The internet is a lawless place with knowledge and sarcastic wit the pistols of this wild frontier.
Don't go out without being sufficiently armed.

~Blade

Other places

Ares (Current version: 0.B)

Ares's primary facilities have been moved elsewhere:

  • If you wish to report a bug in Ares, please proceed to its bugtracker.
  • If you'd like to request a feature, register a blueprint.
  • If you have questions or can provide answers regarding Ares's usage, visit the Q&A section.
  • Before you post a new question, you should check the FAQ, though.

Behavior

  • Mind the forum rules.
  • Due to its documentedly horrible quality, we do not offer NPatch support.


Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
DFD: 1020 vs. 347, 919 vs. 212
Author Message
Ares Tester AlexB Offline
Grandmaster B
***

Posts: 221
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Reputation: 5
Post: #1
DFD: 1020 vs. 347, 919 vs. 212
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 and the schedule.

Fight 1

[0001020] Re-Implementing TreeFires? vs. [0000347] Include a "Power=" tag on units.

Fight 2

[0000919] Custom infiltration-style weapons vs. [0000212] Ai Building Firebases next to structures

By the end of the 48 hour period, 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".
A decision will be made either way, so 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! Dual M16

End: ~ 19:00, 21.07.2010.
20.07.2010 06:24:20
Find all posts by this user
Private jimmy3421 Offline
Junior Member
**
Members

Posts: 14
Joined: 4 Jun 2007
Reputation: 0
Post: #2
RE: DFD: 1020 vs. 347, 919 vs. 212
Support #347 #212

Fight 1:
Both are useful. In view of usefulness,I choose later.

Fight 2:
Stronger AI !! So I choose later.

New Engine Promotion Center
YR engine promotion center of Taiwan !
20.07.2010 06:43:03
Find all posts by this user
Private Black Shadow 750 Offline
Member
***
Members

Posts: 112
Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Reputation: 0
Post: #3
RE: DFD: 1020 vs. 347, 919 vs. 212
I support 1020 purely because the opposing request is stupid. Pray tell how a moving unit/infantry is going to be hooked up to the power grid? It would make sense had localized power gone through but as is it's down right stupid. You want something to deploy into a mobile power plant (example used in issue)? Then make it deploy into a building.

I choose 212 purely because the AI could do with some improvements.
20.07.2010 14:23:37
Find all posts by this user
Corporal Blade Offline
Senior Member
****
Community Patrons

Posts: 453
Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Reputation: 7
Post: #4
RE: DFD: 1020 vs. 347, 919 vs. 212
Power tag on units could make a side that behaves like the aliens in independance day, where the central base broadcasts power to field units rather than them having their own independant energy sources.
20.07.2010 15:34:17
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Private MRMIdAS Offline
Senior Member
****
Members

Posts: 379
Joined: 29 May 2008
Reputation: 1
Post: #5
RE: DFD: 1020 vs. 347, 919 vs. 212
[0001020] gets my vote, as the current tutorials never seem to work for me, weather that's due to something I'm not being told, or just that it doesn't work anymore.

[0000212] gets my vote, the AI not really defending it's own oil derricks, secret labs, etc really bugged me, might need a few more tags to override the base defence limits and coefficients defined in the rules, but this is a worthy addition.

[Image: MRMIdAS2k.jpg]
MRMIdAS: No longer allowed to criticise Westwood on PPM
20.07.2010 16:46:22
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Private Darkstorm Offline
Member
***
Members

Posts: 55
Joined: 4 Aug 2009
Reputation: 0
Post: #6
RE: DFD: 1020 vs. 347, 919 vs. 212
Fight 1

Issue 1: Personally, I'd like to see more reimplementation of features from old games, so this definitely gets my vote. While you can over do the fire damage (eh rm... TI), it is a neat feature to have when it finds balance. Plus, in RA2, when you pay attention, it looks odd when you shoot a tree with a flamethrower or even a cannon and it just disappears.

Issue 2: I see how this could be used to balance units but come on, there is a reason why mods remove the robot control center's limitation on robot tanks, or moves it to a structure not likely to be destroyed as easily. I foresee this being a nuisance, at best, to players. You build units to break free of base limitations, not to replicate them.

Support: [0001020] Re-Implementing TreeFires?
Kill: [0000347] Include a "Power=" tag on units.


Fight 2

Issue 1: Personally, this seems like a building parasite, just a one time damage dealing one. We already have restored spy effects, while it would be nice to see some more of those, I could care less for this effect. Just make a cloaked or disguised terrorist, that will replicate this effect enough.

Issue 2: AI Fire Bases, groups of defense buildings not those artillery emplacements of Zero Hour, seem as more worth in my opinion than a saboteur effect. The AI doesn't defend its important structures with anything that mere walls, and doesn't defend its tech structures at all.

Support: [0000212] Ai Building Firebases next to structures
Kill: [0000919] Custom infiltration-style weapons

[Image: darkstormsmall.png]
20.07.2010 20:07:38
Find all posts by this user
Corporal Blade Offline
Senior Member
****
Community Patrons

Posts: 453
Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Reputation: 7
Post: #7
RE: DFD: 1020 vs. 347, 919 vs. 212
I don't really recall forest fires logic being all that great even in TS although of course it did actually work there. Then again I do normally support restored TS logics. That said, I think the units requiring power to be used is an interesting concept that one might base an entire faction around, with underpowered units that don't require power, but overpowered units that do but are vunerable to sneak attacks on the base with disks or spy units.

