>As long as there exists a chance that aliens stun a single civilian, it's good enough cause for concern.
No, it's not. If this happens once out of 100 terror missions it's inconsequential and no justification to prefer an overly complicated solution that - as far as we can tell - only benefits you. So far you've not provided any evidence that this is:
a) needed at all
b) cannot be "solved" using existing mechanics
>I've already explained that it's a relevant concern because it would punish players who don't use that exploit.
You've provided nothing to show that this is actually the case let alone relevant, and you're pretty much outright refusing to provide evidence for this.
>Anyway, my position remains at "preserving vanilla behavior if the player isn't abusing the exploit", tho any solution would be better than no solution I suppose.
Preserving vanilla behaviour means "aliens don't attack stunned units/ground objects", and you haven't provided any reason why this needs to be "solved", let alone in the way you’re requesting.
>Not that kind of unrealistic. Unrealistic based on the established game mechanics. I guess a better word would be "inconsistent".
Funny how you then consider perfectly consistent behaviour flawed and want to replace it by a convoluted and inconsistent mechanic that makes aliens attack some stunned units but not others. No my man, we're talking
exactly this kind of
unrealistic, and your reasoning why the aliens should do so is not based on any kind of consistency.
>You forgot "painImmune" in your mod.
painImmune or IgnorePainImmunity isn’t relevant for civilians units in vanilla.
>And no, it's way more complicated than that.
It literally isn't unless you chose to make it more complicated.
>Some mods use many different units as civilians. And in different roles.
And yet I don't see any modder besides you complaining about this being needed. This is still not an argument that changing armor definitions is complicated or impractical compared to modifying AI behaviour. This is pretty much just you complaining about being inconvenienced. I'd rather see you inconvenienced than developers wasting time on this that could be spent on relevant features and bugfixes.
>The same unit can sometimes be a civilian, other times an enemy. It would be complicated and with high maintenance cost.
I'm curious, how many units does this actually apply to, in say, XCF?This is neither complicated, nor does it have any kind of "maintenance cost" (lol). This can also be implemented easily via RefNodes and/or enviroEffects using armorTransformations if need be. Again, claiming that this would be "impractical" and that messing with and implementing inconsistent AI behaviour would be preferable or in any way simpler or easier is delusional.
>Also, any new modder that comes along would be oblivious of the problem and of the solution.
It's kind of ironic that you are under the impression that "people don't know that I consider this to be a problem" is an argument in your favour.
>You really need to tone down your personal incredulity. So far no major mod authors have given an opinion on the matter.
So you don't consider ohartenstein's or Nord's oppinion relevant, let alone that of the main developers of OXCE?
Interesting standpoint. Protip: "personal incredulity" isn't a counter argument when you've so far failed to show why this is needed and when you need to invoke imaginary modders that would *surely* benefit from such a feature. At this point my claim is as valid as yours, if not more so given your incoherent reasoning and the feedback you've received so far.
>In the
AIModule::setupPatrol() you have code where, in base defense missions, aliens seek out base modules to destroy. This code could be reused[…]
What exactely is there to "reuse"? This is based on static MCD information (byte 60 - Xcom_Base). This isn't even the same kind of object class, let alone is it dependant on who's "side" the object is on or who applied to most (or final?) point of stun damage. I still don't see how any of this supports the idea that modifying armor values is "impractical"
compared to changing, debugging and balancing AI behaviour. By all means, show us that it is and implement it yourself then.
>But I'm worried about other players being unable to refrain from doing so, so I want to help them
Why are you so worried with how
other players are playing the game that you need to propose an inconsistent and convoluted mechanic that doesn't actually benefit anybody but yourself? How does this actually benefit players? You've outright stated that you'd be fine with forcing this on others and modifying vanilla mechanics accordingly.
This is intended and consistent behaviour, not a flaw. It's not for you to decide that people are "playing the game wrong", let alone force detrimental and unnecessary changes on others.
