| Author |
Stress Test High Priority issues |
Mithrandir
Chief Marshal
Joined: October 22, 2001
Posts: 1276
|  Posted: 2005-06-24 19:36
I'm starting a list of things we need people to check... other admins, feel free to add on because I don't really know what you want checked.. this is just a few things I did.
1. Pay attention to rank requirements to see if they make sense. Post here or in the thread dedicated to it; I'll check 'em both.
2. Check to see if there are horrible discriptions of objects or ships, or typos in descriptions; I can edit those easily. Example: The EAD description had 'tje' instead of 'the'. Just little things like that.
3. Tael's out of town, so who knows what he wants watched. But do that stuff too. 
_________________
|
whitefire330
1st Rear Admiral
Joined: April 18, 2005
Posts: 36
| Posted: 2005-06-24 19:47
besides my first 2 cents i mentioned.
the starports were actin wierd today
rank requirements are on the upper end of the scale but personaly i dont mind, just keeps me playing the game
[ This Message was edited by: whitefire330 on 2005-06-24 19:49 ]
_________________
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2005-06-24 19:52
Quote:
|
On 2005-06-24 19:47, whitefire330 wrote:
the starports were actin wierd today
|
|
Its already in mantis.
_________________
|
Sopwith Camel
Grand Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 07, 2002
Posts: 651
From: Toronto
| Posted: 2005-06-24 20:19
I've gone through all of the ships and found the following errors in their descriptions. These are mostly just typos/grammatical errors, there are some ships (like the K'luth scouts) that just have really simple/bad descriptions that need to be changed.
The words in italics should replace the current word in the description.
UGTO:
ST-75 Interdictor: ...Offensive weapons are minimal; also, the interictor only prevents enemy ships from jumping, not ALL ships, as the current description states
ST-7000 Engineer: ...however more maneuverable than its counterpart
ST-111 EAD: ...The EAD has a...
ST-105 Battle Dread: ...yet with its high top speed...
ST-101 Carrier Dread: ...the supercarrier (no comma) responsible for...
Additionally, the Agincourt Carrier Dread needs a "ship code", unless there's a reason why there isn't one.
ICC:
Generally, it's kinda weird to have some ship codes having hyphens in between "M" and the number, like M-2300, while some don't, like M2250.
M2250 Line Station: ...for offensive weaponry.
M-2300 Sector Coomand Base: No real problems, but the description just basically repeats the name!
M-251 Wormhole Generation Crusier: The M-251 Wormhole Generator... (the current description code is "M-251 W", so you should either change the description or the ship name)
M-2351 Interdictor: ...Offensive weapons are minimal; also, the interictor only prevents enemy ships from jumping, not ALL ships, as the current description states
MR110 Enginnering Ship: ...quick and faster than its counterpart...; ...and minimal defensive capability
M2122 Heavy Transport: ...not a fighting vehicle, its firepower..
M-400B Bomber Dreadnaught: The M-400B Dreadnaught...
M-410A Assault Dreadnaught
M-400A Combat Dreadnaught
I wasn't surprised that the word "Dreadnaught" was misspelt for three ICC Dreads 'cause they're all unlearned human rebels
Edit:Oops, apparently it is spelt "dreadnought"... thanks Mithrandir!
K'Luth:
Nest: ...heavy weapons platform bred in response to... (nothing really wrong with "build", but it sounds better for an organic ship  )
Siphon: ...UGTO and ICC Dreadnaughts class...
Mandible: ...UGTO and ICC Dreadnaughts class...
Scarab: ... in that it has AM mines. (Now it DOES have disruptors)
I'm sure I missed other errors in the descriptions, so please keep an eye out for 'em.
[ This Message was edited by: Sopwith Camel on 2005-06-25 20:58 ]
_________________
Fleet Commander, Galactic Navy
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2005-06-24 22:25
I 100% agree with the health reading instead of damage...
or is that 0%....
_________________
|
Mithrandir
Chief Marshal
Joined: October 22, 2001
Posts: 1276
| Posted: 2005-06-24 22:36
Maybe I'm reading a different dictionary than you are... but I'm pretty sure its dreadnought, not dreadnaught, as you corrected them all to be.
