Template talk:Playable ship nav

Adding Rank?
Below is a modified version of the templates, to incorporate the minimum rank. It's slightly taller, leaves room for shuttles (and eventually fighters) which are minimum rank, and makes it less cluttered. --MatthewM 12:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks good. (It's early. The bowl of McDonald's oatmeal in front of me looks good.) The shuttles are min rank also I believe though. --Drmike 12:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This does look good, but I'd rather split it by tier than by minimum rank. I tried to do this myself initially, but it just ended up with too much blank space. --Zutty 13:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering tier follows rank 1:1 until Admiral/General, this may be more useful to players. Someone at level 41 may wonder why its not possible for them to fly a retrofit Intrepid, for example.  It seems unlikely that they'll add a 6th tier anytime soon, but with the addition of two ranks later this year there may be more ships at say, Fleet Admiral, becoming a reality. Additionally, there may be some people who don't understand the ship tier structure but they are quite aware of what rank they are. --MatthewM 16:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm puzzled if the Marauder Patrol Cruiser shouldn't be placed in with the Battle Cruisers. Apart from its fighters at 25% health, it seems to fall in line with the other battle cruisers. Plus moving it, would allow the template to be change from a generic "Other" category to a Support category. Curmudgeony 18:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Federation fith rank no icon
The federation fifth rank has no icon! -- The previous unsigned comment was made by User: 82.137.14.40.


 * Fifth rank? Do you mean a Fleet Admiral (5 pips) icon? --Markonian 15:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, crap. I forgot about this. This is an issue with the AdBlock extension for Firefox and the unfortunate choice of filename for that particular image. It's there; it's just getting blocked. I'll work on renaming it and getting all the links updated shortly. &mdash; Eyes  [[Image:User-Eyes-Sig.png|link=User talk:Eyes]] 19:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Preparation for Fleet and other Refit ships
Given that Season 6 is going to bring about a tonne of Fleet and Refit variants of existing ships, is it worth switching from the existing setup to the below (pretend the ranks are links to individual ship pages)? Ignore that a couple of ranks are wrong - this is just a mockup. Also, "Refit" and "Fleet" variants would have a colour difference:

--Walshicus 19:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of the aesthetics. I'd need to see just how crowded things get with the Season 6 ships though. --MatthewM 21:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for Federation section
The Fed section is woefully cramped, and while editing it I figured, perhaps this is a solution, since the main thing people look up are tier 5 vessels: It allows the longer names with much less cramping. What do y'all think? DanPMK (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * looking better than before. But my opinion is, that the Fed section should be changed back to it's former top-bottom state (infinity space) instead following the left-right (cutting of ship descriptions, looking cramped).


 * Or make 2 charts, one for T1-4 (Beginner ships), and one for T5, Fleet and Shuttles. Personally, I don't like to have T1-4 pressed in one column. Looks very cramped and new players would sure have problems with it.


 * What I really love is the further addition of ship classifications. Organichalcyon (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Something like this?

DanPMK (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

hm. both have their pros and cons. i like version 1 for leaving all ships of the same category in a line (like you can see: ok. i play cruisers, and its this one, then this one, and finally this one) but version 2 looks way cleaner. though it would need a divider bewteen the tables for a better overview. --Iye007 (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

":" witchcraft dear Sir ;-) i am amazed about how you guys handle this page. I only see numbers, words and symbols all around me. The second version with 2 charts looks very good. Is there a way to describ them as Starter/Beginner and Endgame ships? Anyway, I live this version now, looks very clean and not so overflown and cramped like the former one (I know you guys always do your best, I admire your work). and version 2 allows also a pretty much uncomplicated expansion when new ships are beeing added to the game. Now I have a really stupid suggestion, and I think it would be too much of a gimmick to do: adding a small icon of an iconic ship to each Tier and ship class. ( I better shut up now) Organichalcyon (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

