Board Thread:Wiki management/@comment-24203813-20160112230454/@comment-24024415-20160113124200

Brainulator9 wrote: To sum up all my critiques with your Opposition, I have to explain how I see the plant so you know why I believe situation X is ok while situation Y is not.

Behind PvZ1&2 is coding. Specifically, coding for entities (plants in this case) to detect other entities (zombies) to preform correctly in the game. PvZ1 Cactus, by-and-large, copied most of it's coding from Peashooter, with an added twist: It detects specific entities (balloon zombies) and shoots a special projectile that "counters" the zombie entity.

PvZ2 decided to change Cactus, increasing damage, pierce capabilities and '''deleting the detection of Balloon Zombies to fire special projectiles. '''Instead of shooting special projectiles, it now detects any zombie in a close range so it may change it's properties to a ground-based plant.

Cactus in this case in not only losing an ability, but completely changing as an entity. Quote:  "... changes made are still fundamentally the same ... and (Cactus) changing height." is invalid, as it is NOT fundamentally the same! Visually and logically it may be, but in coding these actions are completely unrelated, detecting different zombie to preform completely different actions.

Also, Jalepeno DOES detect and melt ice trails in PvZ2:C, and Star Fruit's backward star is not used solely for Digger Zombie, as it detects any zombie behind it to fire backwards. The lack of "abilities" from the first game are not enough to constitute new behaviour or strategic use. The Strategy section of the Cactus Page can be split easily between both versions, since each plant has it's own unique strategic value. (Balloon Zombie coverage and No Pea achievement belongs fully to PvZ1, all other info belongs fully to PvZ2).

Now, for the extra topics:

"As it is, you may, at best, get 2 or 3 sentences out of Cactus's Spikeweed ability." General Zombies. Home world use. Other world use (beneficial). Other world use (detramental). That's 4 topics, easily expandible to create 2-3 fair sized paragraphs. And that's just for general plants, you could use this format for nearly every plant in the game, excluding world exclusives of course.

"It would require having to relink  all pages associated with a certain plant, force redirection of the rounded icons, ruin the infoboxes." Yes, that is what is going to happen if this vote goes through, minus the infobox part. HOW would it "ruin" the infoboxes? One would just remove data from the previous infobox in the form of the tabber and move it to a new page. Simple.

"Pay attention." Ok, fine. I messed up for misreading the primal part, fair enough. But "pay attention"? That seems a bit excessive, if not a bit rude.

"How is saying that something is stupid and pathetic biased or lazy?" Because your reasoning is very weak and as you see such as an acceptable reason examples how your bias influnces your opinion. The arguement of stating something is so "stupid and pathetic" that change is unwarrented is unacceptable as a counter arguement, because both qualities are completely up to a person's personal views and influences. I could see the arguement as intelligent and well-made, as it relates closely to the topic at hand. Would my own bias of the topic influence me to do so? Most likely. Besides, my mention of Newspaper Zombie ended on "Should it be split? Maybe..." , as maybe it is unwarrented and similar enough to be considered a complete reiteration. That is an example of a rational counter-argument, as it shows my limits and possible shortcomings towards the topic whilst giving reason why not to have NPZ separated.

"I think I may have missed something, but who cares? At the end of the day, it's debate, and I like debate." I care. And I made this exact same mistake of including an ambiguous group that every person EVER will not think the other way. Corrected BY YOU. IN THIS SAME ARTICLE. That, is simply amazing.

But wait, what's the point of including this rebuddle? Does it concern the topic? No, but it shows the limits of BUL9 within his argument. Plus it's fun to notice paradoxes. :P