Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378
#3
I'll go for 237, you may have a desire to disable say Yuri in some modes (if you make a classic RA2 mode for example) or enable a special side for an "advanced" battle mode (think CannisRules with the high tech units mode also having an extra country with its own specialisation). What other overlay besides walls are people likely to want remappable and if as suggested they already work, what justification is there for this to go forward?

I don't care much for the random damage suggestions, unless you have really small (and thus likely unnoticeable) range of damages you run the risk of stupid situations where a gi can kill or do significant damage to a heavy tank in one shot. To reduce the chances of that you would need weightings against certain armour types that affect the damage range distribution probabilities. So you start getting complicated to balance the whole thing when the versus effectiveness values account for supposed effectiveness anyhow. About the only RA2 themed use I can really think would need it is a chaos tank that fires some quantum disrupter that might do loads of damage or relatively little depending on how lucky you are. I already argued against what is essentially a duplicate of 1003 with unlockable campaigns and while it isn't what I'd prefer to see (the already defeated mission selection map screen) its better than nothing and certainly I'd rather see it than random damage.


Messages In This Thread
DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Renegade - 11.08.2010, 01:35:40
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Blade - 11.08.2010, 13:23:15
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Blade - 12.08.2010, 10:28:26
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by mt. - 12.08.2010, 20:56:37
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by DCoder - 12.08.2010, 21:10:01
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Blade - 12.08.2010, 22:43:49
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by mt. - 12.08.2010, 22:54:24
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Blade - 12.08.2010, 23:32:23
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Blade - 13.08.2010, 09:39:59
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Guest - 13.08.2010, 15:04:19
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Blade - 13.08.2010, 17:34:13
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Guest - 13.08.2010, 19:36:28
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Blade - 14.08.2010, 12:55:40
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Blade - 14.08.2010, 17:45:51
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by mt. - 14.08.2010, 17:55:51
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Blade - 14.08.2010, 19:03:50
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by AlexB - 01.09.2010, 16:31:47
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by DCoder - 03.10.2010, 20:37:15



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)