Good morning, Winlander, and thanks so much for reading and responding to my comment on the Game Mechanics category page (which I see now was not the best choice). So I didn't feel right about responding there. How about here? since I have an update.
I FOUND the information I was looking for, at the net-7.org/#gameinfo page, or rather its sub-sections: Communications, Commands, and Interface.
In the interests of nonredundance, you could just point to that. It's very thorough, sitting next to more EnB Lore than I ever imagined existed, under the History tab. What a treasure trove. So, you may consider my inquiry answered, with my gratitude.
... now if I can just get the emulator installed and running.
... I'll go harass webhelp. :)
Thank you for your time and assistance, good sir. Hsien (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Also see Talk:Stations (you may have already seen this on my talk page but I decided to move it over there instead). I'm still working my way through templates and seeing what is possible with the Extensions we have available but I'm pretty confident we'll be able to lookup a lot of this information via shared templates to populate information shared across System/Sector/Starbase/NPC pages consistently.
Rather than adding details about V'rix faction, players, the faction chart, Mordana, etc. to multiple different pages, what do you think about just putting that info in one place on the V'rix faction page, and linking to the relevant info from each page?
Yes, makes sense; "Ways to get positive V'rix faction" should be on the main V'rix page. The V'rix seem to have had new missions added as recently as 2022 (as somebody noted in the mission ""S1CR3F3C2") - yesterday I found another (Deliver V'rix Supplies, and who knows, there may be more, although at his current OL132, T2Z is not yet giving my TS anything more than those missions just mentioned. I was a bit disappointed in that after working to get +732 faction with the V'rix, my TS is still getting shot at! Will keep working on it to get him from "orange" to "green" status with them to see if that helps.
Did you see my wikified V'rix translator tooltip templates?? What do you think of that! They also add the page to Category:V'rix automatically so every page where a V'rix translation gets done will also show up in that category!
Codemonkeyx (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I saw the hover-over-the-vrix -language tool-tips - they're great! Love 'em - super convenient, no fuss information access! β Winlander (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, that was fun to make... pro-tip, you can use vdecode to get ones that aren't links to whatever the text is (they just link to Category:V'rix), and vldecode is for linking to pages that are in V'rix. Codemonkeyx (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Yesterday I found a new V'rix mission (Deliver V'rix Supplies) for which nobody had created a page, so I got a chance to play around with vldecode... which I saw turned blocks of text into red-links that shouldn't have been red-links.. then browsing here I noticed your vdecode module and switched over to that - worked a treat! But a query.. I got to browsing over at Template:Vldecode/doc and noted your example-syntax for both vldecode & vdecode runs along the lines of:
{{vldecode|message=1M1HSW3LL|spoiler=yes}}
Before reading that, I had utilised a "codemonkey-see, codemonkey-do"(!) approach - what I found in your code had neither the "message=" or "|spoiler=yes" parts, and all worked okay without them... So should I use those bits? Were they part of a planning stage that you're not bothering with any more, or are they something new that you've added?
As far as message= goes, either syntax works (they check for message first, and failing that, they check for the first positional param, 1)... I told you I was inconsistent about positional vs. named params on templates with few params! For the documentation I obviously used the named params, but I guess when I was implementing it in places I used it without!
As for spoiler, it is intended to be an optional param (with a default of yes), but it was also added after the fact, and had its meaning flipped after I created it, lol, but see below...
Also, I noted by making "spoiler=no" that V'rix wiki-code turns into English on the displayed page. Was bit puzzled by this, as having the English already exposed without the user choosing to hover over it surely is a "spoiler"? Shouldn't the switch terminology be around the other way? That is, "spoiler=no" (default value if no switch specified) leaves the native V'rix language displayed on the wiki-page, and "spoiler=yes" exposes the English to the user without the user's choice?
