Jump to content

sometimes you find a vehicle with multiple variations and you can't tell what is the major difference between them.

example would be the Yaks, the spitfire, the F4s(corsair and Fs of similar BR ), IL-2s, FWs and so on and so on.

 

so i applied this method with the Soukou-Tei_(1927), in which i wrote extensively about(and the wiki guy was a Grammer nazi so thank god).

then when i went over the Soukou-Tei_(1940), and I simply wrote on the Pro " Overall upgrade from the Pioneer (follow the same tactics) " , i haven't added the Details but whoever read the Pioneer page would understand that things got better(37mm to 57mm, 6.6mm machine guns to 7.7mm MG, and all in the same BR but i will add these details).

 

so what do you think, write extensively about the first variation and then add what was added in a section? battle usage may or may not differ but we will see what happen, all in all, the massive wall of texts or lack off makes it difficult to find the difference.(example, found the difference between the F4F-3 and F4F-4 in 2 different section of the F-4 which took me a while of skimming).

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, blackbeard_teach said:

sometimes you find a vehicle with multiple variations and you can't tell what is the major difference between them

 

You make a good point, some pages are filled out and some pages are not and when it comes to pages with multiple aircraft which are just variations (or even the same aircraft between nations), it can be hard to ferret out the details which differentiate between them (which one is better, why is it better, what does it do differently, does this one just have a different paint job?). 

 

While filling out the first variation vehicle's page and adding highlights or a quick note stating "See vehicle X version x.x" on the follow up versions may initially seem to make it quicker for people to find the differences, but overall, it seems to backfire. One of the issues, as in the example of the Soukou-Tei (1940) is that the only things written for it are the initial description (most of which is a template or parsers) and the two pros/cons you added. Most people when looking at that page will either think the page is unfinished, the vehicle is crap (people only write about the cool fun vehicles, right?) or might be confused as to why nothing is written because they play it all the time and love it, but just don't feel like helping to add to the wiki (adding to the wiki is not for everyone, but it surly can use some help especially from those who know these vehicles the best).

 

I feel it is important that every vehicle page is filled out and yes, between some variants there are similarities, if not only minor differences (I worked on the five F-84 aircraft pages, of which three are identical - F-84G-21 fighters) and there is a lot of cut and paste between them because they have the same capabilities, weapons and tactics. However there are some differences when it comes to the F-84B, F-84G-21 and the F-84G-26 and it think this is where it would be important to incorporate more of a comparison between them in the sections. Sometimes the history section will note differences, but it is also OK to list in the say in the "Flight performance" section to talk about the engine this aircraft has and if it does OK, it wouldn't hurt to state that a later variant in the game has a newer engine which affects performance in a positive way (giving someone something to look forward to while grinding away at the aircraft) and in later variants its is OK to compare to earlier by saying "this aircraft's engine is a significant boost to earlier variants by increasing speed by "X" and has an afterburner too".

 

Not everyone has played all variants and so when they work on a wiki page, they only write about the one vehicle they have played and cannot give comparisons between other variants. This can work out well as someone lays the initial foundation for the vehicle page and someone later on can come in and fill in details which are missing (such as comparisons to other variants of the vehicle or even comparisons to other analogues found in the other nation's tech-trees. 

 

As for your example between the two Soukou-Tei boats, are the only differences the weapons? If so, does that only affect which targets they can go after? If yes, what are the target differences, is there a reason to research into the second variant? Maybe on the 1940 page, you can talk about how good the boat it and then note in some sections, "if you like this boat, the 1941 will be an easy transition with needed upgraded weapons" and why they are needed (I don't play them, so I can't speak to their pay style differences, but I think you get the point). Similar thing happens with the PBJ-1H and PBJ-1J as initially they are the same aircraft, however their main weapons are different (one has a 75 mm cannon and 8 machine guns while the other has 12 machine guns), it would be easy here to drop in a blurb stating "See other aircraft for details, this one flies the same" and just add a few differences, but then the page would look like a skeleton and people might not give it a second glance.

