Talk:DeathWeapon

Re: Marshall's Edit on 20 April 2008

First of all, it is bad style (according to Wikipedia) to place links inside a header, which is why I removed them.

Next, why was "TechnoType" changed to "unit"? While the later might be understood, the former refers to a specific object class in the game engine.

With that said, I do appreciate you doing some testing and figuring out that DeathWeapon in [CombatDamage] is used ONLY if the TechnoType doesn't have Primary set.

Also, you are correct about death weapons also being applicable to aircraft.

However, my grammar was not flawed, and the detailed explanation of death weapon precedence would be better placed on the Explodes page. If DeathWeapon is set on a TechnoType, then it will ALWAYS take precedence.

I didn't know it was bad style to put links in headlines. As I was amending I thought I'd linkify everything while I was at it. I will remove those shortly...

The main reason I used unit over TechnoType is because we refer to Buildings, Infantries, Vehicles and Aircrafts in-game, but we never refer to 'Technoes' because that class is never instantiated. In the context of this page and what a death weapon is, 'unit' makes a lot more sense. Ultimately I think Renegade should decide what the modenc convention should be.

Focusing on the caurrent revision, the general wording is okay but, being pedantic, there are a couple of grammatical errors (the first sentence implies that "if a unit is not destroyed then something else defines the weapon fired at the cell" - which obviously makes no sense - and the line about the effect requiring Explodes=yes is confusing because it talks about effect before cause - Explodes=yes causes a DeathWeapon to be sought, not a DeathWeapon causes Explodes=yes to be sought).

I agree that weapon precedence should be indicated on the Explodes page instead, however some indication on this page is needed as we are talking about what the 'death weapon' will be. I'm going to talk about 'current primary' in my next revision which should clear things up as soon as I've updated the Primary page.

I am going to make another revision now bearing in mind the above comments - may I suggest that if there is any objection to my next revision that this be discussed on the talk page to avoid excessive revisions. //Marshall 19:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Marshall:

 

 

The main reason I used unit over TechnoType is because we refer to Buildings, Infantries, Vehicles and Aircrafts in-game, but we never refer to 'Technoes' because that class is never instantiated.

 

We need a convention for referring to "the big four" types easily. Before the EXE research, "ObjectTypes" was used, which is not quite correct. I do agree that "Technoes" is an awkward label, but some other name should be settled on. I just updated CatAllTypes. Please use (and edit, if you find it necessary) that instead of Categ|TechnoTypes where applicable, so the phrasing can be centralised.//DCoder 05:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)