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: 603 vs. 1114, 601 vs. 336
Author Message
Commander-in-Chief Renegade Offline
Lazy Modder
*****
Admins

Posts: 1 906
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Reputation: 14
Post: #1
DFD-R3: 603 vs. 1114, 601 vs. 336
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

[603] Turrets and IFV logic on buildings vs. [1114] Spawn-dependent turret

Fight 2

[601] Temporary Side change logic vs. [336] Cameo text

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 01:47:53
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Private Deformat Offline
Junior Member
**
Members

Posts: 20
Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Reputation: 0
Post: #2
RE: DFD-R3: 603 vs. 1114, 601 vs. 336
603. All the way. It simply pwns 1114.
Cameo text looks pointless, so I'lll go for 601, even if its a simple Psychic Dominator-like thing.
11.08.2010 09:51:24
Find all posts by this user
Sergeant Nighthawk Offline
Automatic Greeting System
****
Moderators

Posts: 572
Joined: 14 Oct 2005
Reputation: 4
Post: #3
RE: DFD-R3: 603 vs. 1114, 601 vs. 336
For fight one:
IFV logic is quite a versatile tool if it's used properly, and keeping such a thing confined to the realms of VehicleTypes does seem a bit silly. Besides, the amount of people wanting to recreate that IFV base defense from RA3 is probably quite large.

Turrets that change based on amount of available spawns could be a nice piece of eye candy, but compared to a gameplay enhancement like IFV logic expansion, it just doesn't capture my imagination.

This seems to have came down to basically a gameplay enhancement over an eye-candy enhancement. I'm a coder by trade, not a voxeller or SHP maker, so it should be obvious which way my stance will go - support #603, kill #1114.


For fight two:
The first issue really does just sound like a time-limited version of the Mind Control logic. While I could see something like this getting some usage with, for example, some kind of "Bribe" super weapon, the second issue is much more appealing to me.

Now, I know I said I don't do SHP making... well, that was a bit of an exaggeration. I don't do infantry or buildings or anything like that, but I do make cameos. As Renegade has said in previous DFD arguments, have you ever tried creating a localisation for a mod? Going through about 30 to 40 cameos in SHP Builder just to change their text is a major time-waster. Even if you don't localise your mods, how often have you had to go and change your cameo art just because part of it doesn't seem right? For some, that can involve tracking down a textless version of the cameo you've been working on (God help you if you didn't save one and you need to alter part that may be covered by the text bar), making alterations, going back into SHP Builder and adding the text, re-saving, and re-packing into a MIX. It takes a lot of time if you're doing this 30 times over! With using TS's cameo text feature, that would cut out needing to use the irritating cameo generator in SHP Builder and re-do your text every time you edit a few pixels. It would also simplify localisations immensely. Rather than edit 30 to 40 cameos, you simply have to change some strings.
And for those who say "What's the point? YR doesn't have blank cameos!", Carnivean and Xeno made a textless cameo pack a while ago with just about every RA2 and YR cameo in it. Go look for it on PPM.

My stance should be obvious - support #336, kill #601.

Edit: Additional usage case for #336. Anyone using the new ability to have PCX cameos will either have to do a lot of work in Photoshop or whatever to get their text in the same format as the game, or run them through the SHP Builder's cameo generator anyway, thus reducing the quality, limiting the palette and defeating the purpose. Also, if you don't use RA2's cameo style (I know that TC mods like to veer away from it), re-texting up to 50 cameos can be a hell of a lot of work because SHP Builder's cameo generator is useless for your purposes.

Ares Project Manager.
[Image: t3wbanner.png]
[Image: cncgsigsb_sml.png]
Open Ares positions: Documentation Maintainer, Active Testers.
PM if interested.
11.08.2010 13:55:56
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: #4
RE: DFD-R3: 603 vs. 1114, 601 vs. 336
If you are making cameos, you should always save a base, no text image anyhow. I don't think time saving on the one time process of localisation nessesarily justifies defeating and interesting gameplay feature. EA themselves took it out of the game once already and they knew they had to localise and had a development time scale to worry about. Perhaps request improvements to os shp editor to ease localisation instead if cameo text is defeated?
11.08.2010 14:20:04
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: #5
RE: DFD-R3: 603 vs. 1114, 601 vs. 336
Fight 1:

#1114
Kill this.

#603
Save this.

Reason: Spawn-dependent turret is Visual, IFV logic on buildings is visual AND affects gameplay. Spawn dependent turret could be used on a one or two vehicles, IFV logic on buildings can be used on defences, and even civilian structures.



Fight 2:

#336
Kill this.

#601
Save this.

