Pongo

[ QUOTE ]
I'm almost positive that I was getting more than one bonus for destroying the same type of objects.

[/ QUOTE ]

This happened to me too (had a nice run of destroying parking meters), although I noticed after a while I stopped getting the 1:00 bonuses. I still kept getting the :30 bonuses for resisting arrest all the way to the end of the mission.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course not, all you have to do is queu up another attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't even have to do that. The intuitive thing to do would be to take the squishy down from 100% health a negligible amount before performing the AS.

Something like...oh, I don't know, TP Foe might just do it.

[ QUOTE ]
Either w00t is actually an acronym for "We Own (the) Other Team". Earliest representation I recall was during some 2am.com games back in the mid to late 90's.
It represents winners or super accomplishments in gaming.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Origins of W00t are disputed. The farthest back sighting I can remember of it was back in the BBS days, early 90's or even slightly earlier, as an early 1337 way of expressing "ROOT!" i.e., "I have achieved ROOT access to a Linux box, thus proving my leet hacker skillz."

Either definition's equally amusing, but the actual origin of the term has never been proven or verified.

For the longest time I thought it was an onomatopoetic term describing the sound of the bells that go off on a game show (i.e., The Price Is Right) when someone wins $10,000 on the Big Wheel.

8. Cover up your ineptitude by telling people you're only eight years old.

But still use two-dollar words like "ineptitude" correctly in a sentence.

Apologies for coming into this monster thread at the 11th hour...I heard about this "tanker test" in the Defender forum and was interested.

Was there a thread somewhere with the specifics of what teams were actually tested and the specific numbers (I think XP per hour was the objective measure used?) that resulted? I had a few ideas for testing conditions and the inclination to play devil's advocate.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't say that because I want to shoot you down, I say it only because I'm trying to understand why Valid turned into Bug.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because although the thread rightly says "issues," it seems "bug" and "issue" are being used interchangeably in a few instances.

I don't really see a whole lot of it happening in this particular thread, but I guess I just have some leftover pet peeves from other games where forum "bug lists" become either wishlists ("u should give us a nuke!") or venting grounds ("my class is so weak compared to them. is this a bug?"), and it's been my experience that buglists that get swamped with non-technical issues tend to degenerate quickly into 20+ page monsters of arguing over things like, say, whether Vigilance is teh_suck. Which is, in my experience, the quickest way to get the devs to stop paying attention to it. =)

My apologies if it sounded like I was saying that non-bug issues didn't belong in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
Would be great to know what issues are not valid. We could either explain them differently, or know to stop asking.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think in general "not valid" refers to those things that we either think are bugs but are not, or (un)consciously realize that they are not but want them changed anyway.

However, the difference between "valid" and "not valid" are determined by the devs, maybe not until weeks after this list is posted and they've gotten a chance to go over them more closely. And what might have been a bug one day may the next day be a feature based on its success (and "success" is also determined by the devs).

So I don't think it's possible to answer a question like that. But I'd say that in general, "bug" implies that software intentionally written does not work the way it was intended to, as in a coding problem caused by faulty algorithms or typos. This shuts out most "balance" and "quality of life" type reports, such as nerfing 90 second buffs to 60: it's not the sort of thing that can be coded in by mistake. While it may be a "valid" concern, it's not really a "bug."

Not that it shouldn't be reported to the devs, of course. It should, and threads like this are good ways of collecting lists of known issues without a whole lot of debate and emotional outpouring (read: "whining").

But I don't think we'll be given an objective definition anytime soon for what the devs do and don't want to see here. They might not even know until after they've read the thread, and they might still change their minds.