Consistency issues from AusQB - structure tables
"One thing I've noticed that can be a bit inconsistent is the "build cost/operate cost" table for each structure. Somebody (forgive me for not knowing who) started out making the tables as above, with a column for build costs and a column for operating costs, and then extra columns where necessary (eg. Capacity). My initial thought was it would be best to separate the build cost column into Metal and Biosplastic columns, and similarly the operate cost column into Power and Water. Honestly I'm not really sure which works best, as the tables do change quite a bit depending on the structure. Furthermore, some structures' operate costs change based on the components, so if anything we'd have to record empty levels."
(from main page talk -- couldn't figure out how to reply there :(
I went with a combined column for all costs for simplicity and to try and avoid the need for empty columns should we ever move to a template. My thought was the text would eventually be replaced by icons - ideally we should have concensus on table format when that change is made.
Anyone else have any thoughts?