Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378
#35
Fight 1
I asked for feedback on the issue two months ago and didn't get any. DestroyAnims aren't overlay and already remap thanks to Ares. Walls are already remappable (image). So this issue must be about remappable rocks, trees and lamp posts. Is this really about colored rocks? Exciting.

On the other hand, disabling countries for game modes should be doable, even though there are still problems to overcome like switching to a game mode not allowing certain countries currently selected.

Fight 2
Here, too, seems to be some confusion. Multiple campaigns are already possible. Third Button is already working in its branch and if you want to have more than four campaigns, enable the campaign list. It is not possible to unlock missions in that list right now, but we haven't even arrived at 0.2 yet and it's quite likely there will be more extensions to the campaign menu in later versions.

Random Damage can be used or abused, as it has been pointed out extensively. I don't like random elements that much and I really hated TS's Hunter Seekers for destroying my Construction Yard while the ones I launched crashed into civilian structures.

Some say if Random Damage is noticable it's used too much but if it's not noticable there's no point in having it at all. Others give examples where it make sense to have such a system, most notably the Sniper that misses or wounds/kills infantry so it can't participate in the battle any more, as well as the M4 Sherman.

There are several arguments pointing out the negatives like the random element and it's fantasy style of the critical hit, as well as the disappearance of the random element in large battles if the number of fighters is big enough (law of large numbers). There are almost no arguments why the multiple campaign list issue is the better issue.

For now, I chose Random Damage. Nobody has to use it and it would default to the game's default behavior so nobody gets something he didn't want.


Messages In This Thread
DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Renegade - 11.08.2010, 01:35:40
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Blade - 11.08.2010, 13:23:15
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Blade - 12.08.2010, 10:28:26
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by mt. - 12.08.2010, 20:56:37
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by DCoder - 12.08.2010, 21:10:01
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Blade - 12.08.2010, 22:43:49
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by mt. - 12.08.2010, 22:54:24
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Blade - 12.08.2010, 23:32:23
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Blade - 13.08.2010, 09:39:59
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Guest - 13.08.2010, 15:04:19
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Blade - 13.08.2010, 17:34:13
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Guest - 13.08.2010, 19:36:28
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Blade - 14.08.2010, 12:55:40
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Blade - 14.08.2010, 17:45:51
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by mt. - 14.08.2010, 17:55:51
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Blade - 14.08.2010, 19:03:50
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by AlexB - 01.09.2010, 16:31:47
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by DCoder - 03.10.2010, 20:37:15



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)