From the Galactic Civilizations Wiki

Hi there, Steelviper, and welcome to the GalCiv Wiki! let me know if you need any help not already provided. --GreenReaper^(talk) 17:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Citation Question 2 With new tabs comes new responsibility . . . *grin* 3 A little color? 4 If you know more formulas, please put them here 5 Number crunching and Data categories 6 New Categories Proposal 7 Re: Testing ground

[edit] Citation Question

I did have a question over in the Help talk. (Also, your Talk template header above seems to still be pointing to the furwiki's user page, so I just edited here. Hopefully this is where you wanted comments/questions to go.) --Steelviper 18:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, just answered the help (had to attend a talk and then go off to lunch). And as for the header, thanks! I missed that. :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 19:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] With new tabs comes new responsibility . . . *grin*

Steelviper and Mariog: I've decided to give you sysop access, as I'm not around all the time and it may be necessary to deal with things when I'm not. You may notice a few new tabs along the top, and some other changes around the site in relation to user blocking, rollbacks and the like. I suggest you look over this page if you're not familiar with how to use them. Hopefully you won't need them much, but they're there for when you do. Use them wisely! :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 21:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Doh! That's what we get for having a user page and a fistfull of edits. I'm an admin over at the battlestarwiki, so I'm at least familiar with the drill. Anyhow, thanks for the mop! I'll try not to make a mess. --Steelviper 21:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A little color?

Would a few screenshots demonstrating some of the features sufficiently fall under fair use? I saw the laser article, and while the laser pointer is amusing I bet a in-game shot of a laser firing or a laser component in the ship builder would be a lot more effective. I'm just not sure where the fair use line falls. I think a few pictures sprinkled throughout the articles (cropped down to show the subject) would speak a lot better than any text description can. --Steelviper 23:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots are certainly fine for demonstrating things. I used them myself in the wikipedia article. --GreenReaper^(talk) 23:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you know more formulas, please put them here

Steelviper,

It seems that you are quite knowledgeable about the formulas and exact mechanics in the game. Could you please start putting the exact equation for the staff like combat calculation (space and troop), manufacturing (which bonuses how applied, is there cost in bc and so on), influence, trade and so on. Basically everywhere where exact mathematical formula is applicable. Please?

MxM^(talk)

Any appearance of knowledge on my part is mostly bravado and copy-n-pasting from the galciv2 forums (or the manual .pdf). However, GreenReaper and some of the other Stardock devs will be posting here though, so hopefully they will be able to help give us some insights into the exact formulas. I'm with you... if there's a formula, I'd like to see it. --Steelviper 04:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Then we need to nicely ask them to look into it :) MxM^(talk)

I just wanted to chime in that the new information added in population is a great example of useful information. Dinny^(talk)

It doesn't get any better than code copy-n-pasted from the game source. Much appreciation to Frogboy for shedding a little insight into the actual nuts and bolts of what runs under the hood. --Steelviper 16:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Steelviper, good info about max population. I have corrected one number there to be closer to the formula. Please check that it is correct 26.6 instead of 21.6 for PQ10 (it could be that the game itself is "incorrect", but all other values agrees with the formula except that one). If it is correct then we need to modify the table for the number of farms. If it is not, then please put the original value. MxM^(talk)

Your numbers (26.6) look correct as far as I can tell (running them through the max pop formula. I'm not sure who originally put the "Rough Numbers" section anyway... --Steelviper 17:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number crunching and Data categories

Do you know if a single item can belong to two categories? If yes, then may be we can have a category, which is called "formulas" or "number crunching" or "exact calculations". This will be helpful for players who conceptually understand the game (you just have to read the manual for that) but are looking for the numerical details that can help them to understand the game deeper. Another possible category is "data" or something similar, where some values are described. For example the page about hull sizes can be there - there are no formulas, but there is an exact data of hit points vs. hull sizes. Alternatevely, we can make a single category, like "Data and formulas" to combine those two. This of cause will work only if single item can belong to two or more categories. MxM^(talk) 18:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

A single item can very much belong in multiple categories. I like the "Data and formulas" category. "Data" is a bit vague (same problem we ran into with the "Concepts" category). I like the idea of having a category for somebody to browse if they want to look at pages that have exact formulas. --Steelviper 18:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Categories Proposal

I roughed out some categories on a user subpage:User:Steelviper/Categories. I tried to eliminate the "concepts" category by breaking it down further into specific categories. "Concepts" still might be good to keep around as the parent of some of these. If you could, take a look and see what you think. I didn't put each page into every category that it should be in, but I did make sure that every page at least got slotted into 1 category. As you can see, this scheme only leaves a handfull of ???'s (not able to be fit into existing categories). Of course, this does involve a heck of a lot more categories than the current scheme. --Steelviper 19:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Having more categories is useful. It will still be far less than the number of pages that we have now, and we will be able to then use the categories on the front page rather than linking to individual pages. It will also allow people to more easily find appropriate categories in which to list articles, so that they are less likely to get lost. The only changes I'd suggest is making a Help category for future help pages and leaving the main page out of categorization. If you wanted to clear up Reviews and Previews you could probably clasify them under a Promotion category or something similar.

I would suggest you go ahead and implement any categorization changes that you wish to make. If someone has a differing opinion, I'm sure they'll say so. :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 23:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

By your command. I'll get started on that tomorrow. --Steelviper 00:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Taking a break. There is (as of this post) 1 uncategorized page. (The main page, which gets to remain that way.) Other planned categories include the Economy category, as well as some others tied to some of the high-level concepts. Getting those created and tagged should finish up "Concepts" for the most part. --Steelviper 17:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice work! I was watching recent changes while debugging my latest project here at Stardock, and it just kept scrolling up the screen with each refresh. :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 20:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Steelviper 20:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Testing ground

Thanks, but I know :). I've got one sitting around at [[1]]. I edited my front user page with colours and junk just so that I wouldn't forget where I put them, and I've been editing the tech trees directly merely because there was noting there to replace (better to have something half-complete than nothing). The edits others have done to the WIP trees have been mostly helpful. Saves me from typing the whole thing out myself. Consumed Crustacean 22:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)