 

I do appreciate your efforts in working on the wiki pages, especially with the naval side, I don't play ships and don't have the experience you do, so anything I wrote would be "textbook" learning. It is important to not only write out what the vehicle can do, but why the player should want to play that vehicle, why go through the effort to research it and not bypass it just to get to the next rank. If you see articles such as the F-4F's which you noted are difficult to see the differences, don't hesitate to add to the page to help clarify, what you work on will help others add to in the future. Good luck, let us know if we can help!    

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, AN_TRN_26 said:

 

 

While filling out the first variation vehicle's page and adding highlights or a quick note stating "See vehicle X version x.x" on the follow up versions may initially seem to make it quicker for people to find the differences, but overall, it seems to backfire. One of the issues, as in the example of the Soukou-Tei (1940) is that the only things written for it are the initial description (most of which is a template or parsers) and the two pros/cons you added. Most people when looking at that page will either think the page is unfinished, the vehicle is crap (people only write about the cool fun vehicles, right?) or might be confused as to why nothing is written because they play it all the time and love it, but just don't feel like helping to add to the wiki (adding to the wiki is not for everyone, but it surly can use some help especially from those who know these vehicles the best).

 

I feel it is important that every vehicle page is filled out and yes, between some variants there are similarities, if not only minor differences (I worked on the five F-84 aircraft pages, of which three are identical - F-84G-21 fighters) and there is a lot of cut and paste between them because they have the same capabilities, weapons and tactics. However there are some differences when it comes to the F-84B, F-84G-21 and the F-84G-26 and it think this is where it would be important to incorporate more of a comparison between them in the sections. Sometimes the history section will note differences, but it is also OK to list in the say in the "Flight performance" section to talk about the engine this aircraft has and if it does OK, it wouldn't hurt to state that a later variant in the game has a newer engine which affects performance in a positive way (giving someone something to look forward to while grinding away at the aircraft) and in later variants its is OK to compare to earlier by saying "this aircraft's engine is a significant boost to earlier variants by increasing speed by "X" and has an afterburner too".

 

 

 

As for your example between the two Soukou-Tei boats, are the only differences the weapons? If so, does that only affect which targets they can go after? If yes, what are the target differences, is there a reason to research into the second variant? Maybe on the 1940 page, you can talk about how good the boat it and then note in some sections, "if you like this boat, the 1941 will be an easy transition with needed upgraded weapons" and why they are needed (I don't play them, so I can't speak to their pay style differences, but I think you get the point).

 

thank you for your reply kind sir

 

the boats i mentioned are Identical in play-style and if i am not mistaken we got the smallest caliber machine-gun in the whole game residing in the 1927 boat.

same short barrels, 1mm more in machinegun size, maybe a heavier shell promoting more elevation angle to reach the same distance, Overall trust me on this one for now,thanks to my stupid ****, i did so good the Devs just made it the highest Repair cost in BR 1.7 Naval(1940 boat), same situation happened with the Me264 :)

 

 

i would love to get them all filled up, but at same time i wanna know what Plane X has to offer than Y, what's the different between F4U-A1 and the USMC or the B-17 E&L, so posted this idea elsewhere and the replies were semi positive, it seem one person suggested to implement a similarity section or something to that effect.

 

also, i would like to point out that most players either Skip vehicles that they don't feel good and would waste money trying to learn it/spade it(people praised my paitance for Spading the F4U-C), while other would comeback to it at a later time for a lower tiered friend, and would love to see a quick Recap of what made that Modification special.

 

i am thinking of 3 approaches on how to keep the wiki filled up while making important stuff short and simple, might get back to this Topic later and explain them.

 

 

and while i am still here, if you could petition the Devs to make Grinding easier because that would tremendous especially that free time spent answering in the forums and writing wiki is time not spent into finishing this exalted Grind(try grinding Navy and ground, double the effort for less reward)

 

 

 

Edited by blackbeard_teach
just something i needed to add
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, blackbeard_teach said:

it seem one person suggested to implement a similarity section or something to that effect.

