Renegade
23.07.2010, 01:36:43
That link in the comments on #991 just took me waaaaaay back. *weeps* Good ol' times.
Fight 1
I have been linked trying to do exactly what #991 wants in its comments...so it is obvious I have a certain interest in the topic.
That doesn't mean I'm not giving #332 a fair chance, of course.
In fact, I find the reasoning behind it rather convincing, not the least because of the Soviet Nuke Silo.
For all the other SWs, you could come up with explanations - there's only one weather to control, you can't warp spacetime from two different locations or the universe will explode, stuff like that. However, for Nuke Silos, it simply makes no sense: You have two silos. You have two missiles. Why do you only get to use one?
Marsh's paradrop example was also very good - if you have three airports, which, each individually, can provide a paradrop, why can two of them not provide two paradrops? It makes no sense, logically. It is most obviously a game design decision.
To me, it comes down to effect. Stackable SWs make sense. They're a simple, clear, straight-forward request with logical reasoning behind it. It's a wonderful request.
But it just doesn't do much.
I guess I see it like this: #991 enables you to add something new to the game. #332 only allows you to add more of the same. A third resource can change the dynamics of the game completely. A second nuke is...a second nuke. Just like the first one, just one more.
So while I love #332 as a request (I wish they were all like that), I'm simply drawn to #991.
Kill: #332
Support: #991
Fight 2
The first thing I thought about when seeing #588 was ammo on weapons and how it'd enable the exact same thing, essentially. Turns out Worm is right, and the original requester did indeed request #588 to be closed. That's what happens when we have hundreds of issues - stuff like that goes by unnoticed.
And if you look closely at #328, you'll see that it recently gained an implementation-branch.
Therefore, I guess it's easiest to just close #588 as requested and take #328 out of rotation.
Kill: #588
Support: #328
Fight 1
I have been linked trying to do exactly what #991 wants in its comments...so it is obvious I have a certain interest in the topic.
That doesn't mean I'm not giving #332 a fair chance, of course.
In fact, I find the reasoning behind it rather convincing, not the least because of the Soviet Nuke Silo.
For all the other SWs, you could come up with explanations - there's only one weather to control, you can't warp spacetime from two different locations or the universe will explode, stuff like that. However, for Nuke Silos, it simply makes no sense: You have two silos. You have two missiles. Why do you only get to use one?
Marsh's paradrop example was also very good - if you have three airports, which, each individually, can provide a paradrop, why can two of them not provide two paradrops? It makes no sense, logically. It is most obviously a game design decision.
To me, it comes down to effect. Stackable SWs make sense. They're a simple, clear, straight-forward request with logical reasoning behind it. It's a wonderful request.
But it just doesn't do much.
I guess I see it like this: #991 enables you to add something new to the game. #332 only allows you to add more of the same. A third resource can change the dynamics of the game completely. A second nuke is...a second nuke. Just like the first one, just one more.
So while I love #332 as a request (I wish they were all like that), I'm simply drawn to #991.
Kill: #332
Support: #991
Fight 2
The first thing I thought about when seeing #588 was ammo on weapons and how it'd enable the exact same thing, essentially. Turns out Worm is right, and the original requester did indeed request #588 to be closed. That's what happens when we have hundreds of issues - stuff like that goes by unnoticed.
And if you look closely at #328, you'll see that it recently gained an implementation-branch.
Therefore, I guess it's easiest to just close #588 as requested and take #328 out of rotation.
Kill: #588
Support: #328
Forum Rules
(01.06.2011, 05:43:25)kenosis Wrote: Oh damn don't be disgraced again!
(25.06.2011, 20:42:59)Nighthawk Wrote: The proverbial bearded omni-bug may be dead, but the containment campaign is still being waged in the desert.