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: 991 vs. 332, 588 vs. 328
Author Message
Ares Tester AlexB Offline
Grandmaster B
***

Posts: 221
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Reputation: 5
Post: #1
DFD: 991 vs. 332, 588 vs. 328
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

[0000991] New tiberium/ore tree types vs. [0000332] A flag for super weapons, Stackable=yes/no (default no)

Fight 2

[0000588] Weapons that don't use up Ammo vs. [0000328] allow shp vehicle units to use a "Sequence" like infantry units do

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, 22.07.2010.
20.07.2010 21:22:14
Find all posts by this user
Private RandomNutjob Offline
Junior Member
**
Members

Posts: 28
Joined: 19 Jul 2010
Reputation: 0
Post: #2
RE: DFD: 991 vs. 332, 588 vs. 328
Fight 1 - Stackable supers imo is unnecessary so I go for 991

Fight 2 - The ammo thing sounds dumb, and in theory useless, so 328 gets my backing

EDIT: On review the poster of 588 requested it be taken off the DFD list so does 328 get a by?
(This post was last modified: 20.07.2010 21:51:50 by RandomNutjob.)
20.07.2010 21:48:40
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: 991 vs. 332, 588 vs. 328
332 is pointless, since superweapon clones and a negative prerequisites can emulate it.
The ammo one is a duplicate(sorta) so should have been closed anyway.

Support: 991, 328.
20.07.2010 21:58:58
Find all posts by this user
Private MRMIdAS Offline
Senior Member
****
Members

Posts: 379
Joined: 29 May 2008
Reputation: 1
Post: #4
RE: DFD: 991 vs. 332, 588 vs. 328
[0000332] would be good with stuff like Airports, separate paradrops per building.

[0000328] Vehicles having a sequence would be a cool effect, and would probably be pretty easy to implement.

[Image: MRMIdAS2k.jpg]
MRMIdAS: No longer allowed to criticise Westwood on PPM
21.07.2010 04:57:49
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: #5
RE: DFD: 991 vs. 332, 588 vs. 328
Fight 1

Issue 1: New ore types could be of some interesting use, maybe even open the door to different harvester types.

Issue 2: Stackable superweapons seems pointless to me, why be able to annihilate an entire person's base by building 5 nukes.

Support: [0000991] New tiberium/ore tree types
Kill: [0000332] A flag for super weapons, Stackable=yes/no (default no)


Fight 2

Issues 1 & 2: Well I can't really say either of these is better than the other, the ammo is pretty useful for gameplay though, and the vehicle sequences could be useful for SHP units, so I don't know.

[Image: darkstormsmall.png]
21.07.2010 05:00:27
Find all posts by this user
Private MRMIdAS Offline
Senior Member
****
Members

Posts: 379
Joined: 29 May 2008
Reputation: 1
Post: #6
RE: DFD: 991 vs. 332, 588 vs. 328
(21.07.2010 05:00:27)Darkstorm Wrote:  Issue 2: Stackable superweapons seems pointless to me, why be able to annihilate an entire person's base by building 5 nukes.

To quote Ren, DC, and plenty more "It's up to the modder to provide balance, not us"

BuildLimit is there for a reason, don't want 5 nukes coming at you? BuildLimit=1

Sorted.

[Image: MRMIdAS2k.jpg]
MRMIdAS: No longer allowed to criticise Westwood on PPM
21.07.2010 05:05:07
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Private eva-251 Offline
Member
***
Members

Posts: 66
Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Reputation: 0
Post: #7
RE: DFD: 991 vs. 332, 588 vs. 328
991 v 332
I don't really see the usefulness of 991. If ore fields could actually spread beyond the cells immediately surrounding the "tree" (which in all of my experience with TS and RA2, doesn't happen), I could see the use- otherwise it just isn't all that useful.

