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-R3: 404 vs. 525, 1069 vs. 526
Author Message
Commander-in-Chief Renegade Offline
Lazy Modder
*****
Admins

Posts: 1 906
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Reputation: 14
Post: #1
DFD-R3: 404 vs. 525, 1069 vs. 526
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, the adjustment and the schedule.

Fight 1

[404] Make the AI deploy stuff other than con yards vs. [525] Allow different types of stealth

Fight 2

[1069] SuperAnimFour cannot have StartSound or Report Tag vs. [526] Allow units to become "phased"

After the fight is over, 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".
This use of simple terminology should be part of a larger argumentation - if this is all your post consists of, it will be ignored. We are interested in argumentations and details to consider, not votes.

A decision will be made either way, 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

These fights are largely automatically generated - if an issue turns out to be unfit for combat, it will be disqualified and the opponent will go into the queue.

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.
11.08.2010 01:34:38
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: #2
RE: DFD-R3: 404 vs. 525, 1069 vs. 526
The only one I can really see wanting to die is 1069. I doesn't seem that important or game changing and when push comes to shove it'll probably get implemented when the superweapon logic is worked on anyways.

Simply put, I support 525 and 526.
11.08.2010 03:32:22
Find all posts by this user
Private reaperrr Offline
Member
***
Members

Posts: 82
Joined: 26 May 2010
Reputation: 0
Post: #3
RE: DFD-R3: 404 vs. 525, 1069 vs. 526
Fight 1:
I want as many AI improvements as possible, whereas #525 sounds a bit complicated for the little gains it brings. So I vote
support #404
kill #525


Fight 2:
I agree with BS750 here, so
support #526
kill #1069
11.08.2010 03:39:04
Find all posts by this user
Private Deformat Offline
Junior Member
**
Members

Posts: 20
Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Reputation: 0
Post: #4
RE: DFD-R3: 404 vs. 525, 1069 vs. 526
I'll go for error 404. Sounds better to me than 525.
Tho I'd go for the fix than the "phased" thing, since it also has its own bugs.So I go for 1069.
11.08.2010 10:24:22
Find all posts by this user
Sergeant Nighthawk Offline
Automatic Greeting System
****
Moderators

Posts: 572
Joined: 14 Oct 2005
Reputation: 4
Post: #5
RE: DFD-R3: 404 vs. 525, 1069 vs. 526
For fight one:
Hmm, both of these are rather good issues, and personally I'd rather see both implemented. But things don't work like that. Now, the first issue. This is a bug which even cripples Westwood's own AI coding. The AI will deploy an MCV, yes. But if you give it any other vehicle to deploy (even the Siege Chopper, which the AI has been given a script to do this with) it'll just sit there and look confused. This perhaps isn't as overt an addition as others, and will probably have no effect for those who don't code AI, but for anyone that does and has deploying units, something like this could be a godsend.

Different stealth types is also something I've been wanting to see for ages. Why should your radar tower's aerial sensors be able to pick up submarines off the coast? Why should your naval sonar tower's sensors be able to pick up that stealth tank parked in the grove of trees outside your base? Why should a dog be able to detect submarines?? This would finally allow modders to distinguish units between being underwater and being true stealth units. You could also have units with more powerful cloaking devices, that can in turn only be detected by more powerful sensor arrays.

It's a tough choice, but I'm going to have to go with support #525, kill #404.


For fight two:
This is also a difficult choice. But for entirely different reasons, not that both issues are brilliant, but that both are rather "meh". For the first issue, how many people actually use sounds on SuperAnimFour? Surely attaching a StartSound and Report to another SuperAnim that plays at the same time could accomplish the same effect? The player's not suddenly going to go "Oh no, I can tell that sound was triggered by that flashing radar dish there and not that small blinking light there! This mod is a travesty!". And if you have sounds on every SuperAnim already, merge the audio into one of the sounds of another. It'll accomplish the same effect unless you have rather different volumes and stuff for each sound.

I'm still struggling to find a use for this "phased" logic. Unless it's used absolutely perfectly and there's some kind of simple way a player could swap units between dimensions, this could just unnecessarily overcomplicate gameplay.

While I can't think of many uses for it, I'll still support #526, kill #1069, solely because I think it'll get more use than the SuperAnimFour issue.

Ares Project Manager.
[Image: t3wbanner.png]
[Image: cncgsigsb_sml.png]
Open Ares positions: Documentation Maintainer, Active Testers.
PM if interested.
11.08.2010 14:39:24
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Corporal Blade Offline
Senior Member
****
Community Patrons

Posts: 453
Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Reputation: 7
Post: #6
RE: DFD-R3: 404 vs. 525, 1069 vs. 526
Support 525, it is needed to make viable land steath units that can be detected differently to subs. Units that can deploy can already be coded to do so with map specific AI triggers if people really care so much about them doing so IIRC and can be enhanced in general with map specific coding that lets it make better use of the map layout.

I'm also temped to agree with BS750s logic on the second fight though I suspect the devs will not fix it just to spite us and our cunning ways Big Grin
11.08.2010 14:41:49
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Private Speeder Offline
Junior Member
**
Members

Posts: 47
Joined: 23 Jan 2005
Reputation: 0
Post: #7
RE: DFD-R3: 404 vs. 525, 1069 vs. 526
I got used to AI which is not able to use the Siege Chopper or any similar unit, especially when it's only the deployed weapon that is not used by AI and even if it was - I don't think it is possible to make AI use that mode effectively.

