From Star Trek Timelines
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Was wondering what people thought of Da Vinci's Workshop Holoprogram as being a template for items? I do know it still needs some refinement when it comes to the crafting part of it, to show some consistency between Item List, Location of Item, and Cost to combine. Eeb3 (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2016 (MST)

Nav Box

Just made/started a Navbox idea for Similar Looking Items, so it could have a more central repository, wanted to get some people's opinion. (Will be made to be 'collapsed' later) Nav Box Idea
--Eeb3 (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2016 (CDT)

Made a template {{SLINav}} Where you just call for a specific base item, and will only show those related items, instead of an entire list of items (that would need to be then collapsed)--Eeb3 (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2016 (CDT)

Writing Padd for Lt Com Data lvl 90

I have 1 from somewhere but still need another 7 from The Mad Vedek on epic level to write a poem about Spot.

These are my attempts so far,

38 x 16 = 608 chronitons

Pattern Enhancer 2* - 6

Isolinear Chips _* - 8

Expansion Module 1* - 101

Expansion Module 2* - 28

Writing Padd - 0

Give up?

Full craft costs?

Should we list the full build costs of items somewhere, or even the build trees? It can be rather excessive to collect these, though...
I am currently outfitting Constable Odo, who needs an Uncommon Odo's Uniform ★★ at lvl 30 (...and 40...and 50... x-P ). I used Google Sheets to reconstruct the build tree, and the total cost for ONE of these things is:

Any volunteers to reverse-engineer these lists for all variants of all items, and add them to each variant of each item? x-D --Crunch (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2016 (CDT)

Reward Listings

Id like to suggest that normal missions (i.e. Away missions and space battles) be separate from cadet challenges on item pages. In other words, have 4 possible categories: Standard, rare, Cadet standard, Cadet Rare. The pages are very difficult to read now with a mixture of different types of missions. --Titan (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2016 (CDT)

I tend to disagree. Do you have a specific example in mind? --Tygra Dax (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2016 (CDT)
With the new icons next in the mission names depicting Away Away.png, Space Battle Space.png, and Cadet Missions Ticket.png, I think the only separation needed is for Standard and Rare rewards (and of course the Faction Centers). Database (Panel) and Science Experiment are good examples of how it looks with a mix of missions and cadet challenges under the Standard and Rare headings. Jello (talk) 08:03, 25 May 2016 (CDT)

Changing Item format

As some may have seen I've been working on a way to streamline the mission walkthrough a bit, and hopefully simpler for people to edit. One question I have for the other players/editors/readers is which format of the items would you people like better:

  Normal Size as on Mission pages Font-size:85% as on Item Pages
Option A:
Current Format
Option B:
Option C:
  Mission/Crew pages only Item Page
Option D: Koba44's
suggestion for Character
pages (see here),
but with smaller icons
StarfleetUniformENTBasic.png RecipeBookCommon.png PsychologyTextUncommon.png Please See
Option A, B, or C
for Item Page Choice
RayGunRare.png HoloprogramSuperRare.png Spacer.pngMultidimensionalTransporterDevice.pngFlipLegendary.png
Option E:
Crunch's suggestion
(combining option D
and current look)
StarfleetUniformENTBasic.png Starfleet Uniform (ENT) Please See
Option A, B, or C
for Item Page Choice
RecipeBookCommon.png Recipe Book Common
PsychologyTextUncommon.png Emory Erikson: Father of the Transporter Book UncommonUncommon
RayGunRare.png Captain Proton's Ray Gun RareRareRare
HoloprogramSuperRare.png Insurrection Alpha Holoprogram Super RareSuper RareSuper RareSuper Rare
Spacer.pngMultidimensionalTransporterDevice.pngFlipLegendary.png Multidimensional Transporter Device LegendaryLegendaryLegendaryLegendaryLegendary

You can also see format A and B on my User:Eeb3/MissionTest page.

