FANDOM


  • Hi,

    What do you think of these plans? Notably this part:

    * For now I am probably just going to keep poking at the current layout with the enemy vessel page. I would like however feedback from editors like yourselves who happen to have contributed at least one edit on that page to either suggest or agree with a new layout for that page. Currently,
    • there's no template to organise this, it is very old fashioned with the values needing to be manually input. Subsequently, it adds lots of "bloat" to the source code for the page.
    • the layout for the page is virtually a year old, with the future inclusion of new enemy vessels we're soon bound to hit a limit with certain template inclusion. For now I am using Template:ShipBattleCardKai by Ckwng but ultimately the page can only hold up to a specific amounts of transclusion before it may break like it is sort of happening on Quests page. For more information about the transclusion limitations, you may want to refer to this post on SmokeyTheButt's message wall.
    • Stymphalian ID.27 pointed out Vietnamese's variant of the enemy vessel page and I personally quite like it but would still prefer to add a few more personal touches so that it won't look like we basically ripped it off the Vietnamese's site. For reference, see here.

    The idea with the wanting to revamp that Enemy Vessel page has been stalled and I think the best way might be is to look at how the Vietnamese version of Enemy Vessel page and maybe replicate something similar to the English version.

    I can't speak let alone read any Vietnamese but I managed to find some useful links from the Vietnamese variant of KanColle wiki fan page and I may as well throw them here:

    Not that we should completely follow their examples and create each ship, etc using Template but instead make a Template just to interface directly with your Modules. I had a look at Module:EnemyShipInfoKai but with my (lack of) Lua skills I am unable to create a mock up version.

    Anyway, please let me know what you think of it.

      Loading editor
    • If you can create the html mockup I can easily turn it into something Lua. Don't worry about the Lua side of things; if you don't know how to do it, once there's an HTML mockup I can take it from there.

      The vietnamese one looks kinda...bleh. Lots of colored background and excessive dead space.

      Since the enemy vessel pages themselves (like Destroyer I-Class) now have pretty much everything Enemy Vessel used to have, I think that turning Enemy Vessel into a summary page like Ship list or Equipment is probably the way forward.

      Wasn't there a draft of a mini infobox-like overhaul of Enemy Vessel somewhere? I thought that wasn't too bad...

        Loading editor
    • As for predominantly the first and last paragraph, that stuff is still there: Sandbox/Enemy Vessels

      The reason why I did not sort of pursue with that one was partial disagreeing with the vertical alignment which we haven't got to the bottom of and since then that was that.

      Personally, I'd somewhat like to see Enemy Vessel page getting something like tabview because what somewhat worries more over time is the possibility of hitting the transclusion limitations. That, and I really don't like long pages but that is even more personal than the former case involving transclusion limitations.

      In regards to turning Enemy Vessel into a summary page like Ship list or Equipment. You're pretty much thinking along the same wavelength as Qunow. Earlier on I spoke to Qunow via Special:Chat and he pointed out List of fleet standard aircraft carriers by upgraded maximum stats as example but with some changes notably:

      • To include lesser information in the new Enemy Vessel page because already the individual Abyssal pages themselves already has all the information.
      • To include images - I think he meant something like using Template:ShipBattleCardKai which currently is what I pushed onto the main Enemy Vessel page. The only problem with that is the transclusion limitation is what I fear may happen sooner or later. He later suggested putting it into tabs - which I can picture as tabview as a way to bypass the transclusion.

      Somehow, if now I could involve at least one more other regular Enemy Vessel page editor such as Rambern4 or probably another content-moderator like myself, がか to either agree on one of the two following suggestions above. The main thing that the current Enemy Vessel page disgusts me really the amount of coding efforts just to keep the page "alive and going" so to speak. That and needless to say the roundabout incident with the use of:

      • Visual editors that threw in more redundant junk, worse bloating the page up. Things like "font-weight: normal" on virtually every line was really unneeded.
      • The use of <li> coding in a bid to have a different style of bullets which lead to erroneous output of </li> outputs because what works in Google Chrome browser doesn't and didn't work with Internet Explorer as well, vice versa.
      • The inconclusive agreement with now the newer layouts of what Enemy Vessel page should ideally look like minus the ability to have excessive customisation options available - ideally it should be made into a Template in some shape or form so that it is easier to scale in the future. Worse is well, me throwing Ambox there for a few months now and we're still looking at the old page layout.