332, on the other hand, means we don't need to use duplicate super-weapons (which clutter the sidebar) and also gives modders the option to simulate Generals style gameplay even more, or just allow for players to have more than one paradrop/supply drop/airstrike...
Kill 991, Support 332

588 vs 328
588 could be extremely useful for just about unit that doesn't feature a machine gun as its primary weapon, but 328 offers its own major benefits for modders going SHP heavy in their mods.

It's close, but support 588, kill 328.

Star Strike Next Beta :V.7x -- (current version=V.6x Build 2)
Star Strike TC Forums
Star Strike Website
21.07.2010 05:48:12
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Private Black Shadow 750 Offline
Member
***
Members

Posts: 112
Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Reputation: 0
Post: #8
RE: DFD: 991 vs. 332, 588 vs. 328
(21.07.2010 05:48:12)eva-251 Wrote:  332, on the other hand, means we don't need to use duplicate super-weapons (which clutter the sidebar)

You do realize that each of those nukes, be they clones or stacked, are going to take up room on the sidebar, making that arguement NULL AND VOID.
21.07.2010 06:19:35
Find all posts by this user
Private Beowulf Offline
Senior Member
****
Members

Posts: 322
Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Reputation: 0
Post: #9
RE: DFD: 991 vs. 332, 588 vs. 328
DS750, you miss one vital point - there will be on one icon for the superweapon building, instead of 3 or 4 or 5 or however many that's implemented. Before you yell at someone for a bad argument, make sure your own is solid.

Anyway, on with the challengers.

Kill #991. There's plenty of ore, deal with it. Like EVA251 said, ore doesn't spread beyond its initial cell from a mine and it only spreads from a crate source, which isn't always available. The logic is rather redundant honestly and could even cause issues in FA2. I support #332 because more Generals-styled logic is never a bad thing and we need more of it. If you don't want imbalance, set Stackable=no. Plenty of ways to BALANCE THIS.

Kill #588. I don't honestly see the point. There are a couple of other requests that do the same thing anyway like Ammo On Weapons, which a MUCH better way to do this! Support #328 because SHP vehicles would be a more viable solution to voxels or they could be better animated.

I'm what Willis was talkin' about.
(This post was last modified: 21.07.2010 08:04:47 by Beowulf.)
21.07.2010 08:02:52
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: #10
RE: DFD: 991 vs. 332, 588 vs. 328
Well tell me then how to balance a SUPERweapon other than get one of them. Oh well, point proven, and considering the fact that I have no use for multiple ore types, I guess stackable superweapons is fine.

[Image: darkstormsmall.png]
21.07.2010 09:47:21
Find all posts by this user
Corporal Blade Offline
Senior Member
****
Community Patrons

Posts: 453
Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Reputation: 7
Post: #11
RE: DFD: 991 vs. 332, 588 vs. 328
Kill #332 There are plenty of ways to make more superweapons, deal with it. How exactly will there be one icon for a superweapon building? Isn't that the same as the clutter for superweapons themselves or do you mean building type? If thats the case, how do you know which "copy" is ready to fire and how much the others have to charge in RA2's limited UI? I support #991 because more generals style logic is a bad thing and we need less of it.
Sorry if this comes across as a bit immature Beowulf, but your "argument" for supporting #991 comes across as "I want RA2 to be more like generals, waa waa" rather than any particular discussion on the merits of the features. Tibtrees making different types of ore/tiberium is IMO a restored TS feature and has a lot of support from people wanting to make TS based mods.

For the second fight, I don't really find either feature that compelling. Shp units already have limited ability to define animation sequences ala the cyborg reaper in TS but then again I don't think units who's primary weapon runs out after a while sounds all that great either.
21.07.2010 10:18:18
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Private Black Shadow 750 Offline
Member
***
Members

Posts: 112
Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Reputation: 0
Post: #12
RE: DFD: 991 vs. 332, 588 vs. 328
(21.07.2010 08:02:52)Beowulf Wrote:  DS750, you miss one vital point - there will be on one icon for the superweapon building, instead of 3 or 4 or 5 or however many that's implemented. Before you yell at someone for a bad argument, make sure your own is solid.

