Talk: Multi-Tool

Multitool infobox (August 2017)

A second question to consider. If you look at the infobox for a multitool, there is really little need to create much of anything else on the page as just about everything is IN the infobox. While it's nice to have it all in one spot, it has made the infobox pretty lengthy. Not only does that look odd on the page (long infobox, little other content) but the popups tend to extend above or below the edges of the screen when viewing on certain monitors.

'm considering removing some of the rows from the infobox and having that data entered on the page itself. That would help solve both issues mentioned above. The fields I would probably remove are these:

• Galaxy
• Region
• Star System
• Discovered by

I would combine Game Mode and Platform to one line (example: PC-Normal)

This would cut the size of the infobox by about 25%. I'd appreciate your thoughts? Ddfairchild (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The good point with info box is that it is easy to fill for editor.

I agree that galaxy, region and planet could be cut. I would let the star system because the coordinates are usually on that page (an interesting shortcut if you want find the tool). In addition class and slot can be merged on one line (example B-22) or event with the type (Rifle B-22).

That said, if you modify the Tool infobox, the same question have to be rised about starship infobox and more or less all boxes... for constituency purpose. Talinwind (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Restructuring (April 2017)

How do you people feel about restructuring this page? By that I mean adding categories for the multi tool types and then just linking to that category to find the individual weapons. Artificial Beauty (devevery) (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe we have categories already built for each of the basic sections here. Of course with the Pathfinder update we now have the four "official" categories that weapons are divided into. The job of adding a category to each of these pages would be a massive one, but could be done. The issue either way is when someone adds a new multi-tool they either have to add it to the right section on this page, or know enough to give it a category on the page itself. Either way, some pages will be missed. Linking to a category would shorten the page significantly which would probably be good. On the other hand, seeing all the weapons listed together on one page gives a scope to the "world of weapons" that pulling them off into categories would diminish. Ddfairchild (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that the game mechanic pages should be used as a way to show off player discoveries. Everybody knows that the game content is procedural there is no need to make a statement by listing an arbitrary number of discoveries.. I think that there should be a section explaining the four types briefly, with one image per type, as there are not currently enough differences between them to warrant entire new pages. They can each link to list pages where players can put their weapon discoveries. It just clutters up the page the way it is now. --Nodiddlyoddly (talk) 07:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I saw the restructuring. For the type pages (Multi-tool Catalogue - Rifle) You put a table. Why not be consistent with the starship catalogue (Starship Catalogue - Shuttle) and display that in a chip list using link... ? Talinwind (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we could easily do it with bullet points like the original. I floated the table to see what the response might be; about the only reason for using a table would be to have more info easily available without having to do the pop-up links. But I have no problem using a simple list.

A list requires less work. Editor create the page with info-box, then add the link on the list... The editor do not have to write duplicate info, and the visitor still can see all data. Talinwind (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've redone the pages to use a list format, with the pages then split into sections by class. Also renamed them to follow the "Catalogue" naming system that we use for starships. Check the Rifle page for an example that actually contains some information. Ddfairchild (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

This page is being discussed on r/NMSPortals (reddit) (February 2017)

For anyone interested, this page is under discussion on reddit today. The original poster has pointed out that he thinks procedural generation of multi-tools is based around (very few) base receiver types and that it would be of better benefit to the community to classify and think of them that way. I may have been talking out of my backside in my reply, but IMO his thoughts are worth a look. --Zerovalence (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, it's a very intriguing idea. Your comments on the reddit post are correct in that the categorizations currently used in the wiki were added as a quick visual method to describe them. The shape of the muzzle is a very obvious visual clue, but as the reddit author points out, may not be the true method of marking which tools are really different and which are not. With the hundreds of tools we have documented, it provides a good area for some intrepid researcher to follow Ddfairchild (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Glitch (PS4) (August 2016)

I think I found a glitch. Requirements: Mining laser, Boltcaster and a reinforced steel door (to see the effect). Set your Multi-tool to Mining laser, start shooting the door and mash the triangle button. You won't need to reload, the laser won't overheat and you can set your own attackspeed with the Boltcaster. Can anybody confirm that it doesn't only work for me? --TakaNoYaiba (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

New sentinel-porivided multi-tools - "royal" versus "exotic"

While the game files label the new multi-tools as "royal", all in-game display of the multi-tool type refers to them as exotic. While I think most folks will figure it out, it's a potential source of confusion. I'd suggest actually calling it something like "exotic/royal" or "exotic (royal)" to cover the unfortunate two names.

As you mentioned, the game files refer to the Royal as a distinct and new 5th class of multitool. And like you, I find the exotic/royal name mixup less than optimal. However, it is likely that there will be additional modifications down the road which will make Royals more distinguishable. Our admin team discussed how to classify these, and it was decided that it would be better to make the distinction right at the beginning instead of having to change it in multiple places later. Thanks for the suggestion, though! Ddfairchildd (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

potential new class of multitools: exotic

I have never seen a multitool like this, so i guess it could be a yet unlisted tool class.

and it heappens to fit my ship <3

–Preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaninchensuppe is taken (talk • contribs) at 12:36, 10 December 2023‎ (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Those are categorised as "Royal". You can find a list of them here: Multi-Tool Catalogue - Royal (that list only shows the ones documented during the current version though).

Background: They are called "Royal" in the game files. They are also similar to exotic ships as you have seen, and exotic ships have a subtype known as "Royal" within the community.

Let me know if you have any questions, thanks! Lenni (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for helping a blind guy! Feel free to delete this section, since I have no clue what I am doing. Mutlitool was found at BEMA:01E2:0081:0A90:00D1

Multi tools can be scrapped / "decommissioned"

Multi tools can be scrapped / "decommissioned" and it should be mentioned here (on the multi tool page). Videos of the location can be found on YouTube (here is an example: watch?v=yeAwN6WIYEA )