":" something else crossed my mind. Maybe it would be better to have Tier 1-4 in one chart, and T5 and Fleet in the second. We all know that Cryptic focusses more on Endgame ships than on Starter ships. So the second chart would be better prepared for additions and the beginner chart would look well filled up. How about Tier descriptioning next/under the Rank Pins? Lieutenant, lt. Commander... Thanks for listening to my weird thoughts Organichalcyon (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

the last OP one would only come handy if t4 destroyers would be added in the near future. Also i noticed that something like an icon suggestion whether a ship is free (call it no zen) or a Zen ship. I think we dont need a tier description (rank), since you got that on mouseover on the pins :) --Iye007 (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

":" mouseover? Another witchcraft here I just found out about ;-) Yes I think T4 on the first chart would add balance and style to both charts. The beginners would stay together as a small group, and the Endgamers do have plenty of space for additions and full class descriptions Organichalcyon (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok. i improved DanPMK's version, (made it t1-4/t5)

--Iye007 (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

":" looks wonderfull, really. gives space for additions. Was very kind of you to use my suggestions. And sorry if my editing is not correct, I have never done this. Organichalcyon (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. As to Organichalcyon suggestion of adding icons, I would advise against that; it's best not to add any unnecessary images to very high visibility templates, just to save on site bandwidth. And, an icon as to whether the ship costs Zen or not might be frowned upon :P My only other suggestion, if the small craft section is going to be taller as in the table above, that we also split them into classes, like so:

But that's a minor suggestion. Only other question is, should we do the same for the KDF and RRF sections? If so, I'll take care of it DanPMK (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, DanPMK is right. To much is to much. What I initially thought of was, to show players an iconic ship like Enterprise D, Defiant, Voyager in their respective ship row. Enterprise D for cruisers, Defiant for Escorts, Voyager for Science. But like you said, it would be to much.

The suggestet Shuttlecraft section looks very good to me.

Would this page work to, if the Hangar Pets would be included from their page to over here? Basically, they are also playable to us, in meaning of giving them basic commands. Just a question, my 2 Cents. Organichalcyon (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * So no Zen icon... Still i guess that some people are like: wow. many ships, much cool stuff - and then realize that like 60% of the ships are 10€ (germany here... :)) up.

i like the dividing for the shuttles, but i wouldn't want hangar pets in it, since they aren't playable. Also i think there already is a own nav template for hangar pets?
 * I personally would say that this OP version (added the shuttle subcategories) works quite well for the current needs.
 * I also would vote for changing the navigations for the other factions in the same way too. not only to keep it in a more consitent look, but also because navigation is easier with it (once you got the system)
 * Though: its pretty huge. Either in terms of page loading times, as well as concerning space used on the actual wiki pages. I mean the currently used one is already taking up half of the length of all ship pages. I dont know if we got something like this here, but some kind of spoiler would be cool
 * So Navs would be hidden by default, and you could show them (per faction would be best i think). Similar to the TOCs... :)

--Iye007 (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * An Austrian discusses with a German ;-). So no Hangar Pets then. Ok. But as it is now, the new charts look wonferfull and I think they could work on the other factions too, if Cryptic releases more ships in the next years. Good work. Organichalcyon (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * On most wikis you can set a table to "collapsible" but evidently that does not work here... however, so long as it doesn't contain images, it doesn't take up a ton of space in terms of page-loading time. And, given the wrapping issues, I'd prefer it take up excess vertical space than be squished. I'll work on the table now DanPMK (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, all set. Did a bit more cleaning up, and cleaned up the code as well. The table is now 743 bytes smaller than before now as well :D DanPMK (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

":" Wonderfull DanPMK. Thank you very much and thank you to everyone involved in editing this page. I have one more question, I may be wrong about it: FED-Mirror Universe Heavy Cruiser Retrofit (Cheyenne..), doesn't this ship have the same stats (except the Boff seats) like the Heavy Cruiser Retrofit in the Fleet Ship Section? I think I remember the Mirror Version beeing in the same box like the Fleet and Retrofit version. Organichalcyon (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well. according to the Wiki the Mirror Universe Heavy Cruiser Retrofit actually HAS the same stats
 * as the Heavy Cruiser Retrofit in terms weapons/hull/shield/interia. Not for Boffs and console slots
 * though (as u said). Stats for the mirror one match the dev blog, didn't check the for the Retrofit one
 * yet, but i guess its correct also. (neither did i check the fleet one, but i guess its correct :) )
 * Still Mirror ships are Rear Admiral lower half ships and therefor are placed correctly. :)
 * --Iye007 (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Why were the changes reverted again? Now the layout of the Fed Nav is different from all other navs. might be that the current version looks less complicated, but it 'lost' some differentiation and actually the single table cells are more spammed then before. (DanPMKs version, developed above): here --Iye007 (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A new user had unilaterally reversed it. Don't be afraid to make your own reverts in the future :D I fixed it. DanPMK (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Collapse table
This table is a giant wall of text that fills up way too much page space. If it's intended to be a "quick-nav" jumplist at the bottom of individual pages, it really needs to be collapsed by default and have [show/hide] code tags added, so you can just click on a header to expand only the section wanted (see Template:Equipment Sets for a pre-existing example). I tried to sandbox-test copying that feature myself, but couldn't figure out which part of the table code forces table sections into collapsed view on page load. Tekn0mancer (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I figured it out. It was late and I couldn't focus on the code. Tekn0mancer (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking for input on the cross-faction section
Hey guys, I had 3 ideas for how to handle the ever-growing cross-faction section so that they are properly sorted by ship type and mastery package: Any version will invariably get taller as they keep adding ships, of course. What do you think? If anyone watches this page, heh DanPMK (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC) Anyone? :o DanPMK (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * First one uses the current format for the T6 ships. Pros: I think it looks good, it's compact and the T6 section can slowly expand downward. Cons: in this version the T5 ships are segmented between old (free upgrade) in the table and new ones on the top, though the top section will keep growing and become unwieldy, while the bottom section will remain static.
 * Second one uses the same format as the Fed, KDF and Rom sections, giving some more consistency. It's taller, and will continue to get taller, which is always a problem.
 * A third version I didn't do yet was the second one, but with the two T5 columns merged together, and icons indicating which get free upgrades like the Fed section. In that case, The T5 and T6 columns would both be two wide to properly fill the area. If you want me to make that version, I can.

Yeah, I was just thinking about the cruiser section and how messy it is now. I definitely like option #1, so I say go for it. The cruiser section is obviously going to get bigger and bigger. I'm all for your suggestions.

P.S. Just make sure you make carriers just "Carriers". There's no such thing as an Engineering or Science Carrier. They're carriers, simple as that. Also make sure the T5 Science vessel column matches the rest. Otherwise I like it. :)SFC3 (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I Agree with SFC3. Carriers should simply be Carriers without the engineering or science prefix. Jacobsodinforever2000 (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The only reason I had the carriers separated is because they have separate Mastery packages and I figured that was the clearest way for us to differentiate between ship types. DanPMK (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The T5 part looks funny when you unhide either of the other factions. Another thing that probably should be asked is if any information that currently is communicated through the template (i.e. zen icons) really needs to be there. I would even go that far and question if we really need to distinguish between free and non-free T5U in the nav-template. Isn't it enough if that is shown on the specific ship pages themselves? --Dukedom (talk) 09:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten to extend the column for the second version, that would be fixed before I push it love. As for the zen things, I very much want to keep that there since it's immediate at-a-glance information that doesn't really add any overhead to the template or take up unnecessary space. DanPMK (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I like the option 1 which helps with growing number of ships in Cruiser and Escort category. There are only few Carriers so I wouldn't split them into subcategories. --Damixon (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I finally finished this. Just realized I accidentally reverted part of SFC3's edit; what do y'all think about noting Engineering vs Science vs Dreadnought Carriers, but not keeping them in the separate boxes? I prefer mine since it gives a bit more info without wasting space. DanPMK (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've talked about this before, but I've always viewed the playable ship nav as being completely consistent with ingame names - hence why I never like to use the non (T6) naming scheme. Adding the Sci and Eng carrier distentions seems inconsistent with the other factional carriers, plus the Tholian Recluse for example - not really a science carrier when the Cmdr seat is universal. SFC3 (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I can definitely understand wanting to use the ingame names all the time, both for player search purposes and for SEO... Guess I am torn on the template philosophy. Removing the (T6) is something I also want to do, though that's not feasible due to the non-T6 having the same names for Fed ships for example, and consistency is important. Bah, I am undecided now. I'll let you guys decide :P DanPMK (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Suliban Silik Flight-Deck Assault Cruiser
Sooo... we've got a bit of a problem. The Suliban Silik Flight-Deck Assault Cruiser is unlike any RR-exclusive ship released before. It's not a warbird. What do you all think we should do? Create a new category for the ship, rejigger categories? SFC3 (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Well...I made up that page (please check for accuracy)..Yea..It should get its own slot..Cryptic may release more cruisers of this type. Jacobsodinforever2000 (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the way you did it is good. I try to minimize the space stuff takes up, but since there's more T6 ships than anything, it's kind of impossible to save much more vertical space. The only other thing I could think of would be renaming the Warbird Battlecruiser heading to "Engineering-focused vessels" and putting it there. But honestly, since it doesn't use a singularity core, it might be best to separate it regardless. DanPMK (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I think if we get more Flight-deck vessels, that other solution might work out. For now, I think this is acceptable. SFC3 (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think RR will get more t6 Flight-Deck Cruisers, they only have a few ships with warp-core and each is different ship type. New category for F-D cruiser is good to distinguish it from warbirds, and it doesn't take much space. --Damixon (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

