Splits necromancy revival from self-revival

[chaosvolt]

This adds a "CAN_RAISE" monster flag to be used alongside the "REVIVES" flag.

1. Added a monster flag that designates a zombie as able to be revived by a necromancer.
2. Gave zombies the new flag alongside REVIVES.

[kevingranade]

Er, I really want necros to be able to revive each other, that's their best trick.

[Rivet-the-Zombie]

Er, I really want necros to be able to revive each other, that's their best trick.

There's a point where it becomes pretty ridiculous though. Get several of them in one area and you can't make any progress before they're all back up again.

[chaosvolt]

That was part of what prompted me to consider that. Their slowdown when reviving does mitigate this to some extent. Could remove that part if you wish.

As for the second half of this, I would hope that is acceptable?

[kevingranade]

I'm not clear on why "prevent revivification" should allow necros to revive things, it seems like if you want zombies not coming back you want them not coming back, not "sometimes they come back and sometimes they don't".

[Rivet-the-Zombie]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the idea is that people who play with the 'prevent revivification' mod do so because they don't want to have to prevent every zombie from revivifying itself, but having a single type of special zed that does so would be acceptable to them.

[kevingranade]

It seems to me that the likelihood of someone disagreeing with re-enabling necromancers after they turned on a mod to disable them is much higher than the likelihood someone appreciating them getting turned back on.

[thebombsauce]

I have to disagree with you on that. I'd imagine people enable the mod because going around and smashing every single corpse is a complete chore as currently implemented. As opposed to some deep seated objection to the mere concept of revival especially when implemented properly.

[narc0tiq]

I'd say that it should be possible to disable the two independently, but
that the built-in "no revivification" mod should disable both by default.
Players can choose to edit the mod to make it work in their preferred
fashion.

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:06 PM, thebombsauce notifications@github.com
wrote:

I have to disagree with you on that. I'd imagine people enable the mod
because going around and smashing every single corpse is a complete chore
as currently implemented. As opposed to some deep seated objection to the
mere concept of revival especially when implemented properly.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#13891 (comment)
.

[chaosvolt]

...should've known that @kevingranade would object to BOTH purposes to this PR. ._.

EDIT: Having @Coolthulhu give more useful feedback on WHAT to do however, instead of declaring this PR to be pointless entirely, was more helpful.

[Coolthulhu]

@chaosvolt It's your fault here.
In this PR you're removing a functionality that is a part of the game - the ability to remove necros.
People who wanted to remove all rezing would have no option to do so, only an option to remove autorez.

At least bundle a no-necro mod with this change.

EDIT: And think up a good name for no rez mod. Something that implies only some rezing won't work.
"No automatic revivification"?

[vache]

As I said on the forums, I don't think either of these are really a problem, but I could kind of see the argument for necromancers still being able to do their thing in the no revivification mod. BUT, I haven't seen any complaints by users of the no revivification mod that their necromancers do nothing, and at the same time, I think this will cause people who expected no revivification at all to complain.

[chaosvolt]

Hmm. Well, guess I can split no-reviving into two separate mods, then. Seems like a highly specific thing to make a mod for, but at least the mod organization mitigates this. >.<

[Coolthulhu]

You can keep it bundled in one, as long as it prevents necros rezing stuff rather than just preventing stuff rezing self.
Blacklisting necros in no-rez mod could also work.

[chaosvolt]

...hmm. Which technically means that this PR remains pointless. If necromancers can still revive it each other, and if disabling REVIVES should also disable CAN_RAISE, I'm not sure whether this PR would have any use, barring any future modding content that might find uses for this. >.>

[Coolthulhu]

You could have a separate no-auto-rez mod, for people who don't want to pulp corpses. But other than that, yeah.

A bit more complex solution would be to split necro into "weak necro" and "strong necro" with the weak one not raising back hulks and other necros, spending more time per rez etc. But that's out of scope.

[chaosvolt]

Possibly, then. Guess I could go with that?

The separate mod I mean.

[Coolthulhu]

The second mod should probably be a blacklist for the necros. No point in having necros that don't rez (like what we get now with the no rez mod).

[chaosvolt]

Hmm? I see. Note that I didn't mess with the LUA for the mods though, so my plan was actually to make the old mod ADD blacklist zombie necromancers, while the additional mod just disables the REVIVES flag.

Though either way, the end result is that the mod that's meant to disable zombie revivification entirely is the one that removes necromancers.

[kevingranade]

Please don't try to rescue a PR just because you 'already wrote it', see
'sunk cost fallacy'. I don't think the PR does anything we want that isn't
better handled some other way.
For example by simply blacklisting necromancers, which BTW I'd oppose as a
separate mod, we are not adding a mod for every monster someone might
object to, which is what this is turning into.

[chaosvolt]

Alright. You know what? Fine. Fuck it. This PR is useless anyway. If someone wants to add the necromancer blacklist to the existing no revivification mod, they can PR it themselves. I'm just about done at this point.

@Coolthulhu and others have been giving useful feedback, whether positive or negative. You, Kevin, just...I'm getting sick of it.

And before you give me that "don't take it as a personal attack" remark again, note that I haven't taken offense to the criticism others have given. If I was getting pissy here over criticism in general, I would've taken offense to @Coolthulhu's "It's your fault here." remark, which I didn't. My problem is specifically with @kevingranade and the attitude he's been giving me goddamn non-stop this entire month.

I've been trying and failing to remain civil and avoid bringing my objections up in public, but if you're not going to at least attempt to be civil in kind, then don't blame me for losing that civility extremely quickly.

[narc0tiq]

I'm sorry, @chaosvolt, I can't seem to see your side of it. Kevin has been consistently factual and to-the-point -- he is the project manager/lead maintainer, it's his place to say what goes and what doesn't, and that's all he's done.

I'm sorry you've had a string of contributions that go against the intended direction, as detailed by @kevingranade, but that's all I can give you here.

[chaosvolt]

Right. My objections are a tad more specific than the general issue of the PR being shot down. While mildly annoying, the objections to it are understandable.

Sorry for the outburst, but...