Reason: Editing SHPs to add text is a 1 minute job. 2 languages? 2 jobs. It's not like the blank Cameo is lost forever the moment you add text in SHP editor, because you have backups. Adding a new language means going to your blank cameo bases (which you needed to add the first language, or which you would need to use ingame-texted cameos), and doing the add text feature on each. Which still doesn't all too much more time than actually going into the Rules and editing names through this feature. So this is a one or two time (You surely won't have more than 3 languages for your mod?) use, and even then it saves maybe 30-60 minutes at most. Not really a big deal...
Now look at Temporary side change logic. That has a large range of potential uses. You can have it as a "bribe" for a spy, you can have it as a Superweapon, it can be an alternative to chaos, it can be an alternative to mind control. You can put it on psychic towers to balance them taking out the enemy force instantly. Tons of usages. Even it can be for something like the propaganda truck or so, a truck that already has a voxel in Yuri's revenge and was in a mission. While Cameo text can save some time, temporary side changing can add many new things to gameplay. Temporary side change logic is something I would use, and something I support.
11.08.2010 19:04:04
Find all posts by this user
Private reaperrr Offline
Member
***
Members

Posts: 82
Joined: 26 May 2010
Reputation: 0
Post: #6
RE: DFD-R3: 603 vs. 1114, 601 vs. 336
Fight 1
I agree with everyone else so far and vote
support #603
kill #1114


Fight 2
#336 would save modders some work, but that's about it. #601 on the other hand allows to perfectly recreate the Deviator from WW's Dune games, for example. So I say
support #601
kill #336
11.08.2010 19:41:14
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: 603 vs. 1114, 601 vs. 336
[603] multigunner turrets would be a worthy extension of existing IFV logic.

[601] could be used with "leaflet drop" type superweapons, or alongside the proposed "morale system"

[Image: MRMIdAS2k.jpg]
MRMIdAS: No longer allowed to criticise Westwood on PPM
11.08.2010 20:07:29
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: 603 vs. 1114, 601 vs. 336
Support #603. A multigunner turret style weapon is a potent addition to just about any mod and it opens up worlds of options beyond that as well. #1114 is nice, but doesn't extend the gameplay quite enough to feel justified in 'winning.'

Can't say I really support #601 or #336. #601 is an interest gameplay feature I suppose, so I would lean towards that since #336 is only good for saving people a little bit of time in one area. You would still need to create string files for each language anyway so you save no time there. Besides, how many people actually localize their mods? I mean... think hard on that. Speeder, but only because a fan did it!

I'm what Willis was talkin' about.
11.08.2010 22:02:21
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: 603 vs. 1114, 601 vs. 336

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 18:12:55
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: 603 vs. 1114, 601 vs. 336
Fight 1

This one is pretty simple - #1114 is a minor graphical feature, whereas #603 makes guns on buildings a whole lot more flexible.
Plus, #1114 only exists because its original request was so utterly crappy that I spun a few things off to give the community a chance to vet them independently.

Kill: #1114
Support: #603

Fight 2

What baffles me most about this Fight is mt.'s post, to be honest.
The "cameos can be done quickly" myth was tried as an argumentation in the original DFD, and failed.
It was tried in the Ultimate Smackdown, and failed.
How many times must an argumentation fail for you to realize it's not working, and you should try a different one?

I have released a dual-language mod before. I am telling you: You are wrong. It is a big deal. Accept it or not, making duplicate cameos for dozens of units sucks hard, and would be unnecessary hadn't some numbnut at Westwood disabled text display over cameos.

Besides, it's not just a question of translation, it's also a question of rapid development and beta-testing. With cameo text as a feature, I can just drop a single blank cameo in the mod, set all units without cameos to that, and use the cameo text feature to identify them.
Sure, they're missing cameos, but at least my beta-testers can distinguish between the Cock Monster of Doom and the Vagina Mob without having to hover over every single cameo to figure out what is what.

Plus, as Nighthawk pointed out: As soon as you deviate from Westwood's certified RA2 cameo style, your precious SHP Editor's text feature is worth shit anyway, and all your fancy calculations of how quick cameo retexting supposedly is are invalid.