rows, ordering
What's the requirement for notability for earning your own ship row type? Is it 3+ or 4+ ships, or a notable difference like non-singularity Rom ships? Just wondering when we'll want to move Fed Flight-Deck Cruisers and Kling Flight-Deck Raptors to their own row, but so far they only have 2 ships each. Also, thoughts on re-ordering the list so it's consistent for all factions? Fed (and crossfaction) goes Cruiser Escort Sci; Kling goes Raider Raptor Battlecruiser; Rom goes Warbird (escort type) then Warbird Battlecruiser; it might be nice to have every one going in the same order. Arkhain (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to the ROM Flight-deck cruiser dilemma, that was made because putting it with the rest of the warbirds made no sense and it had to go somewhere. Faction specific non-singularity core ship. As far as KDF/FED flight deck vessels if we get more (3/4+) yes then we should consider splitting it up.
 * The Warbirds are a tricky spot since they really only are consistent with themselves. After all most of their specific ships if not all use cannons. Not sure what to do in that regard. For now, I think it's best as is. SFC3 (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Dysons, science vessel or destroyer?
Fed Dysons are categorized as Destroyers, KDF and Rom Dysons are categorized as Science Vessels. Can we get that unified? Since they start as science vessels, I think that's a better home for them. Arkhain (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * i think we should probably just more the rest to Destroyers, KDF has a destroyer option and we can make one for ROMs. since there are 4 ships that's justifiable. SFC3 (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Romulans flying Fed/KDF ships
Now that this has been revealed, we need to find a good way to distinguish the ships that Romulans won't be able to fly. I have two suggestions: Unless y'all have another idea. DanPMK (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Put a  next to ships they can't fly, eg. Mobius Temporal Destroyer  ✓
 * 2) Make a separate box between the KDF and Romulan boxes that will list the ships that only they can fly, something along these lines for example:
 * I don't have another idea, we can do it like that. --Damixon (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I prefer the idea of denoting unusable ships with icons myself. Let's see how this feature goes live first however. SFC3 (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Can anyone confirm that Fed-Romulans can't fly Kelvin Timeline Intel Dreadnought Cruiser? It is on the list of excluded ships on that dev-blog, but I'm not completely sure that is the case. --Damixon (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What makes you say that? The Kelvin dreadnought equipment bundle is still available, so it must be. SFC (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Fleet mate mentioned it, but I don't have a fed rom to test it on tribble. Probably not true, but just wanted to check if anyone tried opening the box on romulan. --Damixon (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Dominion section
Since there's debate on whether these ships should be in their own section, I decided to go ahead and make a mock-up. It's only for 6 ships, and I'm operating on the assumption that all future Jem'Hadar ships added will be T6, but, here I go: The empty left column will continue to line up with the columns in the other sections. It didn't turn out the way I thought it would, but I didn't want loads of empty space.... what do y'all think? DanPMK (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good, we could adjust it along the way as they add more ships. We could get rid of that empty column on the left, but it isn't too big at the moment. --Damixon (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I like it! I know I discussed the idea of putting the existing Jem'hadar ships in, is that still on the table? SFC (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm undecided. I think that'd be fine so long as they're also in the cross-faction table... want to make it understandable at a glance. Can just put the "" symbol next to them and another note, if we can find a good way to fit more T5s anyway. I went ahead and made two mockups below... Suggestion B has just the T6 ships with the T5 ships in a little row at the top. Suggestion C is familiar, but I feel the Tier 5 side will just look more and more empty over times, so I'm torn. DanPMK (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Cruiser variants section suggestion
Due to: I propose that we make a combined "Dreadnought Cruisers & Flight-Deck Cruisers" subsection in the Fed and KDF sections that will house all Dreadnought Cruisers and Flight-Deck Cruisers, as well as the Command Battlecruisers. I've made the edit here in a sandbox if you'd like to see. Any objections/comments? DanPMK (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * the large size of the "Cruisers" and "Battle Cruisers" subsections in the Fed and KDF sections, respectively
 * the Fed section having a small "Dreadnought Cruisers" subsection, and Flight-Deck Cruisers in their "Cruisers" subsection
 * the KDF section having a small "Flight-Deck Cruisers" subsection, and Dreadnought Cruisers in their "Cruisers" subsection
 * the ambiguity of where to put the Command Battlecruisers
 * No objection, I'm ok with that change. --Damixon (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright cool, asked some others (on Discord) and they were cool with it so I'll make the edit. DanPMK (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