Yeah, this became a bit of a mess and I think I got myself wrapped around the axle, lol. This is layers upon layers of confusion so perhaps you can help me sort it out. It turns out that when you have encoding and decoding inverting the meaning, and a link, a tooltip, and the text that is actually displayed... it gets very confusing. In my first version of it the entire meaning was reversed as "encode" did just what you might expect, you gave it English, it spit out V'rix on the page, and decode did the reverse. I added "spoiler" to solve the problem of wanting the decode to only show the decoded text in the popup on some pages, but quickly realized that I was having to add spoiler basically everywhere because the common case is having a string of V'rix text (from some game entity or mission text) and wanting to show it as it appears in-game, but provide the translation via tooltip. But rarely I did want the ability to show the English directly (i.e. for V'rix items like 1M1HS1NG2R to show the decoded name in the title ("AMAHSANGER")... though now I'm having second thoughts about whether we even want to do that... but some pages were already doing that in places so I wasn't too sure). Anyway, my reckoning was that "spoiler=yes" meant "show it like it's in a spoiler tag" (i.e. hide it), and so that's why the default is "spoiler=yes". In hindsight maybe I should have called the parameter "spoiler_tag" or "hide_translation"? There is also the problem that what I did makes some sense for decode, but for encode it's a little odd that "spoiler=yes" shows the English text (i.e. it's hiding the translation still, consistent in that sense). Maybe the whole idea should be predicated on whether the V'rix text is shown or not, i.e. a "show_vrix=yes" which is the default? Take a look at Module:Vrix and the examples on that page. I fleshed out the documentation some more but didn't change the implementation yet so you can at least see what I was going for, then let me know if you still think it should be changed. I'm not opposed to changing it at all as I also agree it's a bit confusing as it was confusing to me while making it!! The fact that spoiler can be interpreted two different ways is also not ideal (the "spoiler tag" way I was thinking of it, i.e. whether the result of the method is a spoiler and should be hidden or not, or the way you are interpreting it as "should the result be spoiled". I think I was leaning toward the former because only the person calling the template understands the context of which text they provided vs. which text should be shown and whether that constitutes a spoiler or not, so the idea of the parameter was to allow them to specify whether the result should be hidden. Your interpretation assumes that the method can determine whether something is a spoiler, and perhaps it can if we assume that English is always a spoiler. Perhaps I'm just guilty of providing too many varieties here covering a lot of cases that probably won't ever be needed as the use cases for encode are extremely limited and basically come down to someone wanting to write the wikicode in English but have it show up on the page in V'rix. Anyway, review that module page and let me know if any of these other suggestions sound better to you. I'm leaning toward "show_vrix=yes" as that seems like both what is desired 99% of the time, and much more obvious about what you'll get in any given scenario.
Is there any reason that pages like e.g. Component Categories shouldn't just be the content of Category:Component? Since all of the content there is subcategories it seems like a logical place to have that table and explanation rather than it being on a separate page.
On a similar note, where did that nice table of weapon categories you put in that talk page conversation end up at? Seems like it should go on Category:Weapon?
I took the text and table from the Component Categories page, polished it a bit, and added it to the Category:Component page, as suggested. There are only a few things linking to the old Component Categories page: I'll re-point them and then delete that old page.
Starting a new section to discuss this particular topic further (it was mentioned up above in the middle of the "Other" convo which has now also been broken out into another section for follow-up (and the original long, meandering thread archived).
Check out Missile Launchers - L1 Comparison.. I've noticed when trying to calculate the 200%DPS I keep getting a result just under exactly double the 100% value, and that 100% x 2 value is less than the Net-7 DB's advertised 200% value! I'm guessing it might be some undisclosed decimal value beyond 1 or 2 decimal places. Can you spot where the calculations are differing? Am at the moment divided as to whether I trust my own calculations, or go with the Net-7 DB, which I would hope are correct and just concealing something in the calculation.
There was never any reply on that forum post; did you make a decision on how to proceed with this?
What is the state of the current comparison pages; right now all the DPS 200% columns just seem to be β¬β¬ which I assume are placeholders since you hadn't decided the best way to do the calculation?
There is currently a note that says "There is, of course, the potential for a looted NonMF item to have a quality value above or below 100% but, as this spreadsheet can't easily be coded for every eventuality, a 100%NonMF vs 200%PM comparison is all you get!"; however I think it's important to not under represent things either so I would recommend we attempt to show a "DPS Max%" column rather than 200%, and for items like Prototype items, use 125% instead of 200% in the calculation. Obviously don't worry about 85%-124%; this chart is mostly just to put an upper bound on things. But right now if you sort the 100% DPS column it makes the Prototype weapons look like the best weapons across the board which is obviously misleading (and undoubtedly the motivation behind the 200% column in the first place, but then it will be misleading in the opposite direction). I know it may be unclear on some items what the Max% is, but we can just try to do our best, most NonMf things that are looted max at 125%, but then there are mission rewards which seem to vary; most are 100% (heart shields, Emptor's Advantage, The Cygni Express, Source of Inspiration, Shroud of the Optimal, Most Freezing Snowball Launcher Mk. I), others are up to 125% and random (Pumpkin Chunker, Eyeball Popper) -- so maybe most equipment mission rewards are all fixed at 100%? Probably a good starting assumption. We could have a "Max%" column indicating our best estimate for what the "Max%" is based on these factors, and then use that to calculate the "DPS Max%" column?
