Talk:Invention Origin Enhancement Scaling: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>PaxArcana (historical) m (query, re: ordering the bonusses table) |
imported>Sister Leortha (historical) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Is there any particular reason that the table of IO bonusses-by-level is ordered "B A C D", instead of "A B C D" ...? --[[User:PaxArcana|PaxArcana]] 13:02, 23 February 2007 (PST) | Is there any particular reason that the table of IO bonusses-by-level is ordered "B A C D", instead of "A B C D" ...? --[[User:PaxArcana|PaxArcana]] 13:02, 23 February 2007 (PST) | ||
:Because when Iakona typed out the table on the CoH boards, he typed it in order of lowest bonus to highest bonus. Schedule B gives less bonus than schedule A. C and D give more. When I first moved the data over here, I left it just as Iakona typed it. When I later updated the column headers to show the schedule names and link to the schedule descriptions, I saw that they were out of order. But given the way that the data is formatted, reordering them would have meant shuffling around manually two columns in each of 40+ lines of data. More trouble than I thought the change was worth. Still think that. So basically, if you feel up to the effort of swapping the data in those two columns in all 40 or so rows, go for it. - [[User:Sister Leortha|Sister Leortha]] 13:13, 23 February 2007 (PST) | |||
Revision as of 21:13, 23 February 2007
Table Ordering
Is there any particular reason that the table of IO bonusses-by-level is ordered "B A C D", instead of "A B C D" ...? --PaxArcana 13:02, 23 February 2007 (PST)
- Because when Iakona typed out the table on the CoH boards, he typed it in order of lowest bonus to highest bonus. Schedule B gives less bonus than schedule A. C and D give more. When I first moved the data over here, I left it just as Iakona typed it. When I later updated the column headers to show the schedule names and link to the schedule descriptions, I saw that they were out of order. But given the way that the data is formatted, reordering them would have meant shuffling around manually two columns in each of 40+ lines of data. More trouble than I thought the change was worth. Still think that. So basically, if you feel up to the effort of swapping the data in those two columns in all 40 or so rows, go for it. - Sister Leortha 13:13, 23 February 2007 (PST)