 

I agree, while some comparisons can be mixed in with the the other sections, having a dedicated area which highlights differences between the different variants would be helpful. there is typically a section at the bottom of each page where there is an area where you can list comparable aircraft (same nation and other nations) to help people figure out similar aircraft so they have a good idea of the playstyle already, I don't see why comparisons between variants could not also be listed there just as long as the section doesn't get to large and complicated. 

 

18 hours ago, blackbeard_teach said:

also, i would like to point out that most players either Skip vehicles that they don't feel good and would waste money trying to learn it/spade it(people praised my paitance for Spading the F4U-C), while other would comeback to it at a later time for a lower tiered friend, and would love to see a quick Recap of what made that Modification special.

 

Yeah, the F4Us are kind of a pain, I want to like them very much, they seem to tear me up, but I don't do so well in them, most likely pilot error. Its almost like there needs to be a "TL;DR" section, but then people will most likely skip to that and bypass all the other hard work people put in, double-edge sword.

 

18 hours ago, blackbeard_teach said:

and while i am still here, if you could petition the Devs to make Grinding easier because that would tremendous especially that free time spent answering in the forums and writing wiki is time not spent into finishing this exalted Grind(try grinding Navy and ground, double the effort for less reward)

 

Lol, unfortunately I have as much pull with the Devs as you do. Grinding is a challenge, my wiki time vs game time is about 90%/10%, I might get 2-3 matches in every few days, so I don't have any illusions about reaching the jets unless I buy into the premiums. I don't even try ground, helicopters or naval, they just frustrate me, so I concentrate on aircraft. The one thing which I found helps out if there is a time when I can play 10 matches in a day is to get the 75% booster, that helps speed up the process (did that on the Dev server with the Chinese tree and worked through the early aircraft quite quickly).

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AN_TRN_26 said:

 

I agree, while some comparisons can be mixed in with the the other sections, having a dedicated area which highlights differences between the different variants would be helpful. there is typically a section at the bottom of each page where there is an area where you can list comparable aircraft (same nation and other nations) to help people figure out similar aircraft so they have a good idea of the playstyle already, I don't see why comparisons between variants could not also be listed there just as long as the section doesn't get to large and complicated. 

 

Wikipedia  already done that, open up a tank page and they show what is similar to it, still the hard work will be observed by the hard reader, cause some folks just need pictures more than text.

4 hours ago, AN_TRN_26 said:

 

 

Yeah, the F4Us are kind of a pain, I want to like them very much, they seem to tear me up, but I don't do so well in them, most likely pilot error. Its almost like there needs to be a "TL;DR" section, but then people will most likely skip to that and bypass all the other hard work people put in, double-edge sword.

 

now that you mention it, i am opening up another Wiki discussion post about the F4U-7(french), it's written in the wiki that it comes with 2 compressor setting when it should be 1, plus it's a low altitude fighter bomber, will explain later.

 

seems i will be dragged from my comparison guide cause the F4U-7 is really bugging me

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if we write differences in Family page? There are already some description. Not 20 lines of text obviously but just one line of major differences in camparison to previous model. So if improved model shares something with its predecessor you dont state it. I put screenshot from original wiki.

Example:

  • Ki-43-I - Successor to the Ki-27 otsu, overall upgrade, can be armed with 2 x 12.7 mm Ho-103 machine guns.
  • Ki-43-II - Improved engine (HP here?), armed with 2 x 12.7 mm Ho-103 machine guns, equiped with bomb pylons. 
  • Ki-43-III otsu - Improved engine (HP here?), armed with 2 х 20 mm Ho-5 cannon.


This would be on family page. Captured aircraft will stay as they are (just info that they were captured/land lease and which nation) Some players will probably know these aircrafts better. Tanks will have more variations since there is many more differences (25 types of M4 Sherman, 17 types of T-34 etc.) Best would be to find some adequate format. Like Successor, engine, armament, armor(tanks), equipment, 

 

 

wt wiki.jpg

original wiki.jpg

Edited by GunFetish
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...