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: 349 vs. 718, 765 vs. 429
Author Message
Commander-in-Chief Renegade Offline
Lazy Modder
*****
Admins

Posts: 1 906
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Reputation: 14
Post: #1
DFD-R3: 349 vs. 718, 765 vs. 429
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

[349] Add a "Guard area" or "Combat Air Patrol" feature vs. [718] Extend crate spawning logic

Fight 2

[765] Allow buildings to have weapons & garrison logic vs. [429] SW.RequiredHouses and SW.ForbiddenHouses

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 01:42:28
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: 349 vs. 718, 765 vs. 429
Fight 1:
#349 is more useful and far more popular.

Support #349
Kill #718



Fight 2:
Unless I misunderstand it, #429 basically requests something that is already possible through work-arounds. It would make things a bit more convenient for some modders, but it's not something the players of the mod would benefit from.

#765 is a different story, it would allow for buildings similiar to the SC2 bunker with weapon upgrade, and would be really nice in combination with the unhardcoded Urban Combat values.
Thus,

support #765
kill #429
(This post was last modified: 11.08.2010 03:13:38 by reaperrr.)
11.08.2010 03:13:24
Find all posts by this user
Private mt. Offline
Member
***
Members

Posts: 116
Joined: 5 Oct 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #3
RE: DFD-R3: 349 vs. 718, 765 vs. 429
Fight 1:

#718
Kill this.

#349
Save this.

Reason: A proper air combat system such as this improves an entire type of unit, and can significantly expand gameplay. I feel sorry for #718 getting put up against one of the most supported issues, but neat possible crate combinations just isn't nearly as impactful as proper air.




Fight 2:

#429
Kill this.

#765
Support this.

Reason: I don't really mind doing stuff like the American Air Force HQ for SW country specialization. Having a weapon on a garrisonable building is a great thing that I would definitely use though. A garrisonable cannon, a bunker with auto turrets, there are quite good possibilities for this.
11.08.2010 03:46:48
Find all posts by this user
Sergeant Nighthawk Offline
Automatic Greeting System
****
Moderators

Posts: 572
Joined: 14 Oct 2005
Reputation: 4
Post: #4
RE: DFD-R3: 349 vs. 718, 765 vs. 429
For fight one:
Well, both of these aren't overly massive issues from what I can tell, but anyway. Aircraft have long been in need of a Guard function, yes. However it seems such a minor issue compared to most of the other things spinning around in these DFDs.

Extending the crate dropping logic seems to have more merits, in my opinion. Of course, it's hardly a good thing for me to say I can't off the top of my head think of any major usage cases beyond ore miners dropping ore crates. However, it does open up a lot more possibilities for modders to play with rather than simply making aircraft guard.

Therefore, my stance is support #718, kill #349.


For fight two:
The first issue, in my opinion, has a much more limited usage case. Yes, occupiable buildings not being able to have weapons of their own is a game bug, but how often would modders create such a thing anyway? While I would like to see this bug eventually fixed, the second issue captures my attention a lot more.

Of course, I say that, the second issue really would benefit more from more super weapon clones/types. However, at the minute, it could be used to create country-specific paradrops without having to make separate buildings for each country (e.g. GAAIRC and AMRADR). Even the usage case described in the tracker issue, giving one or more countries an 'upgraded version' of a super weapon would still work quite well.

Therefore, my stance is support #429, kill #765.

Ares Project Manager.
[Image: t3wbanner.png]
[Image: cncgsigsb_sml.png]
Open Ares positions: Documentation Maintainer, Active Testers.
PM if interested.
11.08.2010 13:27:17
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: #5
RE: DFD-R3: 349 vs. 718, 765 vs. 429
I support #349 because I think it will be a great improvement for YR aircrafts, especially now with their ability to attack air. Patrolling fighters? In YR? It's needed. Crates aren't THAT important for gameplay. Kill #718

As for the second fight, I'd rather see garrison+weapon combo working than country-based superweapons, however I feel that the second option is generally more useful for modders. I've seen lots of country-based support weapons in NAbomination era and nobody would have to clone basic buildings for the purpose of giving countries specific supers. I support #429.

[Image: mainbanner2.jpg]

Mental Omega 3.0 in the web:
[Image: mdbutton.png][Image: fbbutton.png][Image: ytbutton.png]
11.08.2010 19:18:43
Find all posts by this user
Private eva-251 Offline
Member
***
Members

Posts: 66
Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Reputation: 0
Post: #6
RE: DFD-R3: 349 vs. 718, 765 vs. 429
Fight 1
Kill 718
It's nowhere near as useful as 349. 718 allows us to customize crate drops by technotypes. It's useful for joking around, but if you're serious about balancing the mod, there's not much utility to this feature in the least.

Support 349
Targeting aircraft with other aircraft is tedious and frustrating as it stands- the value of even having air-to-air combat aircraft is reduced hugely by this. Being able to tell aircraft to just guard areas and attack anything near them would be a VAST improvement over what we have now. There's a reason that this is the most popular issue on the Bugtracker, and I reckon that this is it.

Fight 2
This is tough.
Kill 429
I like this not only because I once wanted to do something similar in my mod, but also because it offers players the option to have different types of buildings. Fortresses often have their own complements of weapons, in addition to the weapons of the men that garrison them. The same goes for bunkers and gun emplacements.

