If you have a booster running, the training time in the neocom tooltip is different than the time displayed in the skill queue manager.
The tooltip assumes that the booster covers the full training, the skill manager window respects the duration of the booster correctly.
I have also noticed this
The tooltip assumes that you chain similar boosters, the skill queue assumes you only use one booster.
I would not say there is a bug, or that one assumption is better than the other. Either case could be true and either number can be useful to players.
It is true that the two numbers you get may be different because of the different assumptions, but both numbers can be useful.
If there is an improvement I could suggest it’s to add a tooltip to clarify the assumptions.
The display of two different values is a bug. No teo ways about it.
Whether the bug is introduced because it makes different assumptions is not really relevant, if that’s the case then the same mathematics should be applied to both. The fact that it is not is the bug.
They are not using the same mathematics, because they use different assumptions.
Yes, I’m saying they should not and that IS the bug.
“Assumption is the Mother of All F*** Ups” - Let’s try to avoid such vage assumptions.
That I queue one booster (and the same ones) after each other is actually the assumption. Reality is, that I have one booster running and it will expire at known time.
So I see the number in the Skill Manager window as the correct one.
Then use the number in the skill manager window for your use case.
People who do chain their boosters to maximise SP gains will prefer the other number as that one is more accurate for them.
If you want to have two different numbers, make it explicit what number describes what. Right now they appear as describing the same thing, which is actually a bug.
So the users expectation is, that they show the same numbers, everything else is confusing.
Align them first, then think about how to display different “timings” additionally.
Your use-case could actually be a good chance to promote boosters. But it need to be explicit, not like it is right now.
Yep, which is why I said
No need for a tooltip, just GTFO with the assumptions.
Even when chaining boosters, you still have to manually plug them in, so the chance that the new one starts the very second after the old one ends is close to zero. So what’s the point in the assumptive time when even if you DO chain, it’s still likely to be wrong.
It is a bug. It needs to be fixed. Real values only.
What is the ‘real’ value in this case?
With a single booster?
Without booster?
With multiple boosters?
What if you change your pod and implants while training, does it update?
But if it updates the original value changed and no longer is the real value?
Face it, you’re going to have to make some assumptions to do calculations.
With an active booster.
Pretty obvious to understand when you’re not trying to be obtuse.
Nice ninja edit #slow clap#
All of those calculations can be worked out with real data, no assumptions required. None.
Stop being a toddler.
But what if someone then takes another booster after that one?
Then the value originally shown wouldn’t be correct, would it?
Then it updates.
Are you deliberately being stupid or do you need an ambulance?
I’m just pointing out that you’re making assumptions to do your calculations, even though you said
You’re wrong.
All of it can be calculated based on the current available data.
Seriously what is wrong with you? My god.
… based on the assumption that you let the booster expire instead of refreshing it.
There’s no assumption. the booster has an end date.
Yes, and what good would assuming that people let their booster lapse for the calculation do for people who refresh their booster?