      Two thirds of that issue involving roundabout solution has been solved for now, the last one involving the push for the newer layout hasn't come into any form of agreement (yet).

      Anyway I am getting long-winded here. I'll omit my opinion on the Vietnamese's version of Enemy Vessel page and instead look forward to hearing from you about your opinions on these matters. Pacman

        Loading editor
    • I'd also like to see the Enemy Vessel page getting tabview; I agree that it's too long. I'd also like the EliteXX pages to be tabviewed into the Ship Maximum Status page.

      Are you scared of hitting the wikitext transclusion limit or the lua timeout?

      I agree with both the points in regards to turning Enemy Vessel into a summary.

      I agree with you that it takes too much effort to keep the page up to date, and it's becoming a huge mess of code. Templates and Lua could help with that.

      If you're out of ideas for a layout I can try my hand at one, I guess...?

        Loading editor
    • I believe there is no limitation for wikitext transclusions (or rather you can have up to "big number" wikitext transclusions and have no problems, on User:がか/Voice Lines I have more than 10,000 and it's still ok, I messed up once and had more than "big number" (don't remember what it was, maybe 100,000), the page was automatically categorized as "Pages with more than "big number" transclusions" and template rendering stopped after "big number" calls).

      For Lua I don't know (something like 500, depending on execution times), but it shouldn't be a problem if it will be like Ship list, e.g.

      {{EnemyList
      |Destroyer I-Class
      |Destroyer Ro-Class
      ...
      |Light Cruiser Tsu-Class
      |notes = arbitrary notes...
      ...
      }}
      

      just one or few calls (-> EnemyList -> Lua).

      For Sandbox/Enemy Vessels, I thought that the alignment issue was solved (this), but my opinion was that you still want something that looks like Enemy Vessel for main page, i.e. just a simple table (maybe tabbed, but no extra clicking), then you can have Sandbox/Enemy Vessels on Enemy Vessels/Overview linked from the main page.

        Loading editor
    • Ship list actually has problems though, the execution time on that one Lua #invoke is very high. Probably 60-70% of the timeout, meaning it exceeds the timeout when wikia decides to update the page while it's overloaded. I think Remodel is pretty close to that too. And considering the amount of ships will just increase, sooner or later those pages will hit a wall (along with Modernization).

      I think a simpler version of Enemy Vessels would be a good thing. Strip out the "Combo" column which is half made redundant by the individual enemy pages and half a "role" column, the information in the latter being better suited for a notes column. If "High ASW" and such are necessary, maybe a set of thin ability columns? They could even be shown and hidden via a button or something.

      The notes column can be cleaned up by removing appearance data (If someone wants to know what events Battleship Princess appeared in they should go to that page, and if someone wants to know the boss for an event map they should go to the event map page).

      The huge row for the name of each ship class can be replaced by a column a la EliteXX, to the right of the battle card column. Shading in the battle card column should be brought in line with Template:EnemyShipInfoKai. Stat column backgrounds should be desaturated. Equipment names should be aligned to one side; adding equipment type icons would help with recognition (the ringless simple ones used in Template:ImprovementTableKai can keep it from becoming too busy).

      I'm not sure how to represent the damaged battle cards (armor break) on the page; the current method is very clunky with all the bold text. I feel like it will be better for the page just to cut it out, leave a armor breakable note in the notes column and let the individual ship pages provide that graphic.

      Well, that's what I feel should be done to the page as a minimum. Somehow ended up typing that all up.

        Loading editor
    • Maybe we should go with a simpler version of Enemy Vessel then which would be similar to what Qunow suggested? All agree?