Evidence of in-game existence of an old NonMf item at 163% Quality, displayed by Mjie/Traderjoel on 12Jan2024Regarding your point (1), apologies: have been a bit busy and put this task on the back-burner for a while.. My thinking on the matter is to just go with the 200% DPS as advertised in each gun's related ammo specs in the Net-7 DB. This way, folks won't get confused as to why there are value differences, and if you want to screen-scrape that 200% DPS value from the Net-7 DB for any reason in future, there won't be a problem.
Re point (2), you're quite correct: "β", "βΊ", and "β¬β¬" are simply placeholders, so I can more easily spot where to add the data when the time comes.
Re point (3), I like the idea of changing the 200% DPS to "DPS Max%" -this would sort NonMf items better, but I was worried that all NonMf items might not have a max 125% value.. After asking for spur-of-the-moment comments in guild chat, I was updated that a game fix from some time ago should limit NonMf's to 125% max, but there could be old items still in game that exceed this level.. I was shown proof (albeit a device, not a weapon) of the existence of a 163% NonMf as per the image at right. TL;DR: Yes, I'll calculate a 125% value for the NonMf Beams, MLs, and PLs.. and add an appropriate note to explain the "DPS Max% column.
Wow, that 163% NonMf item is wild, thanks for that screenshot! And yeah, I'm glad you liked this idea because it will make these tables even more valuable than they already are. I've been spending a lot of time looking at these lately as I've been actually playing the game and I can't express how incredibly grateful I am that they exist!
I'm starting to get back to the long-delayed ML comparison pages and discovered the Max% DPS calculated value problem disappears if I use the 200% value for the RELOAD statistic shown from a list of search-results from the Net7 DB for all MLs of a particular level. Previously, I was going into each gun's specific page, where I found the 200% RELOAD value can differ from that shown in the result-list, giving the perplexing calculation results! Why the values differ, is still a mystery.
Things were almost starting to make sense to me during the last round when I discovered the bizarre relationship that the average had, but this... I can't explain this at all. These new values don't even fall into the same line! I made a follow-up forum post with a new updated spreadsheet and a whole lot more attempts at trying to divine WTF is going on here, but Β―\_(γ)_/Β―
FWIW if we're going to show the search "Stats" values for DPS Max% then I think we should also change Dmg Max% and Reload Max% to be the corresponding numbers from that Stats column as well such that DPS=Dmg/Reload (rounding be damned).
Here's my first stab at creating a template for making data entry easier on the weapon comparison pages; looking at the tables it seemed the Missile and Projectile tables have the same columns so I just created this one template for both (check out this link to view the documentation): {{MPLCompareRow}}
I made two changes to your original table:
I added a "Max%" column with the intention of showing what we believe the maximum quality possible for this item is (100,125,200, etc.) and what the DPS calculations are based off of.
I decided that for items which can't be 200%, the entire row should be highlighted rather than just a couple columns like you had done before as these items really do need to stand out as most likely not as good despite perhaps looking tempting if you just looked at the DPS column rather than DPS Max %, i.e. pretty much all prototype weapons. I also found myself questioning whether there is even any value in including all the 100% columns in the table. Frankly all anyone will ever care about is the maximum potential. By this same token it might make sense to simply sort the table by DPS Max% by default.
I went ahead and applied this to just one of the comparison pages so you can have a look and give me any feedback before I apply it to all the others: Missile Launchers - L1 Comparison, what do you think?
I also plan to create a similar template for the Beam comparison pages, but for this initial look I didn't think that was necessary because it's going to be the exact same sort of thing with a different name and some slightly different fields.
I had some other ideas for this and went a bit crazy. I was able to calculate about half the values in the wiki page itself! As a proof of concept of other things we could do I also added the ammo stack size and a new calculated field "MPAS: Minutes Per Ammo Stack" to give some idea of ammo rate vs. cargo efficiency.
