Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Increase Iron Curtain's footprint #20832

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Sep 9, 2023
Merged

Increase Iron Curtain's footprint #20832

merged 1 commit into from Sep 9, 2023

Conversation

PunkPun
Copy link
Member

@PunkPun PunkPun commented Apr 29, 2023

The competitive community has been using this IC for years now, and I think we should implement it into vanilla. I've had mentioned it in #19792 but noone went forward to do the change.

Here's how the IC looks before this PR
Before

Here's after
Screenshot 2023-04-29 at 21 50 43

The reason why the IC footprint needs to be changed is that the IC can hide a lot of things behind it. The best example is a sam site
Screenshot 2023-04-29 at 21 51 01

I did a search for IC in missions, but all I could find is the IC in shellmap. It's not close to anything so there's no need to adjust it

The upper to cells are transient
transient

@abcdefg30
Copy link
Member

What was the shape in the original, wasn't that just 2x1 as well? I'm not sure if I agree with special casing this. #15880 seems to be about the more general case.

@PunkPun
Copy link
Member Author

PunkPun commented May 1, 2023

We apply this solution to most structures

@abcdefg30
Copy link
Member

We don't, see Refineries, Advanced Power Plants, Tesla Coils, Gap Generators... Since the competitive community already uses their own ruleset I don't see a reason for bandaiding this here.

@PunkPun
Copy link
Member Author

PunkPun commented May 2, 2023

I do remember quite a lot of PR's changing the footprints of structures for this reason. Also why would this be just a competitive issue?

There's also an option of using the move only cells behind the curtain.

@abcdefg30
Copy link
Member

Also why would this be just a competitive issue?

You mention it in the OP, vanilla has been like this forever. Using cells that can just be moved on sounds like a compromise.

@PunkPun
Copy link
Member Author

PunkPun commented May 2, 2023

I dunno, just because it has been like that in RA for ages it doesn't mean it was good, or even desired.

Mailaender
Mailaender previously approved these changes May 3, 2023
@MlemandPurrs
Copy link

MlemandPurrs commented May 20, 2023

the tile behind should be then + not x. or if you want to keep it x do offset it upwards a bit so that it remains centred on the 2x2

@PunkPun
Copy link
Member Author

PunkPun commented Aug 18, 2023

the tile behind should be then + not x. or if you want to keep it x do offset it upwards a bit so that it remains centred on the 2x2

I changed it into +

@Mailaender Mailaender merged commit 2f696b2 into OpenRA:bleed Sep 9, 2023
3 checks passed
@Mailaender
Copy link
Member

Changelog

@PunkPun PunkPun deleted the iron branch September 9, 2023 17:45
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants