Star Trek Online Wiki

Feedback wanted: the FandomDesktop skin is live as the default theme for STO Wiki!

Visit our community talk page here for more info.

READ MORE

Star Trek Online Wiki
Advertisement
Star Trek Online Wiki

This is SFC3's talk page, where you can leave messages and comments for SFC3.

Discussion

Call for assistance[]

Hi,

Please have a look at my post on the community portal. Thanks! --Akirasensei (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Year of Hell Lockbox[]

When I made the new lockbox article the blog still was called krenim lockbox. I blame temporal distortions! --Dukedom (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ship Template Nav[]

Why not have the ships listed as the class type they are i.E Daedalus Class vs Temporal Science vessel..The listing as Temporal Science vessel (or other general ship type like Temporal Cruiser or Dread or escort) is confusing as there are several of these and they can all be differentiated by the class type i.e "Wells Temporal Science Vessel." All im saying is specificity makes more sense than being General.. Jacobsodinforever2000 (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

When I set up the nav I made sure all ships were general like that so people could easily see what is what. Article names can be different, but I'd prefer the nav to be a concise list of available ships. SFC3 (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't "Concise" be the way I had it before.I say that due to there being 3 Fed ships with the general type being "Temporal Science Vessel" Concise would include the distinction of class for that designation...So,If we get a Wells Temporal Science Vessel T6 why bother with adding the class "Wells" in front of the Temporal Science vessel...I mean..it is the original..

Leeme put it this way, When I specify "Wells" that is quickly searchable in the search tab or using the search function on the ship nav.If I tell some noob(especially since were about to get a large influx in August...) "I have a Temporal Ship...Science"...That is not as 'to the point' as saying or searching for That ships actual class name. Jacobsodinforever2000 (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Let me rephrase - I'd prefer the ship nav to display ingame names. The Wells Temporal Science Vessel has that same name ingame. Also, maybe there is three temporal science vessels but they distinctly have "Fleet" and T6 attached. That should be obvious to most people that they are different ships. I just prefer ingame terminology better, makes things more uniform SFC3 (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

What we are discussing is ingame terminology. Win a sto.gamepedia.com/Special_Requisition_Pack_-_Temporal_Science_Vessel and when you open it you will then get the class (wells or rmor).It's the same with the cstore ships.Buy the ship and the pack will say the class type.So..either were concise constantly or were not.If were not,the Wells should also be listed as a temporal science vessel.Jacobsodinforever2000 (talk) 02:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The ship type is not the same as the box. That's also an extraordinary case as it's a 3-pack ship. When you unpack the ship, the Admiralty card is "Wells/R'Mor/Krenn Temporal Science Vessel" not just "Temporal Science Vessel". What I mean is that I believe the Playable Ship Nav should list ingame ship names as it has in the past. SFC3 (talk) 02:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

^ What SFC said, the name of the ship, ingame, in the UI is "Wells Temporal Science Vessel".

Having it be the Class name, doesn't make sense, because some ships have several classes, for exmaple the Akira has the Oslo and Zypher. --Tuskin38 (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok well..I guess I'll stick to the ship pages and leave the nav alone.Jacobsodinforever2000 (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Kelvin Box[]

You could have waited until the box actually is available before moving it around, the blog still calls it kelvin lock box, and you will never hear the end of it if I need to revert all your changes :P --Dukedom (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

READY FOR DOWNLOAD[]

-- 47.197.61.77 04:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination as administrator[]

It's been more than long enough now for me to get an answer from everyone I contacted, so it's time to proceed with the public nominations. I've set up your RfA page here with instructions for accepting or declining, and thank you for your interest in taking on this role. oOeyes User-Eyes-Sig.png 09:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)



Dyson Science Destroyer Fore Weapons[]