This limits the number of items which need to be included into the template to the bare minimum and only uses the base 100% values which it uses to calculate all the ones people actually care about and show those instead (the Max% numbers). It also supports any arbitrary Max% from 100%-200%, so the values for e.g. Prototype items will be accurate for their best case scenario.
I separated out the values by Ammo and Launcher to differentiate which things are coming from where and also included the Max% values for each as this varies, so you can tell if each of the Ammo and the Launcher are manufacturable, and if one of them isn't (or has a Max% under 200% for any other reason) the row gets colored with a red background.
Finally, I sorted it by DPS by default as that's probably the thing people care the most about.
Have a look at the proof-of-concept page for this, Codemonkeyx/ML1C, especially the relatively few params that are required to make it function. I think it should be much easier to populate these pages with this template. What do you think?
Heya Winlander, I hope you're doing well, I know there was a lot here but if you could give me a thumbs up/down and some feedback on at least these two pages I posted previously? I'd like to get these ML/PL comparisons updated sooner rather than later since much of the existing data is wrong now for MLs. Mainly you can just focus on these two as examples of what I think we should change them all to (the level 2 pages because that includes the first tier of prototype weapons which exercise some unique functionality in the underlying template):
Hi Code, sorry for the delay in looking at this. Per our in-game discussion today, I have updated the names of the following two templates to the names you suggested:
The old names were converted to redirects so that nothing broke; these can be deleted once the code in pages calling on them is updated.
Have culled a lot of my wordiness and superseded stuff out of the text in Template:WepComparison-Launchers, and have added Template:Launchers Header and Template:L1 Missile Launchers into the pages Missile Launchers - L1 Comparison and Missile Launchers - L2 Comparison. I saw how the spreadsheet you sent me concatenates fields into the string needed for the Template:L(x) Missile Launchers series of templates, and have started to populate L3's, but have run out of time for the moment. Will get back to this on the weekend!
I just noticed old template name "Template:MPLCompareRow3" was being called on in Template:L1 Missile Launchers, Template:L2 Missile Launchers, Template:L1 Projectile Launchers, and Template:L2 Projectile Launchers. No page had broken as there is a redirect in place to catch this anachronism, but I've now updated their code so that they all call on the new name Template:MPLCompareRowInter β and "Template:MPLCompareRow3" and "Template:MPLCompareRow2" are no more!
Also, from the maxDPS figures against the relevant ammo in NET-7, it appears that V'rix Modified launchers have a standard 100% quality. There was one each in L2 and L3 MLs, and when I changed the "Max%" (Column K) value in your spreadsheet to "100" for them, the "Ammo+Launcher" NET-7 figures & the Spreadsheet's calculations coincided. I'm thinking once this spreadsheet is fully populated, we should perhaps back-up a zipped copy to the wiki somewhere; the concatenated string in your AG-column is so handy - it takes all the pain and cross-eyedness away!
You need to keep in mind that the Net-7 DB website is very limited in its approach and it's not capturing the full complexity of what is available in-game. The Net-7 DB makes some MAJOR simplifying assumptions so as not to look like my spreadsheet. For one thing, of the various combinations of ammo quality (which affects damage per shot) and launcher quality (which affects reload) (both of which affect DPS) it doesn't consider the combinations of looted/vendor ammo with a PM launcher, or vice versa. Likewise for weapons which are PM it shows a 200% value, but for ones which are non-MF BUT *which can be looted from 85% to 125%* it doesn't show that 200% value, for obvious reasons because it's unobtainable, BUT IT ALSO doesn't show the 125% percent value, which IS possible. That is precisely the problem I'm trying to solve here with this whole Max% business; to compare the best possible versions of each weapon. So by you changing the V'rix Modified weapons to 100 you're undoing that, yes, it matches the Net-7 data, but that's because the Net-7 data is wrong for weapons which can go up to 125%.
And just in case it isn't clear, V'rix Modified weapons can go below 100% (I have a 95% Harvestman) and above 100% also:
So I believe that 125 is the appropriate number for V'rix Modified weapons and the data isn't going to match the Net-7 DB because the Net-7 DB doesn't show 125% values, only 100% (and 200% if manufacturable)... does that make sense?
The same is true for prototype weapons, I have some as low as 85% and one Prototype M 5 for example at 120%:
Apologies, have fixed the 3 or 4 entries I changed, back to 125%. I didn't have any V'rix Modified stuff on-hand to verify; thanks for the screenshots.
