New warhead option: DeMindControl

[Marshall]

DeMindControl.Normal=yes/no
DeMindControl.Perma=yes/no
DeMindControl.FreeEnemies=yes/no

If a unit is affected by this warhead, and it is presently mind-controlled, then the mind-control link will be broken.

The weapon targets like a normal weapon. Then the game says "this is a de-mind-controller, who is the "real" owner of the target unit? - if an ally then demindcontrol them, if an enemy then demindcontrol them only if .FreeEnemies=yes"

[MT1337 (mt1337)]

This balances mind control, and is good for medics or such.
Example, someone mindcontrols a tank beside a medic type unit, the medic type unit frees him.

Also you can even make anti-mindcontrol fields... a structure or unit that makes a "safe zone" while assaulting a mind controlling side.

Voted strong support, with this I can use mind control a lot more with easy ways to balance it.

[Beowulf (genkosygin)]

Strong rejection. Completely defeats the purpose of mind control immunity and mind control weapons.

[AlexB (alexander-b)]

One doesn't have to use it only because it's there. It should be done easily without much hassle and possible performance issues (except for the Anti-MindControl fields). I don't see why this should not be implemented.

[skyboy (skyboy)]

The field wouldn't use any more performance than the normal weapon, unless you implement it differently (prevention, rather than reaction), but even in that case, it shouldn't use much, if any, more.

[MT1337 (mt1337)]

This is marked "confirmed", any idea around what version it will be targeted for?
I'm greatly looking forward to this btw (will definitely use).

[Renegade (renegade)]

So wait...you absolutely, completely realize it's not targeted for a version yet - and yet, ask what version it will be targeted for?

Has it ever occurred to you that, if we knew what version we'll target it for, we'd target it for that version?

...has it occurred to you that, maybe, the latest news post was done for a reason?

This issue is not yet targeted.
You have recognized that fact.
Now realize what it means.

[MT1337 (mt1337)]

It did occur. It also occurred that, looking at #349, some discussion on the potential version for implementation was taking place. And that isn't even at "confirmed" status like this one.

Perhaps I was wrong assuming that could apply to this, then? If that's the case then by all means, fine. I'll not ask anymore.

[Renegade (renegade)]

Yes, exactly: We discussed what versions it could be targeted for. Which clearly implies that it was unknown what version it will be targeted for.

There's a clear and distinct difference between discussing possibilities, and secret knowledge.

Therefore, there's nothing that could possibly apply in the first place. Had you tried to do the same thing as on #349, discussing potential target versions, then that would have been no issue.
But that's not what you did.
What you did was asking for information about the target version despite the fact that quite obviously no target version is planned yet.

Two different things. Apples and oranges.

You are also ignoring that a) #349 is the most-demanded issue on the tracker, and b) that discussion happened before the latest news post, bringing that whole discussion into a different context.

You are, of course, free to try to start such a discussion, but given that the next step after DFD will be figuring out which issues the community wants most to figure out the order in which to (re-)schedule them, such an undertaking would be futile.

As it is, if the majority of the community doesn't urgently want/need this issue, it might even be suspended.

Quite frankly, the only reason this issue isn't in the DFD is because I confirmed it in April for some reason, and that made it slip through the filter.
No idea why I did that.

Either way, feel free to discuss, but since everything will be jumbled soon anyway, you'd only waste your time.

[MT1337 (mt1337)]

Futile? How unfortunate.

Well if that's really the case, I'll wait until after dfd to say anything on this...