Oh no! Like I haven't done exactly the same thing using negativeprerequisites!

Oh look! Miracle code that stops there being multiple silo icons!
Quote:[NANUKE]
Prerequisites=NACNST, NATECH
Prerequisites.Negative=NANUKE1, NANUKE2
Superweapon=nuke

[NANUKE1]
Prerequisites=NACNST, NATECH, NANUKE
Prerequisites.Negative=NANUKE2
Superweapon=NukeClone

[NANUKE2]
Prerequisites=NACNST,NATECH,NANUKE1
SuperWeapon=NukeClone1

So yeah, shut your damn mouth before Jeeves offers you a pie.
(This post was last modified: 21.07.2010 11:31:32 by Black Shadow 750.)
21.07.2010 11:26:09
Find all posts by this user
Private Beowulf Offline
Senior Member
****
Members

Posts: 322
Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Reputation: 0
Post: #13
RE: DFD: 991 vs. 332, 588 vs. 328
I shouldn't need to make clones and clutter my rules file when I have a perfectly good superweapon and structure already waiting.

Quote:If thats the case, how do you know which "copy" is ready to fire and how much the others have to charge in RA2's limited UI?
I would imagine that when an icon says "Ready" that would be a big clue. Maybe it's just me, but I would have assumed that to be FUCKING obvious.

Quote:I support #991 because more generals style logic is a bad thing and we need less of it.
No, we DO need more of it. RA2's simplicity is perfect, but the lack of ability to do some things Generals does (not just stackable superweapons) is kinda... weak. There is more to Generals that stackable superweapons you know, but I bet you don't. Have you even played Generals and Zero Hour?

Quote:Sorry if this comes across as a bit immature Beowulf, but your "argument" for supporting #991 comes across as "I want RA2 to be more like generals, waa waa" rather than any particular discussion on the merits of the features. Tibtrees making different types of ore/tiberium is IMO a restored TS feature and has a lot of support from people wanting to make TS based mods.
But... what are you really restoring? Right, not a fucking thing. The only thing to 'restore' is the [BIGBLUE] from Tiberian Sun to spawn gems. Fuck that, reduces the value of gems. I don't really see the point for "expanding ore types." It feels like a worthless venture.

I'm what Willis was talkin' about.
21.07.2010 19:13:27
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Corporal Marshall Offline
Ultimos Homo Statans
*****
STX Hostees

Posts: 1 033
Joined: 23 Jan 2005
Reputation: 12
Post: #14
RE: DFD: 991 vs. 332, 588 vs. 328
Obviously I support stackable superweapons over more ore types.
The best example of usefulness is capturing multiple Tech Airports to get multiple paradrops. I don't see how this can be achieved with any other method.
Support 332, kill 991.

Preventing weapons from using up ammo might be useful for dummy or basic weapons and is immediately usable. Graphics options don't offer anything to change the gameplay and are only usable by someone with time and inclination to work on new graphics.
Support 558, kill 328.

Ever wondered what the hell is going on?
Believe me friend you're not the only one.
--Lysdexia

Check out Launch Base for RA2/YR - http://marshall.strategy-x.com
Also home to the Purple Alert mod, 1.002 UMP, and the YR Playlist Manager.
21.07.2010 19:14:10
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Private Black Shadow 750 Offline
Member
***
Members

Posts: 112
Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Reputation: 0
Post: #15
RE: DFD: 991 vs. 332, 588 vs. 328
(21.07.2010 19:13:27)Beowulf Wrote:  I shouldn't need to make clones and clutter my rules file when I have a perfectly good superweapon and structure already waiting.

Uh yeah, because the [something]:[somethingelse] system really doesn't reduce that to JUST TWO LINES AT MAX for the clones.
21.07.2010 20:36:53
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




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