β19:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the V'rix fix (hah, the Codemonkey ryhmes!).
I had a little change of heart while looking at the latest DPS chart... I think I put the "Ammo" columns to the left so that the overall column order would be closer to what you originally had, but I'm thinking now that maybe it would make more sense to have the "Launcher" columns first, then the "Ammo" columns? One of my main motivations for this is that I think the Max% for Ammo is far less frequently something other than 200% because NonMf Ammo is a lot less common than NonMf launchers.
Before you despair, consider that this is a very easy thing to change and need only change in a couple templates and voila it will be changed on all the pages created so far since the parameter order is disconnected from the column order.
So I can keep using the wiki-code which your spreadsheet concatenates, to populate the "Template:L(x) Missile Launchers" (etc) pages? Am preparing Level 5 at the moment.
I found the Ninja's Katana Ni (and Ninja's Katana San which I couldn't test because I don't have a Jenquai with L6 Projectile Weapon) that both have a longer range (3300, 3500) than their possible ammo's: Ninja's Katana Chemical Ammo and Ninja's Katana Impact Ammo (3200). Surprisingly enough, with the Ninja's Katana Ni (3300) equipped using the Ninja's Katana Chemical Ammo (3200) my effective range was 3.3K... longer than the supposed range of the ammo. The moral of the story here seems to be that the range values on the ammo are irrelevant; the only value that matters is the range value on the launchers. This is a bit annoying for MLs since the range values for the MLs are only shown on the search page and not on the item page.
The good news here is that I think we can simplify this by moving the range value back under the launcher headings and then exclusively using the launcher values for range regardless of whether it is lower or higher than the ammo; it doesn't matter. The actual in-game range is whatever the launcher range is, period.
TL;DR: ML's use the ammo range, and PL's use the launcher range. karu fixed everything on the website so ranges are only shown for PL's and missiles, and not on ML's or projectiles. A bit confusing and a weird design choice in my opinion, but it neatly explains everything I was seeing, and now the website is correct, if perhaps not a little confusing that the two operate differently. This also complicates things a little more for us as now there is a subtle difference between the ML's and PL's and I want to make sure we represent that accurately both on the item pages and on these comparison charts. I will take care of most of that, but the hurdles for you will be to:
Make sure you've used the correct range values for all PL's (from the launcher) and ML's (from the ammo) so far. It is unlikely there are any issues so far because nearly all the ML and missile values were the same, and because the PL values tended to be lower than the projectile values and you were using the lower value anyway, but perhaps worth double-checking those first few levels.
You'll now have to check the range differently for each, but both still show up on the item page, just one shows up on the PL itself and the other shows up in the ammo box for missiles.
This means we still have the complication to deal with for MLs that have ammo with different ranges as this shows that is still possible. My recommendation is the same as before, split the rows for any MLs which have ammo with different values into separate rows so there will be multiple entries for the same launcher with different ammo. For example, for the Spore launcher you brought up which is especially difficult since it has two different ammo of the same type (Chemical). For this I would recommend just using some superscripts as a hint that something unusual is going on and making them links to the ammo types themselves:
I went ahead and made the above update, but also set max_launch_qual=100 because I managed to find a Mazzaroth Reaper Spore Launcher last night (drop location updated!) and it was exactly 100% so odds are they will only drop at 100%, though we'll need to find a couple more to be absolutely sure:
It's rather tragic just how terribly bad this thing is for a L5 ML given how much trouble it's giving us!! Absolute bottom of the DPS chart... even when using the "super" Not Manufacturable, Not Tradable ammo... seems pretty ridiculous... for how hard that ammo is to obtain it should be the top DPS L5 option!!
Saw your update, and have added a "Notes" section at the bottom of the page to explain the 1 and 2 reference numbers explicitly. Also, have found another gun which uses ammo from two different levels: PL L5 F4RC24FTH2W1TCH2R (ammo levels 5 and 9), and I've added this gun in the same way, with two seperate table rows, following your example. Notes section added too (will need to add pages for the ammo of this gun, as they are both red-links atm).
Regarding the re-checking af all the range stats, I've decided to put this on the back-burner for now, so that I can push ahead with ML & PL Comparison pages for Levels 6 to 9... otherwise you'll be waiting even longer for your L9 stats! I promise (trooly-reely) once L9 is done, I will go back and double-check the range stats for MLs & PLs Levels 1 to 4!
