|
2006-06-13 07:21
|
screen0003.jpg (96,377 bytes) |
|
|
3 per second (3/s) =/= 3 second (3 s)... |
|
|
Oh, sorry for this one, an extra dose of flagellation for me. Thought it is the reload time. It would be much clearer if you specify a reload time too. edited on: 06-14-06 06:16 edited on: 06-14-06 06:19 |
|
|
[overthinking] If i read the OP correctly, the issue here is that the label should convey "the minimum duration between firings of the Tempest secondaries". Not "the number of projectiles the secondary system can reload in one second". With that in mind, a glance at the weapons.tbl file indicates: Rockeye Reload 2/s Tempest Reload 3/s Hornet Reload 2s Tornado Reload 2.5s Harpoon Reload 2s Trebuchet Reload 6s TAG-A Reload 3s TAG-B Reload 8s TAG-C Reload 8s Piranha Reload 5s Stiletto II Reload 2s Infyrno Reload 5s Cyclops Reload 20s Helios Reload 30s EMP Adv. Reload 2s It does look like "minimum duration between firings" is the rule, with two obvious exceptions in the Rockeye and Tempest. So, are those exceptions intentional? Is the OP correct; are they errors? The Tempest seems to shoot two projectiles in less than a second--say four projectiles total in that span. As like: fire, reload in 0.7s, fire again. Thus the reload would plainly be 0.7s or somesuch. Maybe the "3/s" number is trying to describe the ROF, but even if so, it shouldn't be listed as the reload... and then on top of that, 4.x/s or 5.x/s would actually be the correct value. [/overthinking] |
|
|
If you want it fixed then just attach a tbm with the modifications. This isn't a code issue, just the MediaVPs. If no one provides a fixed tbm then I'm just going to close this, since I hate those modified descriptions anyway, and this really isn't an issue worth giving a crap about. :) |
|
|
Fair enough. i would be willing to do the changes, -but- i'd want to be thorough and make sure all the data is up to snuff--otherwise, what's the point? So rather than dash off a quick alteration, i would need to sit down when i have time, and verify everything. Is that acceptable, or is it too insignficant to bother over? |
|
|
If you're going to fix it, might as well do it like you want. :) My only point is that this issue really doesn't warrant a Mantis bug. It would probably be better just to fix the tech description tbm from the MediaVPs and then post the fix in an appropriate MediaVP thread in the forums. Unless DaBrain actually intends on keeping track of MediaVP bugs here in Mantis, it would likely be more work to check both places, since most bugs (and fixes) end up listed in the forums. |
|
|
That's acceptable, and reasonable. i do submit that, for some borderline issues like this one, it may be difficult for the uninitiated / the laypeople to determine what qualifies as "Mantis-worthy" in the first place. i certainly felt that way myself when i first posted here, and still do (as with my recent non-bug about the rearm-primary-feature). At any rate... unless NeoStorm has more to add, i agree this could/should be closed, and a thread could be made in the forums to gauge whether enough of the community cares about a fix, to make it worthwhile. |
|
|
Thanks Crusader. I have nothing to add. |
|
|
A fixed tbm should show up in the forums for this at some point. Leaving this assigned to DaBrain so he gets notification, and he can reopen if he actually wants to deal with it as a Mantis bug. Closered. |
- Anonymous
