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: 957 vs. 292, 556 vs. 976
Author Message
Commander-in-Chief Renegade Offline
Lazy Modder
*****
Admins

Posts: 1 906
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Reputation: 14
Post: #1
DFD-R3: 957 vs. 292, 556 vs. 976
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

[957] custom storms vs. [292] Make ground deformable like in TS (large explosions make actual craters,not just images of craters)

Fight 2

[556] Drain weapon with ranged weapon dont work vs. [976] Aircraft-specific reload times

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 01:37:50
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: #2
RE: DFD-R3: 957 vs. 292, 556 vs. 976
Fight 1
Kill 292
Deformable terrain wasn't that great of a feature in Tiberian Sun. It was more an annoyance than an actual gameplay element (and as SMIFFGIG references in the feature suggestion, even Isgreen didn't really like it). In regards to RA2, I just see it being a load of work to look convincing/good and be functional.
For it to look right, you'd need to have the default terrain type be dirt for all theaters. Would the bottom and slopes of a crater in an urban environment, or grassland environment be more pavement/grass? No- it'd be dirt, with perhaps some crumbling concrete for the former. This ups the workload for mappers considerably unless the terrain setup was like that to begin. It looked extremely cheesy in Tiberian Sun on Snow environments for this same reason.

I highly doubt people would want to redesign their terrain and maps to make this effect look convincing, nor would it be fun for the coders to make that aspect unnecessary. (IE a "crater" terrain type)

Of course, that assumes that those who would want this feature also want it to make sense visually. Other than that, it's a fine feature request that thanks to RA2's support for range modification from height variances, could actually mean something in a battle. (IE putting your base that was originally on flat ground on a pseudo high ground)

Support 957
This feature request isn't much better, but I couldn't help but think of Advance Wars when it comes to attribute modifying weather. Snow lowers your movement speed. Sandstorms drop your attack (or range depending on game). Rain drops your vision and creates fog of war. The problem is of course that these effects were global, while this request obviously aims at localized effects.

Nonetheless, having more power over what "weather storm" type super-weapons/events do is something that could be extremely useful.

With that said, I have to just barely give the edge to 957.

Fight 2
Kill 556
This is a fine feature if you ask me. It's an annoying shortcoming of the drained weapon ability. The issue really isn't that this is a "bad" request, but rather that the potential benefit is much less than what 976 offers.

Support 976
What's been said about 976 still pretty much stands. Giving the modder control over this opens up many more attack options for aircraft instead of the 1/2 missile affair. It allows modders to solve balance issues with aircraft in ways other than messing with core stats (like damage, cost, strength and speed), and also means that aircraft can be more distinguishable from each other.

Star Strike Next Beta :V.7x -- (current version=V.6x Build 2)
Star Strike TC Forums
Star Strike Website
11.08.2010 02:24:15
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: #3
RE: DFD-R3: 957 vs. 292, 556 vs. 976
Fight 1:
What eva-251 said.

Kill #292
Support #957




Fight 2:
What eva-251 said.

#976 is by far one of the most popular issues of DFD (currently shares 10th position in the tracker ranking), it's simple, straight-forward, makes a lot of sense, and at least looks like it should be relatively easy to implement compared to many other features. And it has the 2nd place in my personal "MUST survive" ranking.

Kill #556
Support #976
11.08.2010 02:38:48
Find all posts by this user
Private Black Shadow 750 Offline
Member
***
Members

Posts: 112
Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Reputation: 0
Post: #4
RE: DFD-R3: 957 vs. 292, 556 vs. 976
(11.08.2010 02:24:15)eva-251 Wrote:  Fight 1
Kill 292

Blaah blaah blaah, text blahh. (IE, I cut out a load of arguement). Onto the relevant stuff to my response:

I highly doubt people would want to redesign their terrain and maps to make this effect look convincing, nor would it be fun for the coders to make that aspect unnecessary. (IE a "crater" terrain type)

why'd terrian need to be redesigned? Or maps for that matter?
11.08.2010 03:43:32
Find all posts by this user
Private reaperrr Offline
Member
***
Members

Posts: 82
Joined: 26 May 2010
Reputation: 0
Post: #5
RE: DFD-R3: 957 vs. 292, 556 vs. 976
@BS750: The RA2/YR terrains lack some of the ramp tiles TS had, so while I'm not 100% sure, there's the possibility that these missing pieces need to be recreated to prevent graphical glitches.
Also, the engine supports only 8 height levels or so. The RA2/YR maps weren't made with deformable terrain in mind, so a lot of them is probably on height level 0 so it can't be lowered any more.
(This post was last modified: 11.08.2010 03:49:35 by reaperrr.)
11.08.2010 03:49:20
Find all posts by this user
Private Black Shadow 750 Offline
Member
***
Members

