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: 609 vs. 479, 597 vs. 596
Author Message
Commander-in-Chief Renegade Offline
Lazy Modder
*****
Admins

Posts: 1 906
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Reputation: 14
Post: #1
DFD-R3: 609 vs. 479, 597 vs. 596
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

[609] Researches vs. [479] New tag, Target.IronCurtain=

Fight 2

[597] Several Laser Weapons Improvements vs. [596] Upgrade Upgrade

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 01:45:42
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: 609 vs. 479, 597 vs. 596
Once again, not sure on the first fight. But the second, two good issues. I'm going to have to go for Upgrade Upgrade, since it enables more than the laser-specific feature.
11.08.2010 03:37:29
Find all posts by this user
Private Deformat Offline
Junior Member
**
Members

Posts: 20
Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Reputation: 0
Post: #3
RE: DFD-R3: 609 vs. 479, 597 vs. 596
I'll go for Researches. It will simply make stuff A LOT easier. Support 609.

Also, I don't know about the last two. Tho I'll go for 596.
11.08.2010 10:12:28
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: 609 vs. 479, 597 vs. 596
For fight one:
The first issue is definitely the one that gets my attention here. Currently, to emulate something remotely like this, modders have to create structures that basically don't serve any other purpose than acting as a prerequisite. Of course, with Ares, we can actually use upgrades to do this. However, that still necessitates placing these upgrades on something with a limited amount of slots. Basically, this helps eliminate base clutter, and opens up a lot more possibilities for modders to play with.

The second issue is a much more minor one in my opinion. If the AI doesn't (pointlessly) shoot at your invulnerable unit for a second or two, is it such a major loss?

Therefore, my stance is support #609, kill #479.


For fight two:
Laser weapons could do with some additional controls, yes. It does make a little sense that not all lasers will be fine lines of light like the Prism Tank/Tower. However, in comparison to the second issue, I wouldn't prioritise this.

The second issue.. it's suggested implementation bugs me a little (why we need relative values I have no idea), but upgrades are something that definitely need more attention. Being limited to simply adding power, changing the weapon, or adding a super weapon massively limits modders. You could have a radar building that is simply upgraded with SpySat functionality, which would add more value to radar buildings later ingame for a start. You could also simply have some sort of "Composite Armour" upgrade like Generals which increases buildings' strength. Of course, I've just realised that would necessitate the ability for PowersUpBuilding to accept more than one value.

Therefore, my stance is support #596, kill #597.

Ares Project Manager.
[Image: t3wbanner.png]
[Image: cncgsigsb_sml.png]
Open Ares positions: Documentation Maintainer, Active Testers.
PM if interested.
11.08.2010 14:21:30
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: #5
RE: DFD-R3: 609 vs. 479, 597 vs. 596
I support 597 in the second fight, the feature that 596 is related to has more support in one of the other dfds and yuri willing will go on to be implemented and it is a better planned implementation than the suggestions in 596.
11.08.2010 14:27:56
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: #6
RE: DFD-R3: 609 vs. 479, 597 vs. 596
(11.08.2010 14:21:30)Nighthawk200 Wrote:  For fight one:
The first issue is definitely the one that gets my attention here. Currently, to emulate something remotely like this, modders have to create structures that basically don't serve any other purpose than acting as a prerequisite. Of course, with Ares, we can actually use upgrades to do this. However, that still necessitates placing these upgrades on something with a limited amount of slots. Basically, this helps eliminate base clutter, and opens up a lot more possibilities for modders to play with.

The second issue is a much more minor one in my opinion. If the AI doesn't (pointlessly) shoot at your invulnerable unit for a second or two, is it such a major loss?

Therefore, my stance is support #609, kill #479.
Agreed.

Fight 2
This is a difficult decision. I want control over laserbeam width. heavy laser beams should be thicker than light lasers. EDIT: Setting OuterLaserColor to 0,0,0 makes the outer part of the beam invisible, so we already have some control over laser width. While I probably wouldn't use it myself, #596 obviously has far more gameplay value, as several people have pointed out already. Thus,
support #596, kill #597
(This post was last modified: 14.08.2010 14:40:18 by reaperrr.)
11.08.2010 20:31:12
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: 609 vs. 479, 597 vs. 596
[609] gets my vote, it provides more modding scope than a slight targeting upgrade.

[596] adds to the proposed new upgrade system.

[Image: MRMIdAS2k.jpg]
MRMIdAS: No longer allowed to criticise Westwood on PPM
11.08.2010 20:50:02
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: 609 vs. 479, 597 vs. 596
Support #609. Been dying for this since literally day one. It's not a perfect upgrading system, but it's close enough to where implementation is no longer a fucking nightmare. This will be a very handy addition and brings a lot to the table that #479 just does not.

Support #596. While I like #597, #596 is quite a bit more useful. If the idea is extended to all TechnoTypes, it will be an amazing addition. This would literally be the PERFECT upgrade system for YR.

I'm what Willis was talkin' about.
11.08.2010 23:25:28
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: 609 vs. 479, 597 vs. 596

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 18:13:26
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: #10
RE: DFD-R3: 609 vs. 479, 597 vs. 596
Fight 1
Researches are a lot bigger game changer than the AI targeting Iron Curtained units. Even though it should be taken for granted a unit starts shooting at stuff it can actually harm.

Fight 2
The upgrade upgrade will change more aspcets of the game that aren't just optical. The proposed implementation does indeed suck as it would require as many new tags as the game has unique functions. The feature won't be easy to do, as there are hundreds occasions a value has to be changed to the upgraded value. But still, it's more useful than the laser changes.
21.08.2010 09:23:25
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: 609 vs. 479, 597 vs. 596
The consensus seems to be rather clear in both fights, and I agree.

Fight 1


Kill: #479
Support: #609

Fight 2


Kill: #597
Support: #596

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 03:59:01
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)