Difference between revisions of "Talk:Empirical Evaluation of Fences"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Q for author) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Is this a chart of damage the fences took over time? If so it should be labelled as such. --[[User:Maluraq|Maluraq]] 01:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC) | Is this a chart of damage the fences took over time? If so it should be labelled as such. --[[User:Maluraq|Maluraq]] 01:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Secondly, it would also be a useful addition to the 'evaluation' to measure/test the 'repairing success/failures' on the wall/fence types (bearing in mind that successful repairs will also reduce decay by 10 on stone walls and 40 on fences etc) In the interest of fairness, the same quality materials should be used for repair works across the board. Repairing fences seems to more than make up for their ever-so-slightly faster decay rate and in my experience seems to fail less often than trying to repair a stone wall. --[[User:Zhuyi|Zhuyi]] 16:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 17:37, 27 July 2010
Is this a chart of damage the fences took over time? If so it should be labelled as such. --Maluraq 01:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Secondly, it would also be a useful addition to the 'evaluation' to measure/test the 'repairing success/failures' on the wall/fence types (bearing in mind that successful repairs will also reduce decay by 10 on stone walls and 40 on fences etc) In the interest of fairness, the same quality materials should be used for repair works across the board. Repairing fences seems to more than make up for their ever-so-slightly faster decay rate and in my experience seems to fail less often than trying to repair a stone wall. --Zhuyi 16:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
