No double standards please. Allowing (1), (2), (6), (7), and (10) but not this seems silly.
I wasn't involved with FAF when (1), (2), (and (9)) were integrated. (6) and (7) are UI mods, they are not integrated. (10) is a response to (7) to guarantee stable performance for something that was already possible. I'm not sure why it is in your list.
Calling me out for having double standards is inappropriate and closely resembles a personal attack. Don't do that.
but not this seems silly.
Using this argumentation (we have x
, so why not y
too) means we can allow anything. I'm quite confident that it is a logical fallacy, but I can't find the name. It is also what got us to the performance we had in May 2021, before I started my performance crusade.
Also, based on the numbers you listed, I think you're imagining a larger brush size than I am, and a smaller brush size would result in faster processing the way I'm imagining implementing this. Regardless, the brush size (or max brush size, if adjustable) could be tested in FAF develop and set to a sensible value.
A brush means painting. Painting means you can include any amount of reclaim you desire. To quote you from your first post:
Imagine it like a brush in a visual editor (ie: paint), where you manually apply a circular brush, but instead of painting the terrain, it shows a visual circle where the brush would give manual reclaim orders within if used there.
If that is not your intend then you should've been more clear on what this actually means in practice. Add a picture with a clear interaction. The video and topics that Sheikah linked talks about a more generic area reclaiming, which is what the majority of us will be thinking about.
The user already has to deal with numerous arbitrary limitations to the game
Same logic used earlier that I think is a logical fallacy: just because there are already existing issues doesn't make it more legitimate to add more of them.
Don't get me wrong - I'd love to have a feature like this. But if we're not careful then we just introduce more stutters. It is also the same reason why my example here is on hold because I haven't figured out how to do it properly yet.