Support 765
This issue is good, and there are no real work-arounds. You can forbid Russians from building the American Airforce Command, but you can't stop them from capturing it and gaining the paradrop- other than making it uncapturable, which isn't an optimal solution.

Star Strike Next Beta :V.7x -- (current version=V.6x Build 2)
Star Strike TC Forums
Star Strike Website
(This post was last modified: 11.08.2010 20:00:19 by eva-251.)
11.08.2010 19:48:50
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: #7
RE: DFD-R3: 349 vs. 718, 765 vs. 429
[349] gets my vote, it's feature everyone wants, and will allow more strategy in YR.

[765] is a feature that is OK as outlined in the bugtracker, but I think would make more sense if the opentopped logic were extended to allow buildings too, this may even solve the issue of garrisonned troops having one fixed range.

[Image: MRMIdAS2k.jpg]
MRMIdAS: No longer allowed to criticise Westwood on PPM
11.08.2010 19:58:33
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: #8
RE: DFD-R3: 349 vs. 718, 765 vs. 429
Support #349. I have been dying for a feature like this since modder patches have been announced. This will take aircraft from a more backseat role to a viable front-line attack role, which is sorely needed since aircraft are almost a waste in YR. Crates are awesome, but they don't quite stack up against proper aircraft guard support.

Support #765. While I like the ideas put forth by 429, I don't feel it's quite as useful allowing structures to include a weapon of their own and a garrison as well. #765 allows for some interesting combinations for base defenses and tech structures. #429 is only really useful for supporting country specific superweapons, which can, alternatively, be worked around through an upgrade plug.

I'm what Willis was talkin' about.
11.08.2010 21:57:50
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: #9
RE: DFD-R3: 349 vs. 718, 765 vs. 429
In support of 429, my TC is going to have an alien race that can absorb human structures, but they sure as hell shouldn't get access to the American paradrop (!?!?)
I can see the desire for garrison+working weapon, but not above control of the SWs available to each country.

I guess with round 3 we're getting into the territory of "support both". But if I have to pick, I support 429.

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.
13.08.2010 16:07:33
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: 349 vs. 718, 765 vs. 429

Administrative Notice:

Since the last post in this discussion was three 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 18:15:26
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: #11
RE: DFD-R3: 349 vs. 718, 765 vs. 429
Fight 1
This clearly goes to the air patrol feature. As most of you pointed out, it is better issue. Having a unit drop a create is not that bad. You could get money from destroying miners or a veterancy crate from destroying epic units, or getting a one-shot nuke from destroying a Demolition Truck, or whatever. Being able to let Harriers guard the ore until the next miner shows up is just as cool. The feature would also extend aircrafts' use as defensive force instead of them just being purely offensive.

Fight 2
I don't know what to do here. Both issues are good, with small glitches each. Super weapons should be extended to support something like this, but what if you want to provide a SW only if you capture the American radar, but not if a Brit builds it? You still have to have two buildings in that case (but this should be a rare special case, however).

Garrisoning a building bearing a weapon is a nice idea, but the OpenTopped logic would be an even larger step to take. Such buildings should be seldom, almost as seldom as the country-specific SWs, but the SWs can provide upgraded/downgraded versions for specific countries also.

As there is a remis here and all arguments of supporters and opponents are almost evenly spread out, and the issues in the tracker don't differ that much from each other comment-wise and supporters-wise.

I chose the SW.RequiredHouses and SW.ForbiddenHouses issue because I think it is more versatile and it would be more useful to modders.
03.10.2010 01:21:33
Find all posts by this user
Commander-in-Chief Renegade Offline
Lazy Modder
*****
Admins

Posts: 1 906
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Reputation: 14
Post: #12
RE: DFD-R3: 349 vs. 718, 765 vs. 429
Fight 1

Ah, the legendary #349.

Nothing to decide here, really.

Kill: #718
Support: #349

Fight 2

Tougher, but mostly because I don't care for either of them.
Oh noes, they get the American Paradrop! How could this be?!
Well, maybe because I took over the American Airforce Command, put a gun to the operator's head, and told him to call in air support for us.
What do you expect? If the Air Force gets perfectly normal-sounding order from an outpost that has requested paradrops multiple times before through the same operator, why would they distrust him? It's not like they can see the bad guys behind the operator.

And as for the need for a separate building...I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. If I have an Ion Cannon, and a Super Ion Cannon, maybe I want my Super Ion Cannon to be visually different from the regular Ion Cannon - in which case I'd need a separate building anyway.

I understand there are situations where it doesn't make much sense, story-wise, that a certain faction gets a certain SW, but that is the point where you have to remember it's just a game.
How frustrating would it be for players if they invested a lot of time, credits and effort to capture a super weapon (or acquire the necessary technology), only to get nothing in return, just because they're the wrong faction?
And how do you justify it, in most cases? The Allies captured the Iron Curtain, but it's password-protected, all Soviets committed suicide, and no scientist can figure out how the thing works? Sounds a bit contrived, if you're asking me.

All in all, an issue, yes, but not a big one, and certainly not as alarming as the request makes it out to be.

#765 isn't the Best Request Ever™ either, but at least it might see regular combat in some mods.

Kill: #429
Support: #765

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 02:58:35
Visit this user's website 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: 349 vs. 718, 765 vs. 429
Support #765.

03.10.2010 20:37:19
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




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