Which do you prefer? (Due to particularities, Options D and E wouldn't be used for Item pages, only for Mission/Crew
You are not entitled to vote.
You are not entitled to view results of this poll.
There were 0 votes since the poll was created on 02:15, 18 August 2021.
poll-id 6F93F5A9D91ED0AF11C462AF01FF7F68

Hm, there are two (actually, three) new variants which might be considered...time to restart the poll? :o) --Crunch (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2016 (CDT)
(Combine the tables a bit, and renewed the polls) Eeb3 (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2016 (CDT)
  • I'd avoid making the code for Template:Item more complicated than it currently is because Template:ItemX is already pushing the parser expansion limit. Adding images will require a massive #switch statement. Each time you nest an #if, #expr, #switch or a template tag, it adds the the expansion depth. I had to work really hard to keep ItemX as light as possible to make Uhura's Earpiece work... each single parser statement in Template:Item will be expanded 6 times by the time you get to Basic Text Book. Heck, look what happens by the time you get to Text Book if all I do is wrap three expansions around Legendary Uhura's Earpiece:
  • x1 Common Expansion Module[e]
  • Note how the expansions suddenly makes ItemX unable to detect the existance of TextBook (says missing even though it is not). If you edit the above (in preview) and add just one more expansion, the whole thing collapses into unreadable garbage.— CodeHydro 21:10, 14 June 2016 (CDT)
    Just wanted to add to the above comment. In addition to losing the ability to detect Text Book's data template, you will also notice that the words "Basic" and the stars have disappeared.. that's because it hit the expansion limit ãfter expanding Template:Item's tag, but breaks before it completely executes Template:Item as attempts to use the #switch statement that selects rarity.— CodeHydro 21:36, 14 June 2016 (CDT)
    As I argued here, I think it is important for the Crew pages to include the item name, not just the picture, search-in-page being the major reason, but also ambiguity (just having a tooltip doesn't really help).
    Concerning the item format itself: I understand the concerns about the misalignment when keeping the Basic/Common/etc. modifier to the left. But I can't really warm up to these icons with the letter. It's kinda unintuitive what the letter stands for, even when you know what it's supposed to mean - hard to explain. And trying to translate a German expression, it quickly results in "glaring colors".
    I am reluctant to introduce yet another proposal, but CodeHydro's last modification to the current item template (=the "upwards shifted" rarity-text) got me an idea, and after playing a bit with that I believe I found a solution that combines many of the advantages, and reduces several disadvantages: User:Crunch/ItemTest
    • left-alignment is being kept
    • rarity-text is still present (searchability, recognizability), but reduced in importance by making it much smaller and truly superscript
    • ...which aligns it at the same time with the stars
    • the IMHO obtrusive coloring of both the large text and especially the icons is avoided
    • the amount of required space is minimized --Crunch (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2016 (CDT)
    • I don't think we need to modify the poll for that. This change is just a minor variant of the current version, which we can discuss in a separate poll after this one resolves. Actually, I'd consider all the choices where Item pages and Character pages have different templates to be the same basic idea; they all boil down to "keep it simple for recipe pages and make items on crew pages include images." In fact, I think idea of "make item templates specialized for recipe and crew pages" has already won. What we should do now is make two polls to decide which recipe item and which crew item designs should win. (PS: I would modify crunch's suggestion a little bit. Isn't showing icons and stars a bit redundant since the item picture has the stars already? — CodeHydro (msg) 18:05, 18 June 2016 (CDT)
    Concerning your PS: Please take a look here here (Paragraph "A possible compromise..."), where I already answered that. IMHO the extra stars help a lot, visually. --Crunch (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2016 (CDT)
    • McCoy's Scrubs just totally blew my mind with its depth. I thought can't get deeper than Legendary Uhura's Earpiece... and Legendary McCoy's Scrubs goes 2 levels deeper! — CodeHydro (msg) 15:13, 25 June 2016 (CDT)