        Loading editor
    • With tabbed version:

      • DD (~20)
      • CL/CLT (< 20)
      • CA (< 10)
      • CVL/CV (< 20)
      • BB/BBV (~10)
      • SS (~10)
      • Oni (~30-40)
      • Hime (~30-40)
      • Other (< 10)

      so currently maximum 40 lookups in enemy tables per page, should be ok even with more enemies.

      Also, looking at the current page:

      • Why Lv column?
      • Without combo column:
      Class Icon HP Icon Gun Icon Torpedo Icon AA Icon Armor Armament Notes
      Destroyer I-Class Late Model Elite Banner 39 48 76 40 30 RedGunLightRedGunLightSonar
      Night Double Attack
      Late Model Elite
      Destroyer I-Class Late Model Banner 35 38 60 30 22 RedGunLightSonarDepthCharge
      High ASW
      Late Model
      • Maybe split bosses with and without air power into separate tables.
      • Make so notes doesn't affect row's height or wrap other columns, also I think there is no need to write about torpedo damage and Type 3 shell for each installation enemy.
        Loading editor
    • CT, I agree.

      I may also finish Template:EnemyShipInfoMini for Sandbox/Enemy_Vessels, so we can also have this other page (should be trivial once there is a template).

        Loading editor
    • The tabbed version would be what I would be in agreeing with.

      The current Enemy Vessel page, most of it were a carry over from the year before, etc. So yeah we really need to somehow agree with something in common and nail it down to get it out of the way. Otherwise we'd be going around in circles trying to work out on a newer layout.

      As for the designs above Gaka, that is very similar to what Qunow has suggested. If you roll that in with a tabbed version I wouldn't mind that actually.

      Update for the newer comment just minutes ago.

      No rush about that, we still need to agree on a layout. Not even sure which one would be a positive way to move forward:

      • The simpler layout as suggested by Qunow seems to be agreed by both of you guys.
      • The sandboxed layout which I have been pushing forth with a few months back also seems to gain some acceptance with it.

      Ultimately only one layout can go on the Enemy Vessel page. Pacman

        Loading editor
    • From recent discussion, I feel like the mini infoboxes aren't suitable for Enemy Vessel...I quite like the simplified table above. The level column is definitely not needed, and removing the equipment names works quite well now that I see it. There needs to be some logic about the "Night Double Attack" and "High ASW" though...Why is the LMEli not High ASW as well? Because it can night double attack? Or does Night Double Attack take priority over High ASW?

        Loading editor
    • The latter case about the combos, I am not too familiar with it as those were what Hayashi H suggested because back then with the older Enemy Vessel page, there were double standards notably with the use of the equipment icons (the small ones - like the ones you saw similarly on that Vietnamese wiki) and then there were the text only versions.

      Hayashi H basically went and changed them to purely text forms after seeking my approval on the Draft page of the Enemy Vessel. I pretty much promised him to roll that into the actual page when it gets overhauled. So that is pretty much another carry over but as well something I am not familiar with.

      As for the simplified table it seems like we may have more of a consensus on this compared to the mini-infoboxes. At least three people are leaning towards in favour of simplified table so I think it is probably be best aiming for that.

        Loading editor
    • Can you get Hayashi H here to talk about what exactly he wanted with that? I'd rather know now than know after everything has changed and people are angry.

        Loading editor
    • This combo stuff is basically "Extra Statistics" from enemy pages, anything notable can be listed in notes

      Class Icon HP Icon Armor Icon Gun Icon Torpedo Icon AA Icon ASW Equipment Notes
      Destroyer I-Class Late Model Elite Banner 39 30 48 76 40 ?? RedGunLightRedGunLightSonar Late Model Elite
      Night Double Attack: 153 x2
      Destroyer I-Class Late Model Banner 35 22 38 60 30 72 RedGunLightSonarDepthCharge Late Model
      ASW Power: 74
      etc.