The three Fed Advanced Dyson SDs have their fore slots listed as "3 (+1)" in the infobox, but the other nine DSDs (base, K, R) have theirs listed as 3.5 fore slots. For consistency's sake, these should all be the same, right? Is "3.5" preferred, since it doesn't screw up the template lists, or "3 (+1)" since it's somewhat more accurate for Tac mode? Arkhain (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Initially all 9 variants were created with 3+1, but only kdf and rom were changed to 3.5. I prefer 3+1, but since the property allows only numbers, I guess we could change it to 3.5. We never communicated this. Alternatively, we could change the property to accept only certain values (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 3+1) - I think this shouldn't make any problems with {{Playableshipsbytype}} template, anyone knows? --Damixon (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I think a decent compromise is 3 (+1) like if it were a T5-u ship getting another console. Adding .5 is just confusing. There's no such thing as a half weapon. SFC3 (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Changing property type to accept certain values (to enable 3+1) for some reason requires each ship page to be manually refreshed in order to show number of weapons on {{Playableshipsbytype}} (fore weapon fields were empty on that template). So I won't be making this change as it is too much pages to refresh. Edit: but I found a workaround, it will show 3+1 fore weapons on ship page, but 3 weapon slots on Playableshipsbytype template. See here: Dyson Tactical Science Destroyer. --Damixon (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Re-engineering[]

Was just trying to reply to you on that talk page. Whatever edit I do on that page though comes up with this error;

[057558de95ada4cd4c2766f3] /index.php?title=Talk:Re-engineering&action=submit Error from line 166 of /var/app/current/extensions/CurseProfile/CurseProfile.hooks.php: Call to a member function isUserPage() on boolean

Backtrace:

  1. 0 /var/app/current/includes/Hooks.php(186): CurseProfile\Hooks::onArticleUpdateBeforeRedirect(Article, string, string)
  2. 1 /var/app/current/includes/EditPage.php(1571): Hooks::run(string, array)
  3. 2 /var/app/current/includes/EditPage.php(638): EditPage->handleStatus(Status, array)
  4. 3 /var/app/current/includes/actions/EditAction.php(59): EditPage->edit()
  5. 4 /var/app/current/includes/actions/SubmitAction.php(38): EditAction->show()
  6. 5 /var/app/current/includes/MediaWiki.php(499): SubmitAction->show()
  7. 6 /var/app/current/includes/MediaWiki.php(293): MediaWiki->performAction(Article, Title)
  8. 7 /var/app/current/includes/MediaWiki.php(862): MediaWiki->performRequest()
  9. 8 /var/app/current/includes/MediaWiki.php(523): MediaWiki->main()
  10. 9 /var/app/current/index.php(43): MediaWiki->run()
  11. 10 {main}

Scientifictheory (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That's really strange. Have you tried clearing your browser cache and trying again? SFC3 (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, fresh launch and it's working again now. I just found it weird as it was on just the one page. Thanks.Scientifictheory (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Arena of Sompek[]

Hi there. Is there a reason for why you removed all info pertaining to “Arena of Sompek” from Player versus player? --Akirasensei (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Arena of Sompek has never been a PVP queue. SFC (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Correct, but the article Player versus player does not exclusively cover content of the PvP queue, but all sorts of PvP in the game in general, e.g., also War Zones and the Competetive Wargames reputation. So the Arena of Sompek should definitely be included. --Akirasensei (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
There is no PvEvP in Arena of Sompek. It's 5 players, as a team, pitted against waves of NPCs. SFC (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
OMG, you are right. Thanks for setting that straight! --Akirasensei (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocking IPs[]

Hello! I saw you have recently blocked an IP for indefinite amount of time because of advertising. While the block was definitely deserved, indefinitely blocking IPs is not the best idea (IPs are dynamic, constructive contributors can be prevented from editing this way). The default block time for IPs on Gamepedia is 2 weeks, according to policies. Do you mind unblocking 94.25.30.19 and blocking it again for 2 weeks (changing the block settings won't affect Gamepedia global ban list which is why unblock and re-block is required)? Thanks! :) Frisk (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Guide: Tribble Breeding[]