    Sorting order of Locations in Crafting Tables

    I noticed Writerguy731 recently modified the sort order of the where-to-find-locations of several Crafting Tables on item pages (for example, here). From what I can tell I believe he changed it from purely alphabetical to 1. Ship/Away 2. Chroniton use.
    IMHO it's not a bad idea. Alphabetical order seems rarely useful in that context, as you (or at least me) usually are looking for the missions with the fewest chroniton usage, and most missions with chronitons above 10 often have requirements well beyond 300, which only very advanced players can manage. So a sorting order by chroniton use seems sensible.
    Sorting by mission type is probably not a bad idea either, both visually and for the reason that you often try to fill your daily mission contingent so you choosing the mission type first, and then think about how many chronitons you want to spend.
    Other, even more useful sort keys (that are difficult to implement and maintain, though) would be the skill requirement you'll need, or maybe even the drop chance (but we don't have enough DropTests for that yet).
    So what would be your preferences/suggestions? --Crunch (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2016 (CDT)

    • I personally don't think we should even care about order for item pages. Even for items dropped by a very large number of missions, it takes what 30 seconds to read through the whole list? I personally don't really care about the chroniton cost as long as I can do it and it has good drop rates. Sorting the missions just seems like a lot of unnecessary work IMO and our time is better spent improving other areas on the wiki. — CodeHydro (msg) 21:31, 18 June 2016 (CDT)

    Medical Scanner?

    Are there two different types of Medical Scanner with the same icon? One type comes from A Logical Response Ep 01. The other from A Popular Item in Ep 02. I'm levelling up McCoy who needs basic Medical Scanners at level 30, 47 basic scanners in my inventory, 0 available to use in the build.

    Asked here during the event, --Elemntee (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2016 (CDT)

    • Yes there are two Medical Scanner with the same image and which cannot be used interchangeably. I pointed it out to DB over a month ago. They gave a lame response like "Always get items from the suggested missions to ensure you get the right one" -_- Maybe if a lot of people email them and complain at the same time it would work. This is not the only item however; I've found clones of Starfleet Test Cylinder and Quantum Chronometer though I haven't pointed those out to DB since my last attempt felt like such a waste of time. I didn't add a warning message at the time because I hoped DB would fix it... but I'll do that now. — CodeHydro (msg) 09:30, 21 June 2016 (CDT)
    Thanks. Ugh, is it really that difficult to change the colour of the icon at least? I've farmed loads of Quantum Chronometers and didn't notice, cheers for the info. --Elemntee (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2016 (CDT)
    McCoys Scrubs up until level 80 have used only one type of medical scanner now his level 80 Scrubs need both types just to add to the humour :D --Elemntee (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2016 (CDT)
    Please add the recipe info to McCoy's ScrubsCodeHydro (msg) 07:00, 23 June 2016 (CDT)
    Np, sorry didn't have time this morning will update later.--Elemntee (talk) 07:19, 23 June 2016 (CDT)

    Expansion Fix Parsability

    I'm noticing that a number of basic items have been getting some sort of "expansion fix" that replaces the neat tags with a bunch of garbled looking code. For example, Template:ItemX/Civilian_Security_Clothing/0. I realize this is for a good usability reason in the wiki, but one disadvantage is that the pages become difficult to parse. I've been working on wiki parsing lately (see: [1]), and it's bumming me out that all the basic equipment is disappearing for me. Specifically, I'm having trouble figuring out where the item quantities are in the expansion fix template. Thoughts? --Ophydre5 (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2016 (CDT)

    Yeah, a bunch of that's me. I only recently realized that when converting several pages to the ItemPage template, I'd introduced an expansion error, and this is the fix. It is important for wiki usability; it's what keeps the nice item recipe trees working. For what it's worth, I'm think I'm done fixing the things I broke now.
    I don't know anything about wiki parsing, but if you're looking for the item quantities, they're still in there. Using your example of Template:ItemX/Civilian_Security_Clothing/0, the first non-comment line begins with {{#ifeq:2|recipeonly||<li style="white-space:nowrap">x{{#if:2|2|1}}. It's actually in that bit of code twice: both the number after the #ifeq (and before recipe only), and then again just after the x with {{#if:2|2|1}} (which is a really fancy way of saying "2"). So the first item of the recipe, in this case Clothing Pattern, has a quantity of two. Similarly, the later code for the other recipe item, Security Reports, has a quantity of 1, so it begins with {{#ifeq:1|recipeonly||<li style="white-space:nowrap">x{{#if:1|1|1}}. Does that help at all? bntracy (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2016 (CDT)
    It seems to me that a lot of the substituted code should be unnecessary since the basic items in ItemX templates are functionally just dressed up links as they don't expand any further. It might be possible to remove some of the excess code to improve readability and accessibility. SleepingDragon (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2016 (CDT)

    Replicator and Items

    Need to know what cost in basic material to replicate and item is.

