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: 1047 vs. 298, 345 vs. 1121
Author Message
Commander-in-Chief Renegade Offline
Lazy Modder
*****
Admins

Posts: 1 906
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Reputation: 14
Post: #1
DFD-R3: 1047 vs. 298, 345 vs. 1121
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

[1047] Fix Gatling Logic vs. [298] New survivor system

Fight 2

[345] VerteranAt= and EliteAt= Tags vs. [1121] Parachuted=yes

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 01:36:41
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Private reaperrr Offline
Member
***
Members

Posts: 82
Joined: 26 May 2010
Reputation: 0
Post: #2
RE: DFD-R3: 1047 vs. 298, 345 vs. 1121
Fight 1:
One of the fights that are a bit more difficult to decide, but all in all I'll support the New Survivor system. Having more control over what infantry and how many of them come out from each building would actually be quite useful. You could do all kinds of interesting things with this, like let 20 zombies come out of an innocent-looking civilian building once it is destroyed Big Grin

Removing the limitations of the gatling system would be nice as well, but it's a (too) limited usage scenario unless the mod makes excessive use of the gattling logic.

I believe #298 has more gameplay value and uses, so

support #298
kill #1047



Fight 2:
#345 just barely avoided death in the Ultimate Smackdown by 1 vote, and in my opinion it is time to die now.
Proper parachutes without complicated and often imperfect work-arounds have been wanted for several years. #345 just extends the Veteran system a bit, but not in a particularly useful way, so

support #1121
kill #345
11.08.2010 02:54:17
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-R3: 1047 vs. 298, 345 vs. 1121
^Yeah but when it was 3 votes kill that isn't saying much at all, other than two people find it useless. Two. That's not many.

Regardless, for 1121 would the already-implemented Parachute.Anim= do this so long as it was expanded to consider projectiles?

If so, I'm gonna be daring...

Kill Fight 2, Support Fight 1...


If I can.
11.08.2010 03:56:04
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-R3: 1047 vs. 298, 345 vs. 1121
Does the secondary weapon have to be an anti-air weapon on a gattling gun for the logic to work? I know that you can dummy weapon the secondary so it only uses a land based weapon but does it actually check the second weapon to see if it has AA set on the projectile (or where ever it gets set)? If not, then I'd rather see that fixed, but if it does, then that issue is moot.

In fight 2, I agree with reaperr, 345 just doens't have a good enough use case.
11.08.2010 12:22:35
Visit this user's website 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: 1047 vs. 298, 345 vs. 1121
For fight one:
Ah, now, this one's difficult. Fix a severely limiting bug, or expand a severely limited system? The gattling logic is very badly constrained. Why must units have both AA and AG weapons to use the logic? Hell, why do they need turrets? The system seems unnecessarily held back by these bugs, and they could do with being fixed. I can't remember if the spawned drones issue was killed or not in its DFD, but a workaround for it involves gattling logic. Might get a bit more use if these silly limits weren't imposed.

As for the second issue. Expanded survivor controls are something I've always wanted to see. They're not a major enhancement, just something to give that little bit more control to the modder, rather than every building chucking out a calculated number of GIs.

Sadly I can't think of any major arguments for the second issue, and though I would prefer it, the gattling bugs really do need sorting out, therefore my stance is support #1047, kill #298.


For fight two:
I remember arguing in favour of the first issue in its previous DFD, and now I'm about to do the opposite. This is odd. Anyway. This is only useful to modders that make use of the veterancy system to any great extent, i.e. units that have radically different weapons, stats and abilities upon promotion. Without that, it's not much of an issue to let the game's default system handle when to promote units.

My argument's the same one I made in the second issue's previous DFD. People have been trying for years to emulate RA1's parabomb super weapon. There are tutorials all over the place for complicated workarounds using InfantryTypes that looks like bombs, can't move and have suicide weapons. But from my own personal experience with using these workarounds, and writing tutorials for them, they're really not that good. For a start, without the paradrop clones provided in Rock/NaffPatch or Ares, the American paradrop always had to be sacraficed. Additionally, most of the time the parabomb "infantry" will fail to find a target and just sit there without exploding.

Therefore, my stance is support #1121, kill #345.

Ares Project Manager.
[Image: t3wbanner.png]
[Image: cncgsigsb_sml.png]
Open Ares positions: Documentation Maintainer, Active Testers.
PM if interested.
11.08.2010 15:27:16
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: #6
RE: DFD-R3: 1047 vs. 298, 345 vs. 1121
save fight 1, kill fight 2, 2 worthy issues over 2 not so worthy issues.

[Image: MRMIdAS2k.jpg]
MRMIdAS: No longer allowed to criticise Westwood on PPM
11.08.2010 20:34:40
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: #7
RE: DFD-R3: 1047 vs. 298, 345 vs. 1121
(11.08.2010 20:34:40)MRMIdAS Wrote:  save fight 1, kill fight 2, 2 worthy issues over 2 not so worthy issues.

Can we do this? I so hope we can. Why can't it just be 1v1v1v1 with two survivors?
11.08.2010 21:22:59
Find all posts by this user
Private Beowulf Offline
Senior Member
****
Members

Posts: 322
Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Reputation: 0
Post: #8
RE: DFD-R3: 1047 vs. 298, 345 vs. 1121
I'm going to solidly agree entirely with Nighthawk on both fights.

Support #1047 and #1121.

I'm what Willis was talkin' about.
11.08.2010 23:36:52
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: #9
RE: DFD-R3: 1047 vs. 298, 345 vs. 1121

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 18:13:31
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: #10
RE: DFD-R3: 1047 vs. 298, 345 vs. 1121
Fight 1
For now I'm going with the Gattling logic extension/fix. I'd really like to do the new survivor system, and most likely I'll implement it when I got some spare time. Nonetheless, the Gattling issue is somewhat bigger and even more limited.

Fight 2
This one is very clear. Almost everyone thinks VereranAt= is useless and parachutes on projectiles are a good thing.

Don't forget issues aren't dead after losing in this battle. They are just deferred for now. I noticed that the survivor issue is wanted, but our time is still limited and some issues have to go for now.
18.09.2010 17:38:37
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: 1047 vs. 298, 345 vs. 1121
Fight 1

I believe Nighthawk summed up the "supporting" arguments for #298 rather well:
(11.08.2010 15:27:16)Nighthawk200 Wrote:  [...] Sadly I can't think of any major arguments for the second issue, and though I would prefer it, the gattling bugs really do need sorting out [...]

#298 is nice to have. Nothing more. Other than gimmicky things like the Zombie Surprise, it doesn't enable any significant change in gameplay.
It'd be neat to play around with, but ultimately not relevant to the game at large.

Gattlings, however, have much potential, and liberating them is a good idea.

Kill: #298
Support: #1047

Fight 2

This one's clear indeed.

Kill: #345
Support: #1121

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.
03.10.2010 01:40:49
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




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