Well, finally, after ages I am back at it: have just uploaded the next lot of statistics for Missile Launchers - L6 Comparison and updated that page to remove its hard-coded table. Noticed you've been making a lot of improvements to Template:WepComparison-Launchers this month, and I had to concatenate variables to reconstruct the next needed data template name! (Template:L6 Missile Launchers). That'll teach me not to make a note! I haven't checked the data for non-implemented guns (to format the line to red characters).. How were you verifying - checking for no existing builders?
Yeah, in order to fix all the dark mode issues I had to make a lot of changes to those pages so rather than make the same changes 9 times, I decided to make it DRY. :)
As far as determining not implemented; yeah, there's no solid method... mostly it's just from experience of playing I've figured out things that don't actually exist and found various ways of confirming that. As you mention, for manufacturable items if there are no builders that's a pretty solid indication (that or NO ONE has found it yet!!!) Aside from those things I also often employ the "wide band delphi estimation technique"... i.e. I ask a bunch of people and average the results. If the consensus among titans like Anti, Kaz, and Tef are all saying it's not in the game I'm inclined to trust them unless I can prove otherwise! At the end of the day the wiki is just the best information we have and if we get it wrong, someone will correct it eventually! (Cunningham's Law!!)
By the way, Code, I've just invented a brand new Collective Noun for all your pages which call other pages which call other pages etc: "An Onion of Templates"! This way, we can refer to a page served up with multiple templates as "steak and onions"!
I'm hungry now.
Yeah, the nature of mediawiki meta-template programming is definitely onion-like... perhaps also ogre-like. Believe it or not the plethora of templates is my attempt at making things simpler. Perhaps it might take a bit longer to find the right place to change, but my hope is that once you find that place you can affect a large number of pages with one change instead of having to go modify a bunch of pages which all contain the same content.
Any idea how that happened? Are they in your spreadsheet? Since it was the first two rows I'm guessing it may have just been a copy/paste error where the first two rows got left off?
I also went back and reviewed all the ML 1-7 and PL 1-6 pages for good measure, and these were the only omissions. One thing I did notice though is that I sorted the first two levels of demo pages (ML L1-L2 and PL L1-L2) in descending order of DPS which I think is the right default sort order since that's the number 1 takeaway from these pages and one of their biggest value-adds. We have the column sort headings so if people want to see them alphabetically for some reason they can still do that (like I just did so I could easily compare side-by-side with the Net-7 DB search of e.g. Category='Projectile Weapon (C)' and Level=7 and have things show up in the same order). Can you update the L3-L7 and eventually the L8-L9 pages accordingly? Or if you'd like you can send me the spreadsheet so far and I'd be happy to do it.
In any case, excellent work, I'm getting excited to have these finished up through L9 and I guess I better get to work on a whole new bloomin' onion of templates for the beams comparison pages!!! π
Thanks, Code! Looking at the spreadsheet, I did and do have the L7 Dog's Fang and L7 Emerald Hand Seven PLs; what I think happened is that I simply misjudged the rows of wiki-code that I copied. The Last L7 ML is a red-background (MonMF item) row, as are the rows for these first two PLs: I think my eye just lumped all the red lines together and copied the list of PLs from the first Manufacturable PL row which had a no-fill background. Thanks for noticing and adding them!
With regard to alphabetical order being used (rather than Max% DPS), I have done it that way for convenience while I am constantly checking figures. Firstly, in the NET-7 DB I can order all the launchers of a particular level alphabetically, but sorting by DPS is impossible. Comparing
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 to 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 is much less laborious than comparing
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 to 14,7,1,3,11,9,10,8,2,15,4,13,6,5,12.
As other stuff has been keeping me busy, I've just been trying to plough/plow through/threw(!) the inputting stage, and worry about formatting later. I've no objection to the data being re-ordered to DPS, but only after I've finished entering them! Was going to visit this (and the not-in-game-item text-colour-highlighting) when the data-entry was done. BTW, I was planning, in any case, to send you a copy of the completed spreadsheet as a backup (I believe an old SAS motto goes "You got two, you got one. You got one you got none.").
Okays... I am going to get into the L8 MLs right now! Cheers!
