Topic on Talk:Pack animal
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This page shows the changes between two versions of a post by Hordes in the topic "Mechanoids" on Talk:Pack animal.
You can see other versions of this post at its history page.
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Opening this up again (technically this was never closed) | Opening this up again (technically this was never closed) | ||
| − | * Least shock - if it is a "pack animal", i expect animals. | + | * Least shock - if it is a "pack animal", i expect animals first. |
* I find little potential reason to compare mechs and animals on the same table. Mechs don't use food/power but use bandwidth. | * I find little potential reason to compare mechs and animals on the same table. Mechs don't use food/power but use bandwidth. | ||
| − | ** If a player wanted to compare mech v animals, then it is still ''possible'' to compare in a split table. The utility of same-table comparison is pretty low. Tiered sorting is ''possible'', but wiki is clunky. | + | ** If a player wanted to compare mech v animals, then it is still ''possible'' to compare in a split table. The utility of same-table comparison, I assert, is pretty low. Tiered sorting is ''possible'', but wiki is clunky. |
| − | * | + | ** It is possible to compromise and put everything on the same table |
* Right now the sorting has non-DLC mechs interspersed with the animals by default. This could presumably be fixed, but worth noting ATM | * Right now the sorting has non-DLC mechs interspersed with the animals by default. This could presumably be fixed, but worth noting ATM | ||
* Having seperate subsections can mean more explanation of the cost of mechs (bandwidth + you lose out on a worker/combatant) | * Having seperate subsections can mean more explanation of the cost of mechs (bandwidth + you lose out on a worker/combatant) | ||
| + | *Having columns for food + bandwidth means a giant table, which is hard to look at | ||