User talk:PsiPhi/StarBox

From Ultronomicon
< User talk:PsiPhi
Revision as of 17:26, 5 August 2005 by Svdb (talk | contribs) (reply)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This needs a lot more work. I have to read more about Templates. This will not work unless I can get the amount of PlanetLines to display dynamically according to the amount of planets listed in the StarBox. A loop that allows for a dynamic amount of iterations based on a parameter should do it. Now, if I could only make sense of this. A working example of something similar would REALLY help. Anyone know a LOT of wiki?--PsiPhi 11:47, 29 Jun 2005 (CEST)

I'm rethinking whether this whole StarBox template is a good idea.
In order to add all planets and moons with their 6 most important pieces of data each:
(Planet number or Moon letter,Type,Temp,Weather,Tect,Grav)
the numbers would multiply to become an absurd amount of data.

Worst case scenario (which has to be provided for, to ensure all possibilities):
9 planets (I think that's the maximum amount of planets a star can have in SC2)
4 moons (I think that's the maximum amount of moons a planet can have in SC2)
7 pieces of data for planets (1 of them holds the amount of moons for that planet)
6 pieces of data for moons (moons don't have their own moons)
4 pieces of data for the star itself
9x7 + 9x4x6 + 4 = 63 + 216 + 4 = 283 pieces of data total
So, in the StarBox, I'd have to provide for 283 parameters.
A template call would have to include AT LEAST 283 pipettes "|" to hold all the place values.

Also, if mineral values, bio amounts, or a flag for special planets were to be added, this would only make things more complicated.
While it is possible, it may end up being way too complicated to implement successfully. It would certainly be too hard for most people to understand and use. In its current state, it's almost too hard for me to follow.
--PsiPhi 08:26, 30 Jun 2005 (CEST)

I don't think this is a good idea. There is such a thing as too much information, even in a reference work. This information just isn't interesting enough. - SvdB 01:18, 5 Jul 2005 (CEST)

It's too bad. I had the intention of adding room for the amount of bios per world, and amount and type of minerals, but the building and implementation of the StarBox became too daunting. I tried to include only the most useful information, but I think you're right ... it's just too much. Perhaps expanding the PlanetBox slightly to include the bio and mineral information would be better, if I can keep it small. I know you don't like the idea of flooding the Ultronomicon with a lot of useless data, and I agree. But I do feel that some worlds that include extremely valuable minerals like Exotics and Radioactives should have a PlanetBox, with the extra data. Planets with little or no value should be ignored. Oh well, it was an idea.

How about a list of planets and systems with many valuables, like in the hints book? That way you have everything in one place and there would be no need for actual pages about the planets which would have no other interesting info. - SvdB 19:53, 5 Jul 2005 (CEST)
You know, that was my intention, to start with the most value-laden planets and systems first, but perhaps a list would be best, and easiest. Of course, that is a massive undertaking considering the amount of stars and planets per star. I remember thinking about writing a formula for calculating the overall value of a planet vs. its dangers and gravity (fuel use). Sort of a risk/profit assessment. Since the dangers are expressed in numbers (except for aggressive life forms, though we could probably come up those), and the minerals are integer quantities with integer valuations, I don't think it would be too hard to write up a rough idea. Of course, the trickiest part would be weighing firestorms vs. lightning vs. quakes. I always hated lightning the most, then firestorms, then quakes, and lastly hostile life, but translating that into workable coefficients would be the key. We could call it something like the Ford/Reiche Scale for Planetary Exploration Risk. Maybe it's silly. I don't know ... sometimes I just like the throw ideas out there ... see what people think - PsiPhi 11:34, 5 Aug 2005 (CEST)
It wouldn't really be that much work, as everything can be generated automatically from the source.
As for scales, people's perception of the danger will differ, and you can't just add the danger levels together; hostile lifeforms on a planet without other dangers will not be as much of a problem as hostile lifeforms on a planet where you have to evade hotspots too. I think it would be best to restrict ourselves to unambiguous lists like "most bio", "most lightning", etc.
Also, I don't think naming the scale after FF & PR3 would be a good idea. That would sound like they agreed with that specific scale.
-- SvdB 19:26, 5 Aug 2005 (CEST)