That all makes sense to me and sounds good to me. I like that SAS motto, very wise, like the sound of some painful lived experience! The color highlighting is definitely a moving target, seems like every day I learn about some new item that I'd never heard of before which isn't in the game.
Okay! At last, all ML & PL page tables are using the new Templates! Some tasks remain, however..
1) Checking of not-in-game items, but I see you've been sweeping up behind me on this issue, Code, so no doubt you'll catch the L9's pretty quickly. Thanks for taking that off my plate!
2) Want to chat regarding the MaxDPS value for NonMF items - the values in the wiki are your spreadsheet's calculated values, not the max DPS as specified in the wiki. I haven't got my calculator out yet, but I'm wondering if this is because you're using 125% gun quality values and the wiki is using 100%...?
3) I've noticed two or guns in the NET-7 DB have a duplicated ammo type in the gun's info-page. The name of the ammo is correct, but the ammo type listed at the right hand side of the page can read something like, "Impact, Impact, Plasma", when the ammo names listed might be "Explosive, Impact, Plasma". I've noted two, but I think I missed highlighting one, so I'll go looking for that one before approaching Karu for a fix to NET-7.
4) Ordering tables by DPS as the Default Column.. Will look at this soon, but have to log for now as very late here.
Re: #2 above, I'm not sure what you're referring to, can you give a more specific example? Generally speaking everything being calculated on the wiki should be getting calculated the same way (e.g. using the 100% values as the basis, and working out the Max% values from there using the constants we learned from Karu.) If there is a discrepancy there is probably a bug somewhere so point me at exactly what you're seeing and we'll figure it out.
I know you put a lot of time and effort into the category stuff so I just wanted to give you a heads up about a new one I just added, along with some related templates:
● {{Not Implemented}} - this is intended to go at the very top of every page which belongs in this category adding an impossible to miss banner and the category to the page
● {{Not Implemented Heal the Shear}} - A blurb specific to all the items tied to the not implemented "Heal the Shear" missions
● {{Not Implemented No Builders}} - A blurb for supposedly manufacturable items that have NO builders listed on the Net-7 DB (i.e. not so manufacturable!) - this can probably be used in a lot more places than I've found so far
I made Category:Meta the parent of this tentatively, let me know what you think.
I'm also thinking we should add a Category:Added In Emulator in the same vein. We probably don't want a header on every page for something added in the Emulator... but maybe we do want something small and unobtrusive?
Here's what I could come up with for a potential Category:Added In Emulator from the Main page and other things I'm aware of; anything else to add? I'm guessing lots more items...
I was doing some work on the gear guides and remembered something that threw me off when I first started; the gear guides all have the "High-Level Content" image right at the top, so when you go there as a newbie it's not immediately obvious that the page contains a bunch of information you're probably interested in... AT THE BOTTOM!
I'm thinking we should split all the gear guides into two, a High-Level / Best in Slot guide, and a Leveling Guide... thoughts?
Sounds good. I didn't analyse the history, but looking at, say Progen Privateer Gear Guide, it seems the lower level stuff got added over time, causing the page material to creep beyond its original scope... I'm thinking we might create a Category:High Level Gear Guide, and nest it under Category:High Level Content like Category:Raid already is..
I like Category:High Level Gear Guide, I'll do the same thing for Category:Leveling Gear Guide and create a Category:New Player Guide as well as a sub-category of Category:Guide. We could stand to split the New Player Tutorial/Guide up into smaller chunks as that page is a monster for a new player to be thrown into. I can add all the various race, class, and profession guides there as well and move the details from the current New Player Tutorial/Guide to the individual profession guides as appropriate. I think the New Player Tutorial/Guide should only contain a very high-level and brief description of each as when trying to wade through 9 new things all at once it's a bit much to expect them to read several pages of detailed info. We need the bite-sized version of each with just enough to give them an idea of which they're most interested in, then a link to all the details.
Yup that New Player Tutorial/Guide page is probably daunting to a new player... at the very least, the sections on each profession should probably be shorter/summarised, and the content currently there merged gracefully into the dedicated page for each of the professions.. I agree.. bite size summaries with links to fuller articles.
While certainly a page each for "High Level Gear Guide", "Leveling Gear Guide", and "New Player Guide", would there be enough pages related to each to warrant a category for each as well? Wouldn't a single sub-category (nested under Category:Guide) such as "Category:Levelling (or Leveling, if a Commonwealth-English double-l will freak too many people out) Guide" be enough?
