Not required as I doubt it has any real impact on anything (I have some OCD, which is the only reason why I'm pointing it out), but if my understanding of everything is correct, the following sections of code are dead / don't do anything.
Everything is in turretgenerator.lua
Lines 315 and 316, the entries for Penetration and Explosive can be removed.
Line 377, the entry for Specialty.Penetration can be removed.
possibleSpecialties[WeaponType.ChainGun] = {
{specialty = Specialty.HighDamage, probability = 0.1},
{specialty = Specialty.HighRange, probability = 0.1},
{specialty = Specialty.IonizedProjectile, probability = 0.05},
{specialty = Specialty.Penetration, probability = 0.05},
{specialty = Specialty.HighFireRate, probability = 0.2},
{specialty = Specialty.BurstFire, probability = 0.1},
{specialty = Specialty.AutomaticFire, probability = 0.05},
}
Lines 492 - 495 can be removed.
-- railgun always have block penetration
if type == WeaponType.RailGun then
table.insert(specialties, Specialty.Penetration)
end
Lines 497 - 501 can be removed.
-- rocketlauncher and anti-fighter always have explosive damage
if type == WeaponType.RocketLauncher
or type == WeaponType.AntiFighter then
table.insert(specialties, Specialty.Explosive)
end
Line 528, the check for "and not turret.coaxial" can be removed (you're now properly handling this back at line 465, so this is now redundant).
if s == Specialty.AutomaticFire and not turret.coaxial then
Suggestion
FuryoftheStars
Not required as I doubt it has any real impact on anything (I have some OCD, which is the only reason why I'm pointing it out), but if my understanding of everything is correct, the following sections of code are dead / don't do anything.
Everything is in turretgenerator.lua
Lines 315 and 316, the entries for Penetration and Explosive can be removed.
Line 377, the entry for Specialty.Penetration can be removed.
Lines 492 - 495 can be removed.
Lines 497 - 501 can be removed.
Line 528, the check for "and not turret.coaxial" can be removed (you're now properly handling this back at line 465, so this is now redundant).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
0 answers to this suggestion
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now