Posts: 112
Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Reputation: 0
Post: #6
RE: DFD-R3: 957 vs. 292, 556 vs. 976
Actually all ramp tiles are there, otherwise ramps wouldn't work, even normally. Hang on, I'll just check on FA2.
EDIT: Yeap, there's a full a set of ramps as you could ever need, but only for the main terrain (Grass for temperate, new urban, etc. Sand for desert...)
(This post was last modified: 11.08.2010 04:05:49 by Black Shadow 750.)
11.08.2010 03:57:27
Find all posts by this user
Private reaperrr Offline
Member
***
Members

Posts: 82
Joined: 26 May 2010
Reputation: 0
Post: #7
RE: DFD-R3: 957 vs. 292, 556 vs. 976
ok I checked it through XCC and it seems that indeed all necessary tiles are there. I stand corrected then, seems I was misremembering it. for some reason.
The other point still stands, though.
(This post was last modified: 11.08.2010 04:27:29 by reaperrr.)
11.08.2010 04:27:04
Find all posts by this user
Private eva-251 Offline
Member
***
Members

Posts: 66
Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Reputation: 0
Post: #8
RE: DFD-R3: 957 vs. 292, 556 vs. 976
(11.08.2010 03:43:32)Black Shadow 750 Wrote:  
(11.08.2010 02:24:15)eva-251 Wrote:  Fight 1
Kill 292

Blaah blaah blaah, text blahh. (IE, I cut out a load of arguement). Onto the relevant stuff to my response:

I highly doubt people would want to redesign their terrain and maps to make this effect look convincing, nor would it be fun for the coders to make that aspect unnecessary. (IE a "crater" terrain type)

why'd terrian need to be redesigned? Or maps for that matter?
The issue being that a crater on RA2's grassland terrain wouldn't make sense. Explosions would wipe out the grass around the point of impact, leaving the bottom of the crater as dirt, not more grass. (which cheapens the effect)
It worked in TS Temperate theater because the default ground was boring dirt, and a crater would just create more boring dirt.

Again, that operates under the assumption those that want this feature want it to make sense visually. From a gameplay perspective, it's much more useful than it ever could be in TS.

Star Strike Next Beta :V.7x -- (current version=V.6x Build 2)
Star Strike TC Forums
Star Strike Website
11.08.2010 08:32:05
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: #9
RE: DFD-R3: 957 vs. 292, 556 vs. 976
I agree that the weatherstorm extensions would give greater benefits to gameplay than deformable terrain and both requests give reimplementation of an old TS feature (global storm or deformable terrain). I would like to see it implemented so you have have a random (or triggerable) global storm settings for a map that give random anims anywhere on the map as well as affecting units in a definable way as well as the weatherstorm being improved to allow the same upgrades to apply to it as well as it being able to interrupt a global storm (otherwise allies get screwed). Same goes for any future clones of WS.

Fight 2, Meh, whatever.
11.08.2010 12:46:40
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Private mt. Offline
Member
***
Members

Posts: 116
Joined: 5 Oct 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #10
RE: DFD-R3: 957 vs. 292, 556 vs. 976
Fight 1:

#292
Kill this.

#957
Save this.

Reason: Deformable ground is not all that fun. It is visual, yes, but nothing spectacular about square depressions in the ground as a visual effect. It alters the terrain, yes, but its just annoying when the slopes can make the land unbuildable. It can slow down units, yes (depending on how you have the slope speeds), but that really is minor and trivial. Custom storms? Those are awesome, from ion-storms to real thunder storms, you can get really neat effects for the whole game on a map. Plus with the possibility of affecting your units it could affect gameplay just as much as deformable ground, except in a more clear, better way. Gameplay AND Visually, custom storms is superior to deformable ground, has my support, and is something I would definitely use.