On the other hand, different types of stealth is a must IMO, because for example I want dogs to detect camouflaged ground units, but why would they be able to detect submarines?

I support #525. Make #404 go 404.

[Image: mainbanner2.jpg]

Mental Omega 3.0 in the web:
[Image: mdbutton.png][Image: fbbutton.png][Image: ytbutton.png]
(This post was last modified: 11.08.2010 23:52:39 by Speeder.)
11.08.2010 19:08:28
Find all posts by this user
Private MRMIdAS Offline
Senior Member
****
Members

Posts: 379
Joined: 29 May 2008
Reputation: 1
Post: #8
RE: DFD-R3: 404 vs. 525, 1069 vs. 526
Keep fight 1, kill fight 2

reasons should be obvious.

DON'T MAKE MY BABIES FIGHT! Big Grin

[Image: MRMIdAS2k.jpg]
MRMIdAS: No longer allowed to criticise Westwood on PPM
11.08.2010 20:12:00
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: #9
RE: DFD-R3: 404 vs. 525, 1069 vs. 526
Support #404. It's not that really dislike #525 all that much, I'm just more of an AI person than anything else. I would rather see a long-standing bug in the game fixed over one that may not be used all that heavily. #404 has the potential to help every mod out there, where #525 might be nifty for a few people. However, I don't say kill #525 either; implement it at some other time...

Fuck the second fight. I don't really like either request, but for the sake of gameplay, #526.

I'm what Willis was talkin' about.
11.08.2010 22:15:09
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Commander-in-Chief Renegade Offline
Lazy Modder
*****
Admins

Posts: 1 906
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Reputation: 14
Post: #10
RE: DFD-R3: 404 vs. 525, 1069 vs. 526

Administrative Notice:

Since the last post in this discussion was five days ago, it is assumed to be over. We will proceed to judgement.

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.
16.08.2010 18:13:19
Visit this user's website 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-R3: 404 vs. 525, 1069 vs. 526
Fight 1

I acknowledge the reason and need behind #404, but I just can't bring myself to voting for it.
As usual, the argumentation it can be done on maps is bullcrap (you are suggesting modders change every single map in existence for every single deploying unit in their mods? Riiiight.), but overall, the request just feels so...meh.

Others have already given a number of usage cases for multiple types of stealth, and personally, I was thinking about RA-like camo bunkers.
Or mines, for that matter. Give mines their own stealth type, require a mine seeker to uncover them.
Multiple stealth types open up a variety of hide/seek combinations, and if Ambush Mode survives, they'll be even more interesting.

They just sound more fun than yet another "let the AI do X" request.

Kill: #404
Support: #525

Fight 2

I can't be bothered to figure out a way to say this nicely, so I'll say it how it is: I don't give a shit that SuperAnimFour can't have sound.
Seriously. As Nighthawk pointed out, there will be enough other things one can attach sound to.

Phased units, on the other hand, could be interesting, even more so if you have entire phased bases.

Kill: #1069
Support: #526

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.
18.08.2010 08:02:47
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-R3: 404 vs. 525, 1069 vs. 526
Fight 1
The AI doesn't know how to handle Siege Choppers. They aren't like the TS Artillery that auto-deploys when ordered to attack. And the AI cannot infer what a unit does. Where to deploy a unit? GIs and GGIs can be deployed as base defense, but Desolators obviously cannot. Tick Tanks and Artilleries can be used as base defense and to assault enemy bases. Artilleries are used as support, Tick Tanks are used offensively. Siege Choppers should deploy so the target is in range of the deployed weapon. M.A.D. tanks should not deploy too far outside the base, but near enough to still inflict damage - and never inside your own base. How can the AI know such things?

It is next to impossible to get the AI to know what a unit does. It might be easy to tell it to deploy everything that can be deployed into a building, but modders can easily create units that have side effects the AI is not aware of.

Update: If the request is calling to make units deployable with scripts, this may be possible, if it doesn't meddle with the original game or it might break something.

Different kinds of stealth are plausible and there is no guessing involved. This issue exists since Aftermath and its Phase Transport which was a cloakable APC, using the same logic as the submarines. In no C&C are submarines and stealth tanks used together and Westwood never expanded the logic. In mods this may happen and then it is limited as some of you pointed out and submarine-sniffing dogs are a good example of this wierdness. Thus: Stealth.

Fight 2
Phasing sounds interesting but may indeed overcomplicate the game. I don't know how many spots need to be changed to support phased units, but I can image it's a lot.

How many people would use this feature? According to the arguments here, not many. No use case named, but instead both issues are called "meh". Of two "meh" issues I chose the issue that's easier to implement: SuperAnimFour StartSound.
01.09.2010 11:53:42
Find all posts by this user
Commander-in-Chief DCoder Offline
Not Ares Anymore
*****
Admins

Posts: 1 756
Joined: 22 Nov 2004
Reputation: 18
Post: #13
RE: DFD-R3: 404 vs. 525, 1069 vs. 526
Support #526. 1069 sounds like user error anyway.

03.10.2010 20:37:13
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




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