+- Renegade Projects Network Forums (https://forums.renegadeprojects.com)
+-- Forum: Inject the Battlefield (https://forums.renegadeprojects.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=60)
+--- Forum: DFD: Daily Feature Deathmatch (https://forums.renegadeprojects.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=71)
+--- Thread: DFD-R4: 335 vs. 504, 1020 vs. 316 (/showthread.php?tid=1690)
DFD-R4: 335 vs. 504, 1020 vs. 316 - Renegade - 03.10.2010
DFD: Daily Feature Deathmatch
The Cruel Fight For Implementation
This is a Daily Feature Deathmatch post. If you are unfamiliar with the background of this event, please read the announcement, the adjustment and the schedule.
Fight 1
[335] LineTrail alterations vs. [504] Make the units fire two weapons at same time
Fight 2
[1020] Re-Implementing TreeFires? vs. [316] Ammo= on weapons
After the fight is over, two of these issues will be suspended, while the other two move on to the next round.
Remember that the coders will not take part in the discussion, so make your arguments complete, concise and convincing - when it's over, it's over.
Part of that is clearly marking what outcome you support for which issue.
There should be no ambiguity in the issue you're talking about, and it should be clear what outcome you support. Feel free to put your stance in bold, and use simple terminology like "kill #69" or "I want #42 to survive".
This use of simple terminology should be part of a larger argumentation - if this is all your post consists of, it will be ignored. We are interested in argumentations and details to consider, not votes.
A decision will be made either way, a lack of discussion will not cause all issues to live.
Be friendly, be civil, be logical.
You are allowed to try to deconstruct the arguments of those arguing against your candidate, but remember that they don't make the call - there is really no point in getting personal.
The discussion should be contained in this thread, argumentations elsewhere will be ignored, but you are allowed to transfer and adapt points made elsewhere in the past.
We want a good, clean fight.
Let's get it on!
These fights are largely automatically generated - if an issue turns out to be unfit for combat, it will be disqualified and the opponent will go into the queue.
RE: DFD-R4: 335 vs. 504, 1020 vs. 316 - MRMIdAS - 03.10.2010
Support:
[504] handy for apocs, the barrels aren't used for the missiles, so what's stopping them firing?
I daresay [316] is going to be used by more people in more circumstances that tree fires, much as I want to see them.....
RE: DFD-R4: 335 vs. 504, 1020 vs. 316 - reaperrr - 04.10.2010
Fight 1: Couldn't be a much clearer decision for me.
Linetrail Alterations would be a nice graphical feature, but that's it. No gameplay value, and there are other ways to improve visuals.
#504 is simply on an entirely different level. I've already pointed out in previous rounds how many uses this feature has on top of the example MRMIdAS gave, and the fact that it is the 2nd-most popular DFD-participant on the ICS shows that quite many modders are aware of its usefulness.
Support #504
Kill #335
---------------------
Fight 2:
Treefires may be nice, but just like in fight 1, the other request simply has much more gameplay value. Also, since aircraft-specific reload times were killed, Ammo= (and related stuff like Reload= ) on weapons simply must survive, IMO.
Support #336
Kill #1020
RE: DFD-R4: 335 vs. 504, 1020 vs. 316 - RandomNutjob - 04.10.2010
I back 504 and 316
504 because functionality beats out "glitter" imo
316 because while tree fires would be nice I feel 316 is a bigger deal and seeing how reaperrr said similar things have bit the dust it would be good to get one thing through in that field, hopefully the other issue/s may follow soon after
RE: DFD-R4: 335 vs. 504, 1020 vs. 316 - eva-251 - 04.10.2010
Fight 1
Kill 335
This is a good feature. It should eventually make it into Ares. However...
Support 504
This is a more useful feature. As others have said- functionality usually takes precedence over eye candy- this is one particularly insignificant example of eye candy.
Fight 2
Kill 1020
I never particularly cared for forest fires. They're either too intrusive gameplay wise (lol grenade went off, there goes your entire platoon!) and the whole system was rather unrealistic. A high explosive is much more likely to simply blow a tree to pieces rather than lighting it on fire.
Support 316
With the death of 976- Aircraft specific reload times largely due to this suggestion, I support it. It's also much more useful than Aircraft specific reload times for reasons Renegade enumerated in his Kill-vote for 976- secondary weapons don't have to be tied into primary ammo count.
RE: DFD-R4: 335 vs. 504, 1020 vs. 316 - Beowulf - 04.10.2010
Support #504 and #316. The reasons are obvious.
RE: DFD-R4: 335 vs. 504, 1020 vs. 316 - Renegade - 09.10.2010
Administrative Notice:
Since the last post in this thread is almost five days old, we will assume the debate is over and proceed to judging.RE: DFD-R4: 335 vs. 504, 1020 vs. 316 - Renegade - 09.10.2010
This one is boring to "judge"
Fight 1
I want the LineTrail alterations, and I hope we'll do them someday, but #504 has more than twice as much ICS, and full support in the debate as well.
Kill: #335
Support: #504
Fight 2
Tree Fires are teh awesomeness, no doubt about it, but Ammo on weapons has become integral for a number of other issues (e.g. Ammo on aircraft), and is important in general to finally give Ammo enough flexibility for wide-spread use.
Kill: #1020
Support: #316
RE: DFD-R4: 335 vs. 504, 1020 vs. 316 - AlexB - 10.10.2010
Fight 1
I concur. Not hard to decide. Fire two weapons at the same time.
Fight 2
Again an easy one. This fight clearly goes to the ammo on weapons, and I hope the specific reload rates are taken into account, too.