Though there may be some missepllings of that on the website and in the game...
I'll check them all and correct 'em.
_________________
|
Mithrandir
Chief Marshal
Joined: October 22, 2001
Posts: 1276
| Posted: 2005-06-24 22:39
Thanks for going through all the ships for me, though, Sop... I appreciate the work.
_________________
|
Bobamelius
Grand Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: October 08, 2002
Posts: 2074
From: Ohio
| Posted: 2005-06-24 22:43
Check the 'Anialator' bomber. I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be spelled annihilator. Actually, I'm 100% sure.
_________________
|
Sopwith Camel
Grand Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 07, 2002
Posts: 651
From: Toronto
| Posted: 2005-06-24 23:20
Quote:
|
On 2005-06-24 22:36, Mithrandir wrote:
Maybe I'm reading a different dictionary than you are... but I'm pretty sure its dreadnought, not dreadnaught, as you corrected them all to be.
Though there may be some missepllings of that on the website and in the game...
I'll check them all and correct 'em.
|
|
You are absolutely correct on this.
_________________
Fleet Commander, Galactic Navy
|
Mithrandir
Chief Marshal
Joined: October 22, 2001
Posts: 1276
| Posted: 2005-06-25 00:52
I reworked all the descriptions you mentioned, in some cases just fixing possessive issues (it's -> its), in other cases completely rewriting the description.
I left the ICC as mixed up with numbering and hyphenation; I'll see about setting a standard in the indistinct future. Likewise with the Agincourt carrier.
Thanks Sop.
_________________
|
warner_lowcharge
Admiral
Joined: September 27, 2004
Posts: 205
From: Finland
| Posted: 2005-06-25 06:26
i went thru the UGTO ships, this is what i think should be fixed:
ST-05 bomber corvette; in the description called ST-5 and scout, the word "capable" is missing the "e" at the end (atleast i don't see it)
ST-01 antisensor scout; in the description called ST-1
ST-5, ST-6, ST-7, ST-8; maby should be ST-0# or all ships should be ST-#?
ST-101 carrier dread;
in the description; Super carrier, responsible...i think it should be Supercarrier responsible...the ones who are good at grammar should check this=)
ST-74 torpedo cruiser; in the description it's said " extra missiles have been added" no missiles have been added
ST-02 assault corvevette, ; in the description ST-2 corvette, heaviest firepower of the UGTO scouts
ST-105 battle dread; in the description most heavily armed ship in the UGTO fleet...what abut the EAD?
ST-76 battle cruiser; in the description "deadly at close range with it's laser batteries" would suggest it's mostly armed with lasers, tho it has less of them compared to ,say, the torp cruiser
ST-75 interdictor; in the description it's said the jumpdisruptor prevents all ships from jumping while active. should it not prevent only enemy ships from jumping?
_________________
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2005-06-25 11:45
Thats probably because "02" is classed as just "2" in programming terms.
_________________
|
Doran
Chief Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 29, 2003
Posts: 4032
From: The Gideon Unit
| Posted: 2005-06-25 12:49
Quote:
|
On 2005-06-24 20:19, Sopwith Camel wrote:
Objects:
Damage Reading: All objects currently say "Damage: 100%" when fully healthy, which is misleading. Thus it should either say "Damage: 0%" or "Health: 100%" or something similar.
|
|
similar for armor, damaged armor reads as 100% regardless
_________________
|
Novacat
Grand Admiral
Joined: October 30, 2001
Posts: 2337
From: Starleague Cache
| Posted: 2005-06-25 13:07
You should be able to see the level of devices when you right-click on them.
_________________
Ghostly Specter of an Ancient Past.
|
Mithrandir
Chief Marshal
Joined: October 22, 2001
Posts: 1276
| Posted: 2005-06-25 15:25
warner.. thanks for all those, but I already changed all of those descriptions you've listed.
Which to me indicates that my updates have no yet been published.. :/
Thanks for the help so far, but everyone should probably hold off on the critiquing of ship descriptions, since the updated ones haven't been released yet, it seems.
Though the UGTO numbering, and the ICC for that matter, is still inconsistient. I'll fix that sometime in the future as well.
_________________
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
