WoRmINaToR
16.07.2010, 00:16:22
FIGHT 1:
Issue 461 definitely wins for me here. The ability to dynamically change an individual unit's ability to passively acquire targets would be amazing for mods that make extensive use of stealth and similar features as my mod has. The current implementation unfortunately restricts us to always auto-target or never auto target. Also, this seems to be much easier to code because, as said in the issue, the "Ambush" mission could be modified to perfectly suit this role. On the other hand, while issue 773 would be nice, coding the ability to give object properties to overlay types could prove tricky.
Support 461, kill 773
FIGHT 2:
This one is a tough decision TBH, it really boils down to choosing what would unlock many different options for really interesting and cool looking units, and choosing what's easy: a simple hardcode fix. I honestly think this is a very bad matchup because they are both very important issues. Improving hardcoded logics is always good, but multiple turret logic has been something the community has wanted for quite some time. Choosing one or the other is in this case rather unfair.
However, unfortunately, one must die, and I have to say honestly I think the artsy turret stuff is just a bit more important to me. This has been a long desired feature for myself and for several other modders I have spoken to. I have honestly never seen anyone express an honest desire to make a ranged drain weapon, and few mods I see even make use of the existing drain logic. Whether this is because of the range limitation I cannot say for certain, but I have a feeling that expanding the turret logic would affect vastly more mods in vastly more instances than ranged drain weapons would.
So, that said, Support Issue 295, kill 556.
Issue 461 definitely wins for me here. The ability to dynamically change an individual unit's ability to passively acquire targets would be amazing for mods that make extensive use of stealth and similar features as my mod has. The current implementation unfortunately restricts us to always auto-target or never auto target. Also, this seems to be much easier to code because, as said in the issue, the "Ambush" mission could be modified to perfectly suit this role. On the other hand, while issue 773 would be nice, coding the ability to give object properties to overlay types could prove tricky.
Support 461, kill 773
FIGHT 2:
This one is a tough decision TBH, it really boils down to choosing what would unlock many different options for really interesting and cool looking units, and choosing what's easy: a simple hardcode fix. I honestly think this is a very bad matchup because they are both very important issues. Improving hardcoded logics is always good, but multiple turret logic has been something the community has wanted for quite some time. Choosing one or the other is in this case rather unfair.
However, unfortunately, one must die, and I have to say honestly I think the artsy turret stuff is just a bit more important to me. This has been a long desired feature for myself and for several other modders I have spoken to. I have honestly never seen anyone express an honest desire to make a ranged drain weapon, and few mods I see even make use of the existing drain logic. Whether this is because of the range limitation I cannot say for certain, but I have a feeling that expanding the turret logic would affect vastly more mods in vastly more instances than ranged drain weapons would.
So, that said, Support Issue 295, kill 556.