Renegade
09.10.2010, 12:29:15
Oooh, exciting! First judgement of the last round!
Fight 1
Let me start by saying that I find Beowulf's assertion that "609 will make 596 possible and then some" rather ridiculous. There is absolutely no basis for that claim, especially since it hasn't even been decided yet whether to implement #609, so no implementation details are decided yet, either.
Anyway, none of the posts in the discussion even mention #724, let alone support it, and ICS is 3 for #724 against 13 for #609.
It's rather clear which one the community prefers.
Kill: #724
Support: #609
Fight 2
#322 does have more ICS, and Blade is correct when he says that there are other upgrade requests left - however, this is the last round; there is no guarantee any of the other requests survive, and there will be no other chance. To kill #596 on the vague possibility that a related request in the same area might survive would be unfair.
#596 will be judged on its own merit.
And I must say, looking at both next to each other, #596 looks to be vastly, vastly more important than #322.
Fully-functional upgrades would enable hitherto unseen variation and complexity for BuildingTypes.
A fixed NonVehicle would...prevent specific vehicles to be lifted. And stop hijackers on specific vehicles.
Let's be honest here: CarryAlls work, in general. Hijackers work, in general. It's not like anything is not functional because
Choosing #322 would mean making an existing logic a tiny, tiny bit better.
Choosing #596 would mean making an existing logic drastically better, allowing a wide range of new usage cases.
As much as I agree it'd be nice if #322 were fixed, #596 is just more important, imo.
Kill: #322
Support: #596
Ultimately, with the post-0.2 release cycle, you can always just go and lobby for #322 to become a developer's minor feature for a release.
Fight 1
Let me start by saying that I find Beowulf's assertion that "609 will make 596 possible and then some" rather ridiculous. There is absolutely no basis for that claim, especially since it hasn't even been decided yet whether to implement #609, so no implementation details are decided yet, either.
Anyway, none of the posts in the discussion even mention #724, let alone support it, and ICS is 3 for #724 against 13 for #609.
It's rather clear which one the community prefers.
Kill: #724
Support: #609
Fight 2
#322 does have more ICS, and Blade is correct when he says that there are other upgrade requests left - however, this is the last round; there is no guarantee any of the other requests survive, and there will be no other chance. To kill #596 on the vague possibility that a related request in the same area might survive would be unfair.
#596 will be judged on its own merit.
And I must say, looking at both next to each other, #596 looks to be vastly, vastly more important than #322.
Fully-functional upgrades would enable hitherto unseen variation and complexity for BuildingTypes.
A fixed NonVehicle would...prevent specific vehicles to be lifted. And stop hijackers on specific vehicles.
Let's be honest here: CarryAlls work, in general. Hijackers work, in general. It's not like anything is not functional because
NonVehicle doesn't work. Yes, it's a little annoying that you can't make an exception for a few VehicleTypes here and there, but overall, it's not like it overly impedes the use of those game logics.Choosing #322 would mean making an existing logic a tiny, tiny bit better.
Choosing #596 would mean making an existing logic drastically better, allowing a wide range of new usage cases.
As much as I agree it'd be nice if #322 were fixed, #596 is just more important, imo.
Kill: #322
Support: #596
Ultimately, with the post-0.2 release cycle, you can always just go and lobby for #322 to become a developer's minor feature for a release.
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.