Deceiver < Stinger < Atlantis / Czar Do you think this should be a bug or a feature?
-
Tell that to jamming.
Well, I don't have much to say to jamming, so I'll amend my statement to
And it does! Omni or stealth field gets added by cargo regardless of whether that cargo is an aircraft or ground unit attached to an aircraft.
That is not true, it was explained here
My brother in Christ, I know what I said and I know what I tested. When you put an aircraft with omni in a carrier, the carrier gets omni. When you put an aircraft with a stealth field in a carrier, the carrier gets a stealth field. When you put a transport with an attached unit with either of those intel properties in a carrier, the carrier gets that intel property. (Jamming is an exception to this, as noted above).
There have been many statements to the effect that the behavior people are looking to correct is somehow related to how the engine handles a unit attached to a transport inside a carrier. It is not. I suspect that conclusion arose from the coincidence that the only way to get a stealth field unit inside a carrier in the stock game is via a deceiver attached to a stinger. However, as I demonstrated in the mod I posted, a normal aircraft with a stealth field will exhibit the same behavior as a deceiver + stinger combo when loaded into a carrier, if it has a stealth field defined in its blueprint.
That's the statement. It's true. I ran a test and gathered evidence. You can also run my test, and if you get different results you can tell me mine are bullshit. If you'd like to demonstrate in some other way that there is a relationship between the two I'd be happy to see whatever evidence you've gathered. "Stingers with attached units act funny when they're inside carriers" does not imply that every aspect of that situation is a result of that behavior.
Lastly, given that the explanation you posted is in large part verifiable facts, I'll focus on the conclusion:
it seems a natural conclusion that the unit does not exist at that moment
It's a computer program. The existence or lack thereof of what's ultimately a series of bits recorded in one location or another (and it's recorded somewhere, whether it's inside or outside of a box) is not a rigorous idea, so there's nothing there to contradict what I've repeated above.
...
(finally)I think in general my answer is yes, but I don't see how it is relevant.
It's relevant insofar as everyone is trying to figure out what point you were trying to make when you brought it up.
-
The paragraph by Jip that I linked refers to units within carriers. Not units in stingers in carriers.
Your observations are correct, but it is also correct that it was explained that Intel in carriers is something that was decided should be removed. The stinger issue comes on top of that -
We've arrived at lexical analysis. An inevitability to it. But we can do it together.
From your quoted section:
and given that you can not select the unit (even though when the game thinks you can, but can't)
Background: when stingers with attached units are in carriers, the stinger can still be highlighted from outside the carrier as though it could be selected (but it can't be selected). You can test this for yourself or look at the photo Jip posted as an example.
"The unit" in the paragraph in question refers to a unit which "the game thinks you can [select], but can't". The next sentence in the paragraph (that you omitted) refers to "the cargo of the unit".
The unit is a stinger, carrying another unit, inside a carrier. As a context clue, the introductory section of that post (after the, you know, other stuff) mentions the engine being unable to properly process transports-within-transports or transports-within-cargo.
From Jip's earlier comments, some five days prior:
Being able to give constant stealth a CZAR because of this glitch can hardly be considered intended
The interaction being discussed is clearly unintended. No other unit that enters the Atlantis has this bug for example, except for Stingers with cargo
Zero interest in belaboring this point further.
So. Is there a pot of gold for me at the end of this rainbow? I don't think you understood the point I was making before. It seems you also didn't understand the section you quoted to refute that point (that you didn't understand). You can't claim in good faith that I haven't articulated my arguments. Your MO is heavy on gotchas and it's diminishing my desire to continue this conversation. Where do we go from here?
-
There's a difference between "unintended" as in explicitly not wanted and "unintended" as in emergent behaviour. Nobody patched out groundfiring subs even though it's also "clearly unintended", how is this different?
-
I'm sorry, but this thread is wasting my time
-
It's wasting everyone's time as the people who need to hear this aren't listening
-
Join the club.
-
What club
-
can i join
-
The "this thread is wasting my time club".
And of course, all are welcome.
Yps, despite our difference of opinion here you seem like an alright character, and I have great respect for the work you've put into the community. I think we've identified our points of divergence, exhaustively, and we can leave this conversation as it is, as a testament to the hazards of interpreting religious texts*.
*By that I mean Jip's posts, of course.
-
Thank you for the kind words. I appreciate it
-
I agree with @SpikeyNoob whatever he said I will back thanks
-
@tryth said in Deceiver < Stinger < Atlantis / Czar Do you think this should be a bug or a feature?:
I agree with @SpikeyNoob whatever he said I will back thanks
Enjoy your £5!
