Talk:GTVA Colossus

Quotes might be inaccurate. I recalled them from heart. - TopAce

I added the sidebar, but the picture messed with it so i rearanged the article, i'm preety sure the pic sholdnt be where i put it so we need a wiki-god to make it nicely positioned.--FireCrack 10:03, 16 Nov 2005 (CET)

Moved the image - still not ideal though. Black Wolf 12:11, 16 Nov 2005 (CET)

What about an in-game shot? I think with the HTL lightning, a better screenshot could be made. What about a nebula or a planet in the background? That would make it even better in my opinion. - TopAce 19:55, 22 Nov 2005 (CET)

• So, should the picture be about SCP eye candy or the Colossus? --Selectah 06:17, 2 February 2007 (CST)

---

Do we want this page to be changed into a similar format with the other ship pages? I mean for the performance and tech room descriptions part? Wanderer 08:47, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Yes, but leave all the current text into the article. - TopAce 18:09, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

---

There's a bug with the Colossus. If you play any mission with it, and tell your squad or wing to ignore a target such as a destroyer, the Colossus ignores that target too. AllStarZ 03:09, 20 July 2006 (BST)

Only on certain versions --Mars 03:13, 20 July 2006 (BST)

It's a bug with the game, not with the Colossus. And the bug has been fixed in the SCP. Goober5000 01:17, 26 July 2006 (BST)

Ships inside Colosuss' hull

I have confirmed that the number of fightercrafts inside the Colossus is 240, and the page in the wiki is correct. Also, another new unit used for fighercrafts is a squad. A squad conists of 3 wings (So 20 squads inside colossus). I just want to post here first, since if someone has any opninions. My proof is inside the Colossus cutscene, and start looking from 1:46. Nubbles 05:44, 22 June 2008 (CDT)

• I have nothing against it but the spacecraft icons displayed in the cutscene make no difference between fighters and bombers. It has been proved that the space necessary to accomodate one Ursa-class bomber is nearly equivalent to the one necessary to accomodate 8(yes, eight) Loki-class fighters. I think we should stick with the original statement, "60 fighter or bomber wings", without trying to specify the exact number of combat spacecraft(which is various). - Mobius

Semantics

Reclassifying the Colossus as a superdestroyer seems a little silly. I can grant that the Colossus is never canonically labeled as a juggernaut, but neither is it designated a superdestroyer, and its size seems to demand a different designation.

Just because the Sathanas is more powerful doesn't strike me as a sufficient justification for the lesser label. A Ravana can rip a Hecate or an Orion to shreds, but we don't reclassify those terran vessels corvettes because of that comparison. The shivan juggernaut is more powerful than its GTVA counterpart in a head-to-head assault, but that tends to be true across all ship classes. -- BlueFlames 13:44, 4 November 2008 (CST)

"Supercap" is the most appropriate term, if we want to stick to canon. It's the only designation that, IIRC, was given to the Colossus. The problem I can see with that is that it's a technical term used only in the table files. Unless mentioned by another classification in the game, I would use "supercap" and possibly explain that it is a technical term that means blah blah blah somewhere in the article. [random thought]Argh... it can't even be said that the Colly is a destroyer, because it's not mentioned as such and it doesn't have the GTD designation[/random thought]. - TopAce 07:56, 5 November 2008 (CST)

Well, I made a change. It should get the idea across, without stretching canon classifications or giving the local shivans any kind of anatomical envy. -- BlueFlames 17:19, 6 November 2008 (CST)

Super Capital Ship is OK yes? Or is it going to be changed another few hundred times? -- Snail 05:57, 22 December 2008 (CST)

I'm fine with it. Perhaps it would be a bit better to attach a "non-canon" note to it to make its canonicity status explicit. Yes, that's a change I'm going to do. Revert if there's a problem with it. - TopAce 09:00, 22 December 2008 (CST)

I was fine with it at juggernaut, to be honest, but apparently the notion that that's what the Colossus is offends some members. Change it to whatever you like; I'm done babying one field in the table. -- BlueFlames 16:55, 22 December 2008 (CST)

I think I'll do a poll on HLP and see what the rest of the community thinks. Most votes wins. -- Androgeos Exeunt 20:22, 22 December 2008 (CST)

Here's a link to the thread. As for whether you guys want to follow it or not... -- Androgeos Exeunt 02:48, 23 December 2008 (CST)

Why not just classify it as a Colossus Class ship? Isn't that what they do for the first ships of its kind? All following ships would be Colossus Class Ships?