    Also need to know how much item is worth in basic material if used in replicator. ‎--WaldoMag (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2016

    Replicator --Crunch (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2016 (CDT)
    Ehm... it tells you exactly those two things - half the page contains just tables to explain it. The cost of replicating a Rare Equipment is 580 basic items, or 580 fuel points. An Uncommon Equipment is worth like 5 Basic Items, or 5 fuel points. Am I completely misunderstanding your question? --Dhrekr (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2016 (CDT)

    Thanks Crunch I must have missed that there was a link on the item page. Now the tough part to calculate the average replicator gain per a run for a mission.

    Ti = Total of item i's collected on a mission; Fi = item i's Replicator fuel value; Tn = Total of all items collected; Nr = Number of items collected per a run; Cr = Cost in chronitons per a run; Formula: Replicator Gain =((Σ(Ti*Fi) for all i) * (Nr) / (Tn * Cr))

    A gain greater than one means you get more replicator Basic units per a run, the higher the better. Or multiply the Gain by Cr to get the average number of Basic replication units gained for a mission. Probably should be color coded to worse items probability accuracy.

    Item & Component Item Images

    I started this discussion to specify format of item images. I believe there should be consistency in images format (and stars position) in the same way as there was specified rules for Crew images. Currently there are three types of images (I added working names - standard, upper and small):

    DELETED IMAGE DELETED IMAGE Example item small.png
    standard position
    of stars (most common)
    upper posiotion
    of stars
    small stars

    I always tired to change upper versions of images with standard versions whenever it was possible. Those wersions was originally posted by Jello, when I started adding and are most common on wiki. Recently I noticed that Otto VonBacon changed some stardard versions with small versions. This created inconsistency, for example on user pages, where those images are used. I believe there should be one format of stars position specified, to be consistent, but lets talk about that.

    Other thing is a rule that images should have blank borders - this is not a problem, Im just mentioning it.

    normal border blank border

    What do you think? --Koba44 (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2017 (CST)

