Renegade
02.10.2010, 22:46:54
Fight 1
#932 kind of shoots itself in the foot by being two in one - #932.1 could easily have passed as a bug, rather than a feature request, and wouldn't require approval. Alas, that's the way it was filed.
The main arguments for #732 seem to be less micromanagement and "improved AI". To that I say: Meh. If loading passenger-dependent units is too much micro-management for you, don't create/build them. It's as simple as that. Having passenger-dependent units with pre-built passengers completely defeats the purpose of the system - customizing the "payload". Sure, you can always eject the pre-built passengers and put others in, but do you realize what that means? That means you have reduced micromanagement by increasing micromanagement if you want to use OpenTopped or IFVs for their intended functions. It's as simple as that. The Troop Crawler logic doesn't "reduce micromanagement" in general, it reduces micromanagement if you don't want to use the passenger-carrying unit for its intended purpose.
The moment you build an IFV or OpenTopped unit for its intended purpose, customizing the content/weaponry, the Troop Crawler logic adds micromanagement, because you have the additional step of getting rid of the pre-built passengers and utilizing them.
Speaking of which: It also adds the additional modding step of fixing up the balance. Because if you add this to a Battle Fortress, the Battle Fortress suddenly provides (assuming you pick GIs to fill it) 1000 additional credits of value. If you just do that with no further changes, the player can pretty much generate free money - buy a BF, sell the GIs in an obtained Cloning Vat. So you have to account for it. What does that mean? It means the player who doesn't actually want the goddamn GIs, but wants to use the BF for its intended purpose, customizing its payload, has to pay a penalty of $1000 for daring to want to use the unit as intended.
Great gameplay improvement right there.
As for the AI improvement: I'm all for AI improvements. But AI improvements should be implemented as AI improvements, not as "features" that affect the player just as much, and fuck up his gameplay.
In addition, this isn't really a fix or improvement in the first place. It's the equivalent of hanging a picture in front of a hole in the wall. Sure, the problem isn't visible anymore - but it's still there.
Entering vehicles for the AI would still be broken. All you'd achieve is that the AI wouldn't have to enter vehicles in the first place. And for that, you'd either have to force the player into a bunch of collateral bullshit, or create clones for every passenger vehicle, leading to a bunch of "same type...or not" issues.
All in all, it'd be a messy "fix" at best.
So yeah...both supposed advantages of #732 are completely bogus, the gameplay value of it is questionable, and half of #932 is a necessary fix.
The decision is clear.
Kill: #732
Support: #932
Fight 2
New Ore types have by far the most support on the tracker of the four issues in this thread, and, as Beowulf points out, if the limits to upgrades are lifted, an upgrade can feign the radius increase for cloak towers.
Not quite the same as the easy expand/shrink of advanced gap generators, but it's undeniable New Ore is more popular, and at least it's a way to achieve a similar effect.
Kill: #283
Support: #991
#932 kind of shoots itself in the foot by being two in one - #932.1 could easily have passed as a bug, rather than a feature request, and wouldn't require approval. Alas, that's the way it was filed.
The main arguments for #732 seem to be less micromanagement and "improved AI". To that I say: Meh. If loading passenger-dependent units is too much micro-management for you, don't create/build them. It's as simple as that. Having passenger-dependent units with pre-built passengers completely defeats the purpose of the system - customizing the "payload". Sure, you can always eject the pre-built passengers and put others in, but do you realize what that means? That means you have reduced micromanagement by increasing micromanagement if you want to use OpenTopped or IFVs for their intended functions. It's as simple as that. The Troop Crawler logic doesn't "reduce micromanagement" in general, it reduces micromanagement if you don't want to use the passenger-carrying unit for its intended purpose.
The moment you build an IFV or OpenTopped unit for its intended purpose, customizing the content/weaponry, the Troop Crawler logic adds micromanagement, because you have the additional step of getting rid of the pre-built passengers and utilizing them.
Speaking of which: It also adds the additional modding step of fixing up the balance. Because if you add this to a Battle Fortress, the Battle Fortress suddenly provides (assuming you pick GIs to fill it) 1000 additional credits of value. If you just do that with no further changes, the player can pretty much generate free money - buy a BF, sell the GIs in an obtained Cloning Vat. So you have to account for it. What does that mean? It means the player who doesn't actually want the goddamn GIs, but wants to use the BF for its intended purpose, customizing its payload, has to pay a penalty of $1000 for daring to want to use the unit as intended.
Great gameplay improvement right there.
As for the AI improvement: I'm all for AI improvements. But AI improvements should be implemented as AI improvements, not as "features" that affect the player just as much, and fuck up his gameplay.
In addition, this isn't really a fix or improvement in the first place. It's the equivalent of hanging a picture in front of a hole in the wall. Sure, the problem isn't visible anymore - but it's still there.
Entering vehicles for the AI would still be broken. All you'd achieve is that the AI wouldn't have to enter vehicles in the first place. And for that, you'd either have to force the player into a bunch of collateral bullshit, or create clones for every passenger vehicle, leading to a bunch of "same type...or not" issues.
All in all, it'd be a messy "fix" at best.
So yeah...both supposed advantages of #732 are completely bogus, the gameplay value of it is questionable, and half of #932 is a necessary fix.
The decision is clear.
Kill: #732
Support: #932
Fight 2
New Ore types have by far the most support on the tracker of the four issues in this thread, and, as Beowulf points out, if the limits to upgrades are lifted, an upgrade can feign the radius increase for cloak towers.
Not quite the same as the easy expand/shrink of advanced gap generators, but it's undeniable New Ore is more popular, and at least it's a way to achieve a similar effect.
Kill: #283
Support: #991
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.