Discuss: Urban Combat Damage Model Overhaul

[WoRmINaToR]

It takes the only guy who's not entirely happy 5 days after the conclusion to post something.
Perfect example of what I meant.

I was busy with tons of stuff, and really couldn't find a lot of time to allot to spending on discussion forums... of the time i DID have, I spent it at other boards. Just because I have a life doesn't mean I don't care about the issue.

And yeah...not getting your proposal...if you're against deviating from the requester's supposed request by making it available for all weapons, not just PassThrough-tagged buildings, how exactly can people without PassThrough get garrison clearing? That's contradictionary.
Either I stick to what you consider the request, then it has to go into PassThrough, and will not be available to those without PassThrough, or I stick to what I said, don't put it on PassThrough, and thereby deviate from what you consider the request.

Nonono, i think you're misunderstanding or misreading my post. I fully acknowledge that BOTH requests were made, and I now understand that BOTH are viable options. So, that being said, why not add BOTH of them in due time?

I'm saying add the GCP as planned in 0.3, then when the UC.DaMO comes around, add the one tag (UC.DamageAll) to the UC.PassThrough model (NOT the GCP damage model; these two systems would be completely separate, from what I gather anyways).

As for the reason why planning would be left until shortly before the implementation - take this exact discussion.
Let's say we had discussed how to implement Garrison Clearing Projectiles right away when it was requested, up until the finest detail.
And then something like this comes along, the community votes to have it in 0.2, and by the time I touch GCP, the system is completely changed and none of the plans make any sense at all.
Waste of time.

Or, if we had planned back then, and then discussed this as we do now...what would have been the point of planning GCP back then, if we re-plan them now anyway?

I'm all for asking questions, fleshing ideas out, etc., but the fact of the matter is, there's no point in making detailed implementation plans until you can foresee the circumstances in which a feature will be implemented.

Yeh, i see what you mean here. I guess it is really just too early to hash out details like that. Concepts are still free game of course.

In any case, I'm satisfied with the terms reached here... if we get the damage ratio flag and the two separate GCP and UC.DamageAll flags I'll be perfectly fine with it.