Difference between revisions of "Talk:Equipment (TFTD)"
(Response to NKF) |
m |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:Yeah...see, the Weight research I did in one night on my own with a hex editor, and I guess it never crossed my mind to roll it out to the various weapon articles. Apologies for that. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 01:02, 6 March 2009 (CST) | :Yeah...see, the Weight research I did in one night on my own with a hex editor, and I guess it never crossed my mind to roll it out to the various weapon articles. Apologies for that. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 01:02, 6 March 2009 (CST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :: Don't worry about it. The TFTD articles are pretty much under-construction as they haven't been tended to as much as UFO. We'll flesh out TFTD to perfection before long! -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:41, 6 March 2009 (CST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Request for Comments re: recent changes == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Perfection is only a short way away... well, no but the articles are looking a little more formal now. | ||
| + | |||
| + | With the changes to the descriptions I've been doing over the last few weeks does anyone have any recommendations on what I could improve on or if I should change anything? | ||
| + | |||
| + | The general format of the information I've been trying to achieve so far goes: official info, brief description, pro/cons followed with some tips or recommendation on how they can be used. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Hopefully what I've done so far isn't overly opinionated. I did refer to the general lack of enthusiasm for the Heavy Gauss and the preference for the Gauss Rifle - but I think that reflects more what a lot of people think of the weapons than saying directly to the reader not to use it. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Then there's the feature pro/con box I've been adding. I've taken a rather ballistic approach to populating them, so I'd especially like some second opinions on them. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In particular I might be a bit too harsh putting 'Gauss' under the con column. Think I'll move it to the 'key feature' box, as it is still a distinguishing feature of the gauss weapons. | ||
| + | |||
| + | -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 05:30, 8 April 2010 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | The new stuff looks great to me. I agree that calling Gauss damage modifiers a negative is debatable. You put the facts in the [[Skipping Gauss Weapons]] article but they aren't decisive. From your comments though it sounds like we need a [[Gas Cannon vs Heavy Gauss]] article. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:42, 8 April 2010 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 23:42, 8 April 2010
Just making a reminder:
I was skimming through the pages looking for some data and discovered that most of the weapon and ammo statistics don't appear to have a complete listing of their stats. Like weight. It's in the separate data tables, just not the individual pages. If we end up with a template to display the stats and whatnot, must remember to populate them properly then. -NKF 00:33, 6 March 2009 (CST)
- Yeah...see, the Weight research I did in one night on my own with a hex editor, and I guess it never crossed my mind to roll it out to the various weapon articles. Apologies for that. Arrow Quivershaft 01:02, 6 March 2009 (CST)
- Don't worry about it. The TFTD articles are pretty much under-construction as they haven't been tended to as much as UFO. We'll flesh out TFTD to perfection before long! -NKF 01:41, 6 March 2009 (CST)
Request for Comments re: recent changes
Perfection is only a short way away... well, no but the articles are looking a little more formal now.
With the changes to the descriptions I've been doing over the last few weeks does anyone have any recommendations on what I could improve on or if I should change anything?
The general format of the information I've been trying to achieve so far goes: official info, brief description, pro/cons followed with some tips or recommendation on how they can be used.
Hopefully what I've done so far isn't overly opinionated. I did refer to the general lack of enthusiasm for the Heavy Gauss and the preference for the Gauss Rifle - but I think that reflects more what a lot of people think of the weapons than saying directly to the reader not to use it.
Then there's the feature pro/con box I've been adding. I've taken a rather ballistic approach to populating them, so I'd especially like some second opinions on them.
In particular I might be a bit too harsh putting 'Gauss' under the con column. Think I'll move it to the 'key feature' box, as it is still a distinguishing feature of the gauss weapons.
-NKF 05:30, 8 April 2010 (EDT)
The new stuff looks great to me. I agree that calling Gauss damage modifiers a negative is debatable. You put the facts in the Skipping Gauss Weapons article but they aren't decisive. From your comments though it sounds like we need a Gas Cannon vs Heavy Gauss article. Spike 19:42, 8 April 2010 (EDT)