    I personally think that the Standard Position of Stars should become the standard rule for all item images. As for borders, I think that the blank border looks better, but this might be a bad example as the image above with the normal border has bad cropping with black corners overlapping the image border. I am going to start trying to organize item images into categories like I did for crew images, specifically [[Category:Item Image Rare]] and so on, which will hopefully make it easier to check all item images for borders/star positions. Hope this helps, Titantalk 01:55, 28 January 2017 (CST)
    I agree with you guys. Consistency is always good. The standard position sounds good, and the stars should not be small. Borders should also always be transparent. Good idea on creating the categories! --Crunch (talk) 08:34, 28 January 2017 (CST)
    Standard is certainly the best of the three. All item screenshots should be taken from this screen to facilitate this. Also, transparent boarders, of course. And while we're on the subject of standardization, item images should be 220x220px. I've come across a number of them that are not. Again, if you take the screenshot from the screen above then 220x220px is the perfect size. --Darxide (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2017 (CST)
    So, question is, if we will revert images, that Otto VonBacon changed already from standard to small. For example, I once tried to revert small version to standard, but my reverted correction was reverted back to small version (see history: I will proceed as we all agree, but I want to avoid multiple reverting of images to everybody own's "best" version. --Koba44 (talk) 12:44, 28 January 2017 (CST)
    Thanks for queuing me in Koba. I am completely fine with using a specific standard image but as mentioned in your example it would be good when "reverting" or changing to contact the person you also want to adhere to a specific standard to explain this decision. When I look around there appears to be no clear standard since so many people upload such different image styles and quality. I have no vested interest in any specific version and so I am fine with what ever the consensus is. I would however ask that when someone is uploading or adding a lot of info and there is a discussion on what "standard" to use to que them in at that time as to avert any sense of animosity. I have been adding things in good faith and have tried to upload the highest quality images and thus would like to be informed if there is a specific size or ratio that needs to me used because I will gladly use what ever is deemed best for the wiki. Otto VonBacon (talk) 10:22, 29 January 2017 (CST)
    I would like to point out that when looking at this screen you can see that it is easier to use images from the left since you can also use the items that are needed to grab images from and the quality is better as it doesn't have the bug that the center image is above the border. But again, I will simply go with the consensus I just wanted to show where I get the images from and why. Otto VonBacon (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2017 (CST)
    True is, that images are easier to capture and process before uploading, but problem is that only craftable items are possible to capture in this way. That means consistency in Item images is not possible. Thats the reason I asked if consistency is important of us. If so, we cant use those images although they could look better. --Koba44 (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2017 (CST)
    You make a good point. So are we also wanting a specific size (like the 220x220 mentioned above) or is it ok to simply upload the highest quality possible? Otto VonBacon (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2017 (CST)
    I agree the standard image is preferred. It's the one I always try to use. I haven't been making the border transparent, but I can do that from now on. --CaptainDurf (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2017 (CST)
    I, like the rest of you, would love some consistency with the images. The issues I see are times like with Wesley's Combadge where the Uncommon version isn't used and you can only get the image (if it's a new image, not in this particular case) from the left side of this screen. The stars are going to be inconsistent those times. Also, the specific size. The best I can do on my iPhone 6 is between 135x135 to 146x146. I'm trying to get shots like this that'll get me up to 197x197ish with the added benefit of editing the pic into blank ItemName(rareity).png file I have like this. ...shit, I see I've been using the small stars too. Well, I can change that no problem. I also upgraded the stars there (as best I could using Gimp) to:
    Just sayin' --Siguard (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2017 (CST)
    Damn.... I first thought you wrote; "I like the rest of you". Until I looked and you said "I, like the rest of you...." now I feel a little sad ;( Otto VonBacon (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2017 (CST)
    Haha, aww, I like you Otto VonBacon. Your <CrewName>_Head.png has been helping me make the <CrewName>_Head.png is a standard format. <3 --Siguard (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2017 (CST)
    I just created a modified {{Stars}} template in my sandbox, using the new StarItem image above. It looks much better (see bottom of my sandbox page for a comparison. If we could get a unfilled star icon of the same quality we could update the template and improve the quality throughout the wiki. See User:Titan/Sandbox/1 for the modified version i made.
    Just to show an example of the modified template here:
    Removed table because sandbox is no longer serving this purpose.
    As you can see the new file is infinitely more detailed. The template code is a bit longer, which could cause issues with template inclusion size, possibly? (instead of 1/2 files per call of the template, its however many total stars are being generated.
    My opinion on the borders is that we should consider using 2 formats, 1 for equipment, and 1 for components. That way we solve the issue of inconsistency between equipment that is never equipped and only used for crafting, like mentioned above with Wesley's Combadge uncommon. I think that might be an acceptable compromise. What do you think? Titantalk 20:05, 29 January 2017 (CST)
    Whatever is decided upon is fine by me as long as it isn't over complicating an already simple process. Right now, you take a screenshot, import it into an image editor, crop the icon and remove the outside borders. It's straight forward. I do like Otto VonBacon's use of the left item image since it doesn't have the ugly inside boarder problem, but it is a smaller image and will therefore be of a lower resolution. --Darxide (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2017 (CST)

    WHAT Siguard WROTE IS NOT A PROBLEM! (Not yelling, just to notice for everyone). Please notice in Wesley's Combadge image history, that I already uploaded that image with standard position of stars. How I did it? Well, from the "Equipment" button (next to Cryostasis Vault Button), you can take screen of ANY component, equipment, schematic that you have in standard version. Even items crafted for Galaxy event. So this really is not a problem :) --Koba44 (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2017 (CST)

