Board Thread:General Nerf discussion/@comment-45526953-20200708215649/@comment-2234967-20200726074013

Oh no, I don't think you're being a jerk at all. This is exactly the kind of feedback I need, actually! Thanks for giving your thoughts on this.

I agree that we should convert some of this information to things you've listed. I've never noticed how unobjective some of this information is (ie: the "recommended" stuff), and my goal is to remove that, in order to maximize usefulness for these performance articles. Converting the two rate of fire sections into just one (implied max) rate of fire section would be for the better. I am admittedly a little worried about making it be DPS standard all-around, if only because that means we'd have information like "0.5 DPS", which sounds a little funky, since you can't really fire half a dart... but I suppose that's just logistical stuff that might just need to be handwaved and accepted. (Admittedly it is a bit late here so I'm tired and doing some thinking at the same time as writing up this post.)

The thing about the Maverick is that it is rather notable within the community for jamming a lot, due to the manner in how it auto-advances the cylinder (on trigger pull, rather than on the prime). Then again, this is something better explained in the main article itself, rather than on the performance information, which is better suited for statistical info. So I'm absolutely willing to transform the notes section into hard info, rather than stuff like "prone to jamming" or "noisy/loud".

Firing range is... something I know is not as important anymore, considering performance is now judged by chrony FPS readings. But firing ranges claims are a thing, so I think it's best to list accurate info, rather than what is listed on the box, which is often an angled shot and not a flat one. I'm willing to work this out and come up with a gameplan halfway, but I think it may be worth holding onto this. (Perhaps, with the tabber extension, we can have a single firing range spot in the template and it can be shared between flat and angled ranges.)

I'm honestly thinking that, when the template is updated to a more modern and useful standard, we would require information to be cited. We have had a problem in the past with people adding incorrect information to pages, in regards to things like firing ranges and whatnot--granted, this was may more common back when the Vulcan was on store shelves, lol, but it's a concern to worry about. I also worry people would think that something like that would be too harsh on people who want to contribute, but considering this is supposed to he hard facts, I would hope asking for a minimum of some sort of reputable source wouldn't be asking too much.

And yes, I would have to agree with the X symbol. It does make it unclear, and that was a mistake on my part in regards of the design of the template. I can go in and fix this right now before I go and sleep, actually, because man, that is a big whoopsie on my part.