For the second fight I don't think the custom infiltration logic as proposed is all that compelling and it would be nice to see the AI be slightly more intelligent. On the other hand however, the AI is never going to be fantastic, so throwing too much at it to improve it is to the detriment of other features that might add more to the game for more people.
20.07.2010 23:19:33
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Private Beowulf Offline
Senior Member
****
Members

Posts: 322
Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Reputation: 0
Post: #8
RE: DFD: 1020 vs. 347, 919 vs. 212
Kill #347. We have BuildLimit, Cost, BuildSpeedModifier, etc for a reason and this is one of them. 'Powered' units have always felt cheesy and cheap, like it's not worth it. That said, my vote goes to #1020. Tree fires was an awesome effect and I would like to see it again.

Kill #212. As much as I'm all for AI improvements, this just feels kinda weak. This could be done easily with units instead and the AI would be fine. With that, I support #919. The game really lacked proper 'Saboteur' logic, barring, of course, spying. This could be used all over the place and if it's extended to units, could be used for lots of new weapon types.

I'm what Willis was talkin' about.
21.07.2010 07:54:52
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Private Darkstorm Offline
Member
***
Members

Posts: 55
Joined: 4 Aug 2009
Reputation: 0
Post: #9
RE: DFD: 1020 vs. 347, 919 vs. 212
(21.07.2010 07:54:52)Beowulf Wrote:  'Powered' units have always felt cheesy and cheap, like it's not worth it.

This... that's just what I mean. Powered units are a pretty bad idea if you ask me.

[Image: darkstormsmall.png]
21.07.2010 09:44:45
Find all posts by this user
Private Striker Offline
Junior Member
**
Members

Posts: 25
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Reputation: 0
Post: #10
RE: DFD: 1020 vs. 347, 919 vs. 212
1) I support #1020, because I think that a unit requiring power is a bit strange. As long as you aren't making a future mod with robots flying around (which is not what I do, so I don't have that much robots and cyborgs, but trees in my mod) the opposite is an nice graphics effect. If it wasn't power, but something like a supply limit, it'd get my vote, but what does power limit? In my opinion, it just reduces the usefulness of the assigned unit, not more.

2) I support #212, because I think that lack the infiltration weapon is just a graphical issue, while an AI improvement is a nice thing to discuss about. Being able of adding defence buildings to critical structures in addition to some units sounds fantastic.
21.07.2010 13:33:32
Find all posts by this user
Commander-in-Chief Renegade Offline
Lazy Modder
*****
Admins

Posts: 1 906
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Reputation: 14
Post: #11
RE: DFD: 1020 vs. 347, 919 vs. 212
Fight 1

#347 is undoubtedly a very interesting request that could lead to interesting gameplay changes in mods.
Unfortunately, I like fire, and I've always greatly enjoyed C&C tree fires.

Of course, I have read your argumentations anyway - after all, you could have amazingly awesome suggestions that change my mind!
But it turns out, the majority of you actually agrees with me.

I feel sorry for #347, 'cause it's good stuff, but this is the reason we're here - we can't do everything, and sometimes, even good requests have to die.

Kill: #347
Support: #1020

BS750: Complaining about the realism of wireless power in a game with mind controllers and tanks disguising as trees is a little bit silly.

Fight 2

#919 is sort of a "meh" request to begin with. A valid desire, but not all that special or game-changing. If it proposed a way to actually do anything special with the "infiltration", there might be something to it, but the way it is, the request isn't all that different from multi-engineer with explosions.
It's a cursor-changer and damage localizer for weapons, nothing more.
And while that is, as said, a valid request, it's simply nothing exceptional.

Encouraging the AI to properly use base defenses, on the other hand, serves to make combat a good deal more interesting, and the AI less easy to defeat.
In fact, one could go further with the proposal: Don't limit it to base defenses. You could tell the AI to build silos around the refinery, or battery packs, or, if one employs such a system, research units around a tech center.

But ultimately, even a single, properly-placed turret would already be an improvement.
And it looks like many of you share that sentiment.

Kill: #919
Support: #212

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.
23.07.2010 02:11:07
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Ares Tester AlexB Offline
Grandmaster B
***

Posts: 221
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Reputation: 5
Post: #12
RE: DFD: 1020 vs. 347, 919 vs. 212
Fight 1
Power= on units would be nice, indeed, but I concur that it's not that important to balance. It's just another way to do something fancy.

Tree fires aren't important to gameplay either, but still...

Fight 2
The AI needs to get better. There are already special tags in place to tell it to protect certain buildings with walls but it won't do anything to protect a source of income sitting unprotected on the battlefield.

Infiltration weapons aren't that interesting and they wouldn't benefit as many gamers as the AI Building firebases do.
07.08.2010 19:18:45
Find all posts by this user
Commander-in-Chief Renegade Offline
Lazy Modder
*****
Admins

Posts: 1 906
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Reputation: 14
Post: #13
RE: DFD: 1020 vs. 347, 919 vs. 212
Result:

As above.

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.
08.08.2010 07:58:14
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)