Fight 2:

Kill #556

Support #976

Reason: The drain weapon isn't used much. It gets just as much use as the spy effects to be honest. No-range drain is a pointless shortcoming, but it does sort of make sense, considering you are stealing money, sapping power, disabling it, or any other sort of spy-like change to a building. Therefore the ONLY way I could see this used would be some bizarre sort of EMP on defences. Not a lot of possibilities there. But wait? Aircraft-specific reload times? Those have possibilities: use on any or every aircraft, an entire type of unit. It would add a whole new dimension to gameplay such that you have to consider that you can use your weak strike craft much more often than your heavy bombers. A good way to stop heavy bomber spam and encourage tactical choice. And with the aircraft guard feature it's only fitting this is added for more realistic, balanced air units. To sum it up, Aircraft specific reload times is something that can add well to gameplay, something I see myself using, and therefore a feature I support.
11.08.2010 18:26:42
Find all posts by this user
Private MRMIdAS Offline
Senior Member
****
Members

Posts: 379
Joined: 29 May 2008
Reputation: 1
Post: #11
RE: DFD-R3: 957 vs. 292, 556 vs. 976
[957] custom storms go hand in hand with weather effects, and this is a good way to implement them, having hail or sand storms damage infantry, or slow down tanks would be excellent.

[556] i'm probably in the minority, but a ranged drain weapon would be a nice addition to a yuri side.

[Image: MRMIdAS2k.jpg]
MRMIdAS: No longer allowed to criticise Westwood on PPM
11.08.2010 20:19:14
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: #12
RE: DFD-R3: 957 vs. 292, 556 vs. 976
Support #957. The benefits outweigh the apparent lack of benefits from #292. I actually turned that off in Tiberian Sun so I don't see the point. Anyway, #957 is quite a bit more useful and not just for potential superweapons either. Would allow new ambiance to maps, different effects for maps and plenty of other ideas as well. Improving mapping is something C&C has needed since the fucking beginning.

Support #976 for sure. While I like #556, the possible benefits are not nearly as potent as that of #976. Put this with the Air Patrol feature and aircraft are a much more viable fighting force instead of secondary support. #976 is a must have for Ares.

I'm what Willis was talkin' about.
11.08.2010 22:23:37
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: #13
RE: DFD-R3: 957 vs. 292, 556 vs. 976
While deformable terrain is neat, I agree with what has been said. It wasn't any fun.

But to the grass logic I put what about the TS arctic theater, wouldn't the snow be turned into water vapor on impact an explosive artillery shell?

I would kind of like ranged drain weapons, like a magnetron that drains energy and money. Why else have a backwards wave for buildings? I don't see much use in reload rates, you can balance power with ammo and the plane's strength, cost, and speed.

[Image: darkstormsmall.png]
12.08.2010 07:06:01
Find all posts by this user
Private ¥R M0dd€r Offline
Member
***
Members

Posts: 120
Joined: 18 May 2010
Reputation: 0
Post: #14
RE: DFD-R3: 957 vs. 292, 556 vs. 976
Fight 2:

[976]: i dont see mutch use of this, it may be used to limit some overpowered weapons, other than that it isint good.
[556]: my request from long time ago. pd or VK tried this in there patches but failed. This feature open many new techniques and strategies to the game. Could be overpowered to, but I still support it.

Support 556
Kill 976

Java student.
(This post was last modified: 12.08.2010 21:47:30 by ¥R M0dd€r.)
12.08.2010 21:47:14
Find all posts by this user
Private reaperrr Offline
Member
***
Members

Posts: 82
Joined: 26 May 2010
Reputation: 0
Post: #15
RE: DFD-R3: 957 vs. 292, 556 vs. 976
(12.08.2010 07:06:01)Darkstorm Wrote:  I don't see much use in reload rates, you can balance power with ammo and the plane's strength, cost, and speed.

(12.08.2010 21:47:14)¥R M0dd€r Wrote:  [976]: i dont see mutch use of this, it may be used to limit some overpowered weapons, other than that it isint good.

Let's give some examples then:
In RA1, as soon as you had MiGs available no one would use Yaks anymore, not due to their lack of firepower and speed, but mainly because the took too frickin' long to reload, since they had 15 ammo points, whereas the MiG had 3.
Same for Orca Bomber (2 ammo points) vs. Orca Fighter (10 ammo) in TS.

You may be able to balance this to some extend with strength, cost and firepower, BUT people still wouldn't use Yaks or Orca fighters much. Why? Because they don't want to wait that long for every reload. But the global reload currently needs to be high because otherwise Orca Bombers & Co would be too strong. And making their bombs weaker would defeat their purpose of being something the enemy is afraid of, and it wouldn't feel right either.


Also, nearly every mod has aircraft, so nearly every mod would benefit from this.
Leech weapons on the other hand are a very specific usage case, and while I can see why some people want the limitations of its current implementation removed, I just think it's not as useful to the majority, and their respective ICS ratings indicate I'm right.
12.08.2010 22:08:48
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




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