senatorhung wrote:
i think his meaning is clear enough.
the 'bug' was that the npc tracked all previous disruptions and as long as the total of disruptions applied to the npc was greater than 5, the npc did not repair itself. Dan's intention was that there had to be at least 5 concurrent disruptions for this.
Halkus didn't state a bug. He confirmed that with 1 Disruption removed and 4 Disruptions active, the base still repaired itself.
If he stated that the base did NOT repair, then it is a bug.
Don't understand why Dan would quote him (as it's not a bug) - I'm not implying there is no bug. I just implying that Dan's quoting Halkus is incorrect (unless Halkus mistyped - "it did NOT repair itself, then Dan is correct to quote his post)