      P.S. Here is templated mini infobox page Sandbox/Enemy_Vessel/Overview (can't use ShipCapabilities without getting timeouts unfortunately).

        Loading editor
    • Hayashi H isn't on chat right now so the best I can do is write him on his message wall.

      がか、nice work!

        Loading editor
    • I don't see the point of the ASW column if ASW attack power is going to be in the notes, especially now that ASW stats are hidden.

        Loading editor
    • If it will be ASW power for each ASW capable ship, then make it a column too? ASW is kinda important to be among the stat columns (maybe also evasion). FP and torpedo also listed as original stats, on http://wikiwiki.jp/kancolle/?%C5%A8%B4%CF%C1%A5 there are sub-columns, like original FP / FP with equipment, so you can have, e.g., DB single attack power in normal fleet by adding 5 to FP with equipment (anything more complicated can be in notes).

        Loading editor
    • Unfortunately evasion is also hidden, so the column will have a loooot of ??. ASW really just boils down to "Can hit subs", "Cannot hit subs", "Can hit subs hard (sonar or dc equipped)", and maybe a "Can hit subs super hard (sonar + dc)". Original firepower and torpedo can be cut out of the table or tooltipped in favour of +equip values. I think attack power should be relegated to the infoboxes. The +equip values fulfills the purposes of a general idea of strength and a value for comparison against other ships.

        Loading editor
    • I wrote the High ASW tag specifically for cases where the ships possessed both a DC and Sonar so they would use the 1.3x ASW multiplier. The problem with listing base stats is that they don't take into account equipment bonuses, and sometimes the actual stats can deviate significantly from base stats when mechanics are accounted for.

      For instance, the I Flagship has an eASW of 81.06 even though its ASW stat is 60, while the Ha Late Model has an eASW of 41.38 even though its ASW stat is 80. Tsu's eAA is 160 even though its base AA is 88, while BWS's eAA is 90, identical to its base AA. Listing merely the base stat gives very misleading conclusions as to how they actually perform in battle, and the second is what actually matters.

      One way to fix this would be to list only the effective stats after all equipment is accounted for, another way is to leave base stats and put the values in the notes.

        Loading editor
    • Can you go into more detail about how you're getting eAA?

      As for base stats, for Enemy Vessel I am planning to cut them and show +equip stats in their place.

        Loading editor
    • eAA = 160 for Tsu is adjusted AA if you use the formula for friendly ships (ship_aa + sum(equipment_modifier * equipment_aa)), but according to http://wikiwiki.jp/kancolle/?%B9%D2%B6%F5%C0%EF#o8550186 it's nerfed for enemy ships (floor(2 * sqrt(ship_aa)) + sum(equipment_modifier * equipment_aa)). Something to add to Module:ShipCapabilities.

        Loading editor
    • Was basing it on the adjusted AA formula mentioned by Kaga; the spading for enemy ships isn't fully settled on the JP end yet last I heard, though. This has to be calculated separately from Fleet AA bonus though, which is more problematic given it also depends on the other 5 ships in the fleet, and on the formation they're in. =.=

      AA mechanics in particular atm are probably the three most controversial topics in KanColle at the moment, the others being adjusted damage and accuracy vs PT Imp Packs and the formula for calculating Cut-in chances based on Luck, equips and (more recently spaded) ship level.

        Loading editor
    • If this eAA value is still controversial, would it be better to just list it in ##+## format?

        Loading editor
    • (##+##) meaning? Base + Bonus?

        Loading editor
    • Base + Equip or Base + (Equip w/ equipment modifiers)

        Loading editor
    • If the square rooted form for AA is used, that wouldn't really make that much sense, and ASW is square rooted for sure.

      Maybe ##(##) instead, where the former is the base value and the number in the brackets is the effective stat after all bonuses are factored?

        Loading editor
    • @Gaka The 2*sqrt(…)+(…) formula also exist in our Aerial Combat page, but slightly below those friendly side formulas.

        Loading editor
    • Sure. Is there something I can reference for all the relevant equations and bonus factors?

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.