    With that being said, id suggest that we adopt the rule for images of Standard position of stars. As for the border, i think that requires a little more discussion? Which border is obtained when taking image from equipment screen? (or are those added later?) Ive never uploaded an item image before, so im not sure. Titantalk 00:27, 30 January 2017 (CST)
    I think that border is not an issue. Screen is captured with border, so it must be cropped manually. But even if someone upload standard image with borders - that's not problem, because (if even necessary) someone can download it and crop them and reupload (I did that several times). --Koba44 (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2017 (CST)
    I don't think the boarder is a huge issue either. I'd say that the cropped border is preferred, but the uncropped version is ok. As far as the Stars, I'm all for the big stars in the normal position, like the one I uploaded last nightImporting file. --Siguard (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2017 (CST)

    Weren't there also people in the past who created the various rarity images themselves? I.e., they had the borders for all colors, and a star, and with the Basic version of an item for the center image, they could simply overlay all rarities in photoshop or similar. --Crunch (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2017 (CST)

    I didnt and I dont know, but I believe its possible to create only from the basic images. And those arent available for all items. --Koba44 (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2017 (CST)
    I, like Siguard seems to, have a psd file. It is a single photoshop file that has all rarities in it with the agreed on size of 220x220. I pull images from the right hand side of the game screen when selecting an item from a specific character and that will go into the psd without altering ssize, when there is only a item image with stars in it I pull that image from the right hand side as said and then pull the image of the same "equipped" item right next to the character image (so the smaller image in between the larger item image/ crewlist and the character) and import that in photoshop and increase its size by 168% to fit exactly "under" the image with stars. I then remove the stars with the erase tool having it set to 10 with soft round pressure and when the stars are gone but the bottom image fills the just removed item pieces I merge the two layers and with the same erase tool "soft erase" the boundary edges of the actual item image and make sure the item looks good on my item background after which I can save it in all rarities.Otto Vonbacon ❯❯❯ Talk 10:23, 8 March 2017 (CST)


    Crunch, that's the process I've followed for several images I've uploaded. Like others, I have a PSD file (one per rarity for me) that I use. It has three layers (background, border, stars). I don't use screenshots from the game, though. I'm using the raw images from the asset bundles DB uses. I paste the PNG extracted from the asset bundle in between the background and border. That has worked pretty well for me, and I'm able to easily create any item in any rarity.
    For others, where did the 220x220 start? I see Darxide's mention of it, but I don't think I have any screenshots that would have items that large (playing on a Droid Turbo), and the assets DB uses are 128x128.
    I don't have access to the asset bundles because my devices are not jailbroken and DB has not allowed file sharing for the app and on my iPad it seems that the displayed image is in its highest quality. The 220x220 was somewhere up there but I guess you are right that it is not like there is a clear "agreement" on what size to use. I can share my psd if anyone is interested but everyone might be happier with their own creation ;). Otto Vonbacon ❯❯❯ Talk 12:18, 8 March 2017 (CST)
    Btw, I'm curious how you are getting the assets and if they are showing on a device specifically for that device?! For instance on my iPhone the resolution of the item images is lower than on my iPad where they are 220x220 and if I play through FB on my 5k mac the resolution is well over 300x300. As said I have not jailbroken these devices so I have no access to the inerts of the game. Otto Vonbacon ❯❯❯ Talk 6:41, 8 March 2017 (PST)
    The 220x220 icon resolution is what's used on iPad. Who started this, I don't know, but it's the most commonly used resolution for icons on the Wiki so I just went with it as a defacto standard. Fortunately, I also have an iPad so I never had to worry about resizing images that I upload. They always come out the right size. Also, I would think that if you have access to the actual assets from the game files then why not post those assets for all to use? I tried looking at the Android .APK file for the game and I couldn't get it to unpack. Similarly with the iOS version, it's encrypted so I couldn't get it open, either. --Darxide (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2017 (CDT)