• We haven't been discussing the class's name, but its ship type. Those are two different things. - TopAce 07:27, 7 February 2009 (CST)

Weird, extremely weird "Veteran Comments"

I removed several *idiotic* comments and tried to replace them with more coherent one. They surely were the most weird comments of the entire Wiki.

Strangely enough, there's a tendence in throwing in the results of FRED experiments even if we all know that the outcome of a battle depends on several parameters other than relative ship placement. Also, certain comments give for sure that replacing all anti-warship beams with BFGreens should be a standard change. Have those guys ever cared about the messages sent by the Colossus in High Noon? Are they aware of what reactor overloads are capable of causing?

My message is - keep the Veteran Comments useful, comprehensive and coherent. --- Mobius

Veteran Comments Policy

Early in 2008, the FreeSpace Wiki community came to the consensus that many of its Veteran Comments sections had devolved into blogs. Veteran Comments were originally intended to provide useful information about various ships that wasn't apparent from their table statistics. From now on, contributors are asked to maintain a certain level of quality in their Comments.

A Wiki forums discussion has come to some conclusions. Here are a few examples of what information a useful Veteran Comment might include, although this list is far from all-inclusive:

All articles:

• Notes for FREDders (the Nephilim doesn't carry bombs in its default loadout, certain bombers carry Phoenixes but the good-secondary-time SEXP must be used to enable them to fire)
• Info on special gun placements and which banks correspond to which guns (Ursa's top-right gun, which is uselessly inaccurate versus anything small)
• Warnings about any problems with the ship (Tauret can't really use Kaysers due to energy constraints)
• Weaknesses (the weapons systems on the Erinyes and Athena are extremely exposed. Think 95% hull and no weapons working)
• Any interesting facts that have not been pointed out elsewhere

Capship articles:

• Blind spots (in front and ever so slightly above a Moloch, only a single blob turret can reach you)
• Special issues (the Azrael is effectively impossible to disable due to the engine placement)

What a Veteran Comment should not contain:

• Blog-like descriptions that point out strengths/weaknesses under rare circumstances.
• Speculation about how powerful the given ship would be if its default armament weren't what it is. (An Arcadia could be more powerful if it had beams, but it doesn't!)
• Speculation about the motives behind a given ship or weapon (Why did the NTF use Prometheus R cannons instead of Kaysers? Why was the Valkyrie decommissioned?)
• Mission-specific comments (This ship is very useful in this mission under these circumstances). Comments like these are to be made in the relevant article. (Use the Trebuchets like this in Bearbaiting)
• Highly subjective and debatable statements like extremely weak or totally useless.
• Vulgarities like a piece of crap.
• Redundancy with comments already made; if a particular facet of tactics, weapons, or facts about a ship has already been pointed out, don't repeat it.

The thrust of the Veteran Comments reform movement is, do not treat Veteran Comments like Myspace. Verified and useful information is valued; highly subjective and useless comments are not. Veteran comments are not treated as forum posts by one user—other contributors are allowed to edit the comments for accuracy, clarity of expression, or grammar. Accordingly, please don't sign your Veteran Comments.

Through all this, remember that this policy is not meant to discourage helpful contributors. Be bold, as they say on Wikipedia. If you're not sure of something, start a discussion on the Talk Page. If you are fairly certain of it, edit the article accordingly. Thanks to the Wiki architecture, errors can be corrected or removed later.