be working anymore (at least for me) - is there still somewhere online where the images can be found? --Fyzixfighter 21:18, 9 January 2009 (CET)

According to this posting VileRancour is RingWraith. — SvdB 00:53, 10 January 2009 (CET)

Ah, I see. Sorry for any confusion. Thanks for the clarification. --Fyzixfighter 19:48, 13 January 2009 (CET)

Tactical overview sections

These "Weak Against / Tenuous Against / Strong Against" sections within the ship wiki pages are excruciating to read. By what metric is a ship effective against another? Player against computer? Virtually all ship-to-ship combinations are winnable for a player. That doesn't mean I should go into the Ilwrath section and say it's strong against everything. Looking at it from another angle, player against player combat is something only a fraction of UQM players ever attempt. Consider purging these sections entirely. --Shiver 23:54, 8 January 2009 (CET)

About a year ago there was some discussion along these lines. Looking back through the history, it appears that this began by User:212.117.154.242 who signed his edits "Moon Shadow" back in Sept 2004. Others like User:Mmrnmhrm and User:Nic appear to have later adopted the formatting though it has gone through some iterations since then. The reason I bring up the history is to show how entrenched the format may be. Personally, I wouldn't lose any sleep and would be quite happy if all those sections were purged. However, a possible middle road option could be to lose the "weak/tenuous/strong against" aspect, which are ill-defined descriptions (as you noted) as well as highly player dependent, and instead briefly describe the strengths, weaknesses, and generally useful tactics with no references to other ships. I don't know if even this is tenable without falling into the same traps though. Other thoughts? --Fyzixfighter 04:34, 9 January 2009 (CET)

Rather than bore people again with my plans to quantify these things by modeling (which I do hope to do someday), I'll just reiterate my agreement that these ``weak/tenuous/strong against" sections are a problem. The only issue I see with Fyzix's middle road is that it may be difficult to do ``with no references to other ships", but it depends on the level of detail. Perhaps this uncertainty will be a guide to the right level of detail. --Zeracles 07:30, 9 January 2009 (CET)