Dream on. :PWhat do I have to understand?
- tells us - it's just some, you know, making fun or mockering over the game... It's not some worms armageddon, with holy grenades and pigeon or cow bombs. You don't want to see your creature to be raped, or perversed, thus you're making a safety/sanity checks. That's from developer's point of view.
And I totally support these values clamp.
Because otherwise it will go too far from cautious game engine using.
Yeah, that's pretty sums up your line of thinking. Go work in the Microsoft man: they fully support the "take the power away from the user, lest they hurt someone" line. My line of thinking is this: if you don't want homing pigeons mod, DO NOT DOWNLOAD IT, DO NOT PLAY IT. Not hardcode it to be impossible to make because ohhh, sacrilege!
Do I want to commit such sacrilege? Hell yeah.
Do I want to make things the deveoper never even though of, let alone intended? Hell yeah.
Do I want to rape the game? Hell yeah.
Because I'm a modder.
You can sue me I guess. But you wouldn't have such great popularity of OpenXcom if it wasn't so wonderfully moddable.
Explaining why I would ever want a big bomb in Xcom is beside the point, since you wouldn't even listen - you're using the slippery slope argument to put an 'equals' sign between novelty items and concrete donkeys.
tldr, more moddability = good, forced limitations = bad. A limitation is only ever valid if it makes the code run smoother, modding tools easier to use and the game more stable.