Hi, you added an OOD template in June but didn't specify what needed updating. Nothing sticks out as missing from there. Did you have something in particular in mind?Scientifictheory (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Removing the Tribble breeding chart completely or updating it was probably why I slapped the OOD template on the page. At least not making it so prominent, since its OOD. SFC (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay, although putting it at the top without caveats sorts of tells people that the rest of the content is out of date too. Perhaps put it on a section or with details next time, just so the users knows what information is reliable and what isn't?Scientifictheory (talk) 09:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Original OOD template didn't have option to type what is missing so I redirected it to NU template because you can do that there, while having the same purpose. That is why nothing is specified under details. --Damixon (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Mission: A New Warfare[]

thanks for the correction. I was having problems making the link work for a page that doesn't exist yet. And i'm still a bit new at the more involved forms of editing. :) --Rangermanlv (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I just created two new templates[]

Hi! Previous page for Trait: Black Alert was seriously misleading regarding who can use it, as my KDF aligned Romused it with no problems. I updated the page accordingly, and I assume it was the same regarding KDF aligned Dominion players, to then realize there was no icon nor template for Fed aligned Dominion nor KDF aligned Dominion. I created both, but I lack the skills to come up with appropriate icons. Could you make sure I didn't mistakenly put a monkey wrench somewhere it doesn't belong?

Also, I've come to think a lot other trait pages are probably equally misleading regarding who can cash in a Boxed Trait. Sorting this could could turn out to be tedious.

Thanks! Lexers615 (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for the templates, but I think they might be ultimately unnecessary? Dominion, or rather Jem'hadar characters, have few exclusives ships and they merge relatively quickly with the other factions. The Federation and Klingon aligned icons + templates might be the best choice. There's just not enough there to justify the inclusion IMHO.
Furthermore, the Boxed Traits you speak of are all legacy items, deprecated with the release of S22 and Cross-Faction Flying. They no longer drop, so it's only a matter of time before they all go poof someday! If anything, I think a table of all the now legacy items, crossfaction lockbox consoles, traits, exp. weps, etc. might be a nice addition to the existing Cross Faction Flying page. On trait pages for example, I'd probably list the Black Alert trait box as (Retired). Afterwards, I would also redirect the Boxed Trait Pages to this newly added legacy content table. How does that sound? SFC3 (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree they'll all go the way of the Voths someday. However, I still see a lot of value in those boxed trait. You see, a boxed trait instantly gives you a valuable trait, for a minor fraction of the actual cost of related ship. The "no grinding involved" even sweetens the deal some more. As such, I find it topmost important to know exactly who can cash in a boxed trait. As we're talking about goods being sold for several millions EC's on the market, it's really important to be as accurate as possible. There are kids out there putting all their allowance into zens to get keys to get the right gear and build they want.User:SFC3/VelvetRoom
I also disagree with you when you say they no longer drop. They do indeed no longer drop from Infinity or current lockbox. However, there are still tons of old lockbox on the exchange. I even made a Ferengi of myself and stashed about 1k lockboxes in one of my alts' bank. More or less a bit of each I could get for cheap, Ferengi, Tzenkethi, Emperor, DS9, etc... I'm waiting until they gain enough value to put them on the exchange. And I know for a fact I'm far from the only one having done so. In other words, boxed traits will still be a thing for years to come. Literally. Besides, the cross faction flying is an acquired perk, meaning a lot of people don't have it unlocked.
Lexers615 (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I think there's a misunderstanding here, as cross-faction traits and consoles no longer drop from any source other than their original ships. This means they were ripped from the loot tables of both the Infinity LB as well as their original lockboxes. If this is not the case, then that's a bug report for another time! There's only one way to get "new" cross-faction equipment packs, but this is an account-bound source: the Mudd's Faith of the Heart Choice Pack still allows for KDF-aligned players to claim the NX Escort Refit pack.
No doubt there will be many, many cross-faction boxes left in player inventories. The stocks will not (and have not) dried up as of yet. However, I never said anything about wanting info to be "inaccurate".
There's also a reason I suggested updating the Cross Faction Flying Unlock page to be more thorough (as said above), as well as become a source of info on retired, legacy packs. That's why I've made a very WIP mockup of my intended changes here. Not only does this solve the issue of a lack of info on these item packs (as many of these cross-faction unlock packs did not have any pages to begin with), it makes things less misleading. Feel free to chime in with any feedback. Thanks! SFC3 (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I provided a list of traits in your WIP article, but it got reverted. Lexers615 (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)