Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916
#9
Fight 1

Oh look, it's yet another jumpjet issue...what is this, Duplicate Hour on DFD? Rolling eyes

Anyway, the consensus seems clear.

Kill: #931
Support: #298


Fight 2

I just plain dislike #769. It's pointless, it goes against any convention of how health in games in general and in RTSs in particular works, and, most importantly, the usage examples suck ass.

Why would my paratroopers magically be of ill health, just because they're paras? Last I heard, paratroopers were among the better kinds of soldiers.
Pre-placed buildings can have their health set in the editor, or an Advanced Rubble rubble state can be pre-placed. Why the fuck would I want a buildable damaged building? Seriously, I'd like to hear the ingame explanation for that - "Iraqi Engineers have all been exposed to badly shielded Desolator fuel rods. Therefore, their brains are damaged and they suck at building."?
And if I give a unit a little attention by letting it hunt a few crates first, resulting in higher speed and better armor, it also has a slight edge - no new logics necessary.

There is a very simple question that #769 generates, and it provides no satisfying answer to it: Why the hell would I want my objects to be at less than full health when built?


With #916, on the other hand, I mostly have technical issues. I'm wondering about the complexity of implementation and performance issues. But at least, if implemented, it would be a useful/worthy/non-crappy feature.

Kill: #769
Support: #916
Forum Rules

(01.06.2011, 05:43:25)kenosis Wrote: Oh damn don't be disgraced again!

(25.06.2011, 20:42:59)Nighthawk Wrote: The proverbial bearded omni-bug may be dead, but the containment campaign is still being waged in the desert.


Messages In This Thread
DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 - by Renegade - 22.07.2010, 20:24:42
RE: DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 - by Beowulf - 23.07.2010, 01:05:42
RE: DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 - by mt. - 23.07.2010, 02:37:59
RE: DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 - by MRMIdAS - 23.07.2010, 23:02:07
RE: DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 - by Darkstorm - 24.07.2010, 23:08:52
RE: DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 - by Striker - 26.07.2010, 00:51:52
RE: DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 - by Renegade - 28.07.2010, 23:22:54
RE: DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 - by Renegade - 06.08.2010, 04:18:11
RE: DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 - by AlexB - 06.08.2010, 18:40:03
RE: DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 - by Renegade - 07.08.2010, 06:58:01



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)