Talk:Veteran Comments policy

I really have to agree, some of the comments seem to come from blogs. What is going to happen to "unconventional" comments? Will they be deleted or changed? - Mobius

That's the plan, purge them all. Feel free to delete or modify any comment that you think doesn't deserve to be there. Mustang19 03:19, 2 March 2008 (CST)

Everything's about the writing style, it should be the way more serious. It can be changed without deleting everything, the style might not be ok but the opinions remain valid. - Mobius 03:29, 2 March 2008 (CST)

Sorry, you won't find many volunteers there. It's good that you take FreeSpace Wiki so seriously; not everyone does. I think that the Wiki forum would be a better way to be heard on this issue. Mustang19 03:39, 2 March 2008 (CST)

I won't start a topic about the subject, there's a tendence to lock everything I create. Do it yourself ;) - Mobius 05:09, 2 March 2008 (CST)

Should the Veteran Comments have something related to FRED and the Universe? The main campaigns don't tell everything the player has to know.

Ex. the player may or may not notice that the Rakshasa has 3 SReds only in Apocalypse, the Lilith is overkill and rare, its usage should be contained, etc. etc.) - --Mobius 05:28, 2 March 2008 (CST)

• FRED related stuff should be fine imo, as long as it's short and to the point. Though we should probably make an effort to cluster those comments at the bottom so players can reach the comments that matter to them faster. Basically, useful info is useful info, what needs to go is all the useless editorializing and pontification that seems to have no reason other than get the editor's name onto the recent changes list. Shade 11:42, 2 March 2008 (CST)

• I think there should be VCs for: 1) Main campaigns; 2) FRED & Custom made campaigns; 3) Universe(?).

The community changed a lot, like bombing runs. In the FS Universe the Hecate is supposed to be superior to the Orion under all points of view. The Lilith is an incredibly rare cruiser and is overkill, too...

What do you think? - Mobius 13:21, 2 March 2008 (CST)

• For stuff like rarity and intended purposes, no, I don't think these belong in VCs. Such info is ultimately subjective and, if someone wants to have 10 Liliths in a mission, they're certainly welcome to. That kind of stuff is more for a place like the FRED Zone website or some kind of expanded freespace reference guide. But stuff that clearly affects how a ship or weapon can be used in missions and any pitfalls with them, such as the warning about the Nephilim secondaries, that would be ok to me. - Shade 23:18, 2 March 2008 (CST)

• 10 Liliths won't be welcome without a good explanation and they're overkill. I wrote something about the Ravana and a potentially good way to use it: as "Veteran" I find annoyng the classic "disarm her beams and watch her die", we all know that [V] gave the Ravana a respectable role in the main campaign. In "The Great Hunt" [V] used fire-beam(it doesn't happen in most custom campaigns).

A Veteran plays a lot of campaigns. I think he/she/it is in the right position to criticize the wide, poor and unrealistic use of certain ships. I don't think we can limit the comments to engagements-related stuff, the background is very important. - Mobius 18:13, 4 March 2008 (CST)

• Welcome or not, annoying or not shouldn't matter for veteran comments. That kind of info is certainly useful to campaign makers, but in my opinion it belongs elsewhere. An article about it would be great to have for the FRED section of the wiki, a place where the people who need to know it will find it, and where the people who are looking for helpful gameplay info won't have to dig through it. Also, again, such info would be opinion, not fact, which basically means anyone who has an opinion on how ships should be used suddenly have a license to editorialize in the veteran comments - Which is exactly what we're trying to get away from. You dislike disarm beams missions, and you dislike overuse of powerful ships. Someone else likes those things. It's opinion.

• They're not FRED related matters, they're universe and plot related. As veteran I would like to see an use of the Ravana(just to give an example)that is both closer to V's and more reasonable. In case the veteran comments aren't suitable for this kind of suggestions, where should I write them? In a page in which many custom campaigns are criticized? I don't think it's a good idea... - Mobius 13:54, 5 March 2008 (CST)

Anything that has to do with making custom campaigns is FRED related, because custom campaigns are made by FREDders ;) Probably the hints and tips section under the FRED portal would be most suited to such information, as it already has articles on how to properly use (and not use) certain mission and plot elements. Writing an article about it would also have the added bonus of keeping it together, so a budding campaign maker can read one article and have a good understanding of any such pitfalls instead of having to dig through 80 pages and skimming through VCs on every one of them to make sure they're not missing something. - Shade 15:43, 5 March 2008 (CST)

Actually, it doesn't have such articles, or they're buried very well. The pirates one does not even seem to be connected to the FRED articles. Perhaps a new section or classification system is in order. - ngtm1r 23:42, 5 March 2008 (PST)

Comments and references to non-canon material in veteran comments

Should stupid "Oh, give it a few BFGreens on each side and it'll be great!!" type comments still be included, or can I go and exterminate them all? - Snail 19:01, 26 July 2008 (CDT)

Depends. I've made a few comments like that myself. One of them, the one on the Arcadia, was based on playing TopAce's Renegade Ressurgence where this was actually done, and it helped the Arcadia a lot. I think anything that can actually be done in FRED and isn't utterly stupid has value as a reference for mission designers. Ngtm1r 22:02, 26 July 2008 (CDT)

I'd say get rid of them. I was momentarily inclined to say that some ships have unusual weapon configurations by default, and suggestions could be made to modders on how to reasonably adjust them, but that could open debate about what qualifies as an "unusual weapon configuration" and who sets the definition. Sticking to commenting on the canonical capabilities of ships and weapons in their veteran comment sections seems an easier path to take. -- BlueFlames 01:10, 27 July 2008 (CDT)

I agree, get rid of them. Snail 07:35, 30 July 2008 (CDT)

In my opinion any mods that tweak the content of the game could make their own page (like Derelict) and all the comments related to that mod could be posted there. So in short about this kind of comments in standard FreeSpace 2 veteran comments i would have to say... get rid of them. - Wanderer 13:02, 30 July 2008 (CDT)

So, in other words, keep some of them, because you can hardly call anything accomplished purely in FRED a mod. Ngtm1r 13:10, 30 July 2008 (CDT)

No, in other words, get rid of all of them. Snail 18:09, 30 July 2008 (CDT)

Which is not what he said, deal with it. I also notice you only managed to find the one I pointed you to conveniently. Ngtm1r 19:02, 30 July 2008 (CDT)

Actually i did mean that editing existing game data - be it either via FRED or via table edits - shouldn't be added to the veteran comments. Otherwise we open the door for comments like Sathanas sucks when armed with targeting lasers loses to colossus every time or like The Edjo is the best sentry gun ever in - add some obscure mod only few have heard off where its armed with BFRed or with Ultra AAA... Both comments would be true and wouldn't require anything else than FREDding to accomplish. Still i wouldn't think those as something that should be in the veteran comments. Of course we could add alternate veteran comment box (or something like it) for comments concerning the models/ships/weapons used with non-standard loadouts or in mods. - Wanderer 09:29, 31 July 2008 (CDT)

Don't worry I'll get the rest. Snail 11:29, 31 July 2008 (CDT)

Should this be a normal page?

Should this be a normal page or be moved to something like FreeSpace Wiki:Veteran comments policy (like FreeSpace Wiki: Administrators)? - Snail 16:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• The latter, most likely. - TopAce 20:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • So is it a matter of simply moving the page (and redirecting all links) to FreeSpace Wiki:Veteran comments policy or are there other parameters that need to be changed? - Snail 18:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)