T6 list getting super long
As the number of T6 ships increases, this template looks like it needs to be redesigned. I haven't quite got a solid idea which is why I'm taking it here.

Problems:
 * There are way more T6 ships than T5, the template is getting very lopsided and cramming the T6 ships into way too small of a space.
 * With so many T6 ships, the original categories (battlecruisers, escorts etc.) don't seem as precise enough anymore.
 * Even with collapsable-by-faction sections, when you expand it seems way too big.

Possible solutions:
 * Split T5 and T6 into two separate areas.
 * Break down T6 further by a parallel category. I.e. y-axis is type (carrier, battlecruiser) and x-axis is primary specialisation (intelligence, miracle worker, pilot).
 * Have separate collapsable sections for Low and high tier. So Fed Tier 1-5 and shuttles is one collapsable section and Fed Tier 6 is another.

Scientifictheory (talk) 08:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with solution #1, and I'll work on separating T5 and T6 here and there. My solution would probably involve splitting Tier 5 and Tier 6, which Tier 6 being two categories (c-store and perhaps fleet/promo/lockbox? we'll see) as to not make the table look too strange. I'll let you know when I have something. SFC (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Fleet is one safe division (it would be good for T5 also; i.e. T5-40, T5-50, T5-Fleet). Not sure about dividing by store, that is still quite lopsided and they've started moving ships between them. I suppose it could just be the existing division but run over two columns?Scientifictheory (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I would likely just separate T5 and T6 as it exists in the C-store right now. plus add showhide to the sub-tables. you're likely right about dividing by store, T6 and T6F should be fine to preserve the two columns. SFC (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Nausicaan ships listed at wrong rank
Without checking the entire list, I noticed that the Nausicaan Scourge is described on its page as tier 4 but listed as tier 3 on the playable ship table, and the Nausicaan Vandal, is listed as tier 3 on its own page, but tier 4 on the table.

The page is locked for editing, so I am unable to switch them around.90.209.49.55 15:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing, fixed! - MK (t/c) 18:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Galaxy Legendary Dreadnought Cruiser
Galaxy Legendary Dreadnought Cruiser is missing from this nav. 176.127.193.241 10:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Added! SFC3 (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)