I'm not saying #601 is a bad request. It's perfectly fine. Temporary side change - alright. Reasonable idea.
But let's look at the usage cases given, really...
You can have it as a "bribe" for a spy,
...or you could give the spy multiple mind control. The only difference is the timer.
you can have it as a Superweapon,
...like the Psychic Dominator. The only difference is the timer.
it can be an alternative to chaos,
...this one is just bullshit. How is targeted side change to your own side the same as making the unit go insane?
it can be an alternative to mind control.
And here we have the exact issue: It is mind control. The only difference is the timer.
You can put it on psychic towers to balance them taking out the enemy force instantly.
Yeah. It totally makes sense to have the mind control towers not do mind control anymore.
Or to have Yuri Clones have indefinite mind control, have Yuri have indefinite mind control, have Masterminds have indefinite mind control, but Psychic Towers magically don't have indefinite mind control. Hell, they don't even have "Mind Control" anymore. They have "Alternative Side Change Logic".
Seriously. It sounds like Mind Control for vegetarians or something.
"I can't believe it's not Mind Control!"
Even it can be for something like the propaganda truck or so, a truck that already has a voxel in Yuri's revenge and was in a mission.
Yeah. Or you could give the Propaganda Truck InfiniteMindControl.
Or a mutation cannon that mutates them into Insurgents.
Or a chaos gun, to make them rebel.
Or whatever. It's not like there is absolutely no way to use the Propaganda Truck, unless Alternative Temporary Side Change Logic is implemented.
#601 on the other hand allows to perfectly recreate the Deviator from WW's Dune games, for example.
#336 allows to perfectly recreate the cameos from WW's Tiberian Sun games, for example.
Either way, this is the first "good" argument I heard -
Quote:The Ordos have access to the Deviator - a specialized tank firing a nerve gas that switches the allegiance of targeted units to Ordos for a limited period of time.
Alright. So this logic would enable the modding world to clone Dune's Deviator.
Raise your hands, who all is doing a Dune mod? Who's been desperately waiting to clone the Deviator?
I believe you get my point. Yes, you are correct - this logic would enable modders to perfectly clone Dune's Deviator. But it's not like "cloning Dune's Deviator" is the holy grail of YR modding and people have been trying for years to do this.
could be used with "leaflet drop" type superweapons,
...like the Psychic Dominator. With a leaflet drop animation. The only difference is the timer.
or alongside the proposed "morale system"
That's a completely empty phrase. I can just as well say "cameo text can be used alongside the NOSTR system".
It's inherently true. Both systems would be in Ares, so of course they could be used in tandem.
Without further specification of how exactly Vegan Mind Control would improve the Morale System in particular, there is no argument here.
an interest gameplay feature I suppose
Can you hear the excitement screaming out of the "I suppose"?

The situation here is simple: Hippie Mind Control is a gameplay feature, cameo text is a development feature. Cameo text can be painted on, but the more you have to do it, the more annoying it is. Temporary Tofu Mind Control can't be faked, but other than being temporary, it's no different from Ares's Permanent Mind Control. You prefer more options in gameplay over more options in development, so you vote for Soy Mind Control.
That's alright. That's your choice.

But I, personally, did not find your proposed usage cases convincing enough to kill a feature as helpful and time-saving as cameo text.
Besides, let's be honest here: As soon as we introduce Mind Control 2: Return of the Mind Control, you and the rest of the community will expect every feature of normal Mind Control to work on Margarine Mind Control as well. Be it DeMindControl, be it Mind Control Priorities, be it whatever - if Mind Control has it, somebody will come and request it for Ersatz Mind Control.
And that's not even considering the interaction between Vanilla Mind Control and Chocolate Mind Control.
If you have Mind Controlled units, and you fire an Analogue Mind Control weapon on them, what happens?
What happens when you mind control temporarily changed units, and the timer runs out?
Are temporarily changed units immune to Mind Control or not?
Does immunity to Mind Control protect against Mind Control Plus?
Do we need another new flag, ImmuneToAlmostButNotQuiteDeluxeExtendedMindControl​?

The fact of the matter is, even if I were convinced by your usage cases, and even if I didn't think cameo text would be a very helpful development feature, the host of unnecessary compatibility issues and inevitable equalization requests alone would be worth rejecting #601.

If this kind of feature is truly desired, and my co-judges share my opinion about #601 and kill it, then somebody can go and submit a feature request for timed Mind Control, which can be independently vetted by the community.
And if the community agrees "yes, we'd like to have the option to have mind control links automatically be severed after x frames", then that's alright.
But introducing a whole new ownership change system, just to have Mind Control + Countdown, is, in my opinion, rather silly and not worth the effort.

Kill: #601
Support: #336

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.
18.08.2010 06:48:18
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: #11
RE: DFD-R3: 603 vs. 1114, 601 vs. 336
Support 603.
Support 336, if only we can figure out the text drawing mechanics.

18.08.2010 18:18:32
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: #12
RE: DFD-R3: 603 vs. 1114, 601 vs. 336
Result:

As seen above.

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.
18.08.2010 20:30:36
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




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