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-R4: 925 vs. 957, 378 vs. 556
Author Message
Commander-in-Chief Renegade Offline
Lazy Modder
*****
Admins

Posts: 1 906
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Reputation: 14
Post: #1
DFD-R4: 925 vs. 957, 378 vs. 556
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

[925] Remap for Overly types vs. [957] custom storms

Fight 2

[378] Random Damage vs. [556] Drain weapon with ranged weapon dont work

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.
03.10.2010 21:34:57
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: #2
RE: DFD-R4: 925 vs. 957, 378 vs. 556
support
[925] overlays should remap, why they don't is a mystery to me.
[556] drain weapons need range, I also hate the idea of random damage.

[Image: MRMIdAS2k.jpg]
MRMIdAS: No longer allowed to criticise Westwood on PPM
03.10.2010 22:53:58
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Private Orac Offline
Member
***
Members

Posts: 89
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Reputation: 0
Post: #3
RE: DFD-R4: 925 vs. 957, 378 vs. 556
Overlays should get that much needed remap. Aside from walls, there are a few other uses for this I can think of, like custom wreckage as an overlay.
[925] gets my support.

Random damage is annoying, and hinders balance when used in large amounts while having no noticeable effect in small amounts. In contrast, drain weapons are fun!
[556] gets my support.
04.10.2010 00:18:36
Find all posts by this user
Private reaperrr Offline
Member
***
Members

Posts: 82
Joined: 26 May 2010
Reputation: 0
Post: #4
RE: DFD-R4: 925 vs. 957, 378 vs. 556
Fight 1:
EDIT:
support #957. I just tested remap on walls and walls ARE remapable. Since that seemingly was the prime thought behind the original request #925, I don't see why it should win over customizable storms.

Fight 2:
I acknowledge the current limitations of #556 are pretty annoying for those who use drain weapons, but personally I won't use them, random damage is more popular on the ICS (I know it has more opponents, but it also has 3 times as many supporters), and I would be amongst those that really use it. So I support [378].
(This post was last modified: 04.10.2010 15:44:03 by reaperrr.)
04.10.2010 03:13:28
Find all posts by this user
Private RandomNutjob Offline
Junior Member
**
Members

Posts: 28
Joined: 19 Jul 2010
Reputation: 0
Post: #5
RE: DFD-R4: 925 vs. 957, 378 vs. 556
Ok 1st one is easy for me as see 957 as a mere sub-section of 376 [Weather Effects] so for that reason I go for 925

2nd one is quite easy too as for example a headshot on a soldier is far more damaging than say in toe - ok it could cause "imbalance" but imo it'd add realism which is always nice [where appropriate]

Also I'd imagine it would be a small % chance of a "critical hit" so as long as it is implemented sensibly it shouldn't impose much, if at all

Aside from that I don't really think 556 compares so for battle 2 my vote is for 378
(This post was last modified: 04.10.2010 03:41:26 by RandomNutjob.)
04.10.2010 03:40:41
Find all posts by this user
Corporal Blade Offline
Senior Member
****
Community Patrons

Posts: 453
Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Reputation: 7
Post: #6
RE: DFD-R4: 925 vs. 957, 378 vs. 556
Vote for 556 to improve an existing logic. I've already made it quite clear in previous discussions that I strongly dislike random damage and see little real need for it.

Don't care for either of the first two really and 925 is a subset of 376 anyhow so will likely get done irrespective of a win or loss here.
04.10.2010 12:17:10
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: #7
RE: DFD-R4: 925 vs. 957, 378 vs. 556
Since this is the second time this has been claimed┬╣, let me interject here and say: #957 is not a subset of #376.

957: custom storms is about temporary, on-the-map, direct-effect events like TS's Ion Storms, randomly or periodically changing the map conditions from normal either locally or globally.
376: Weather Effects is about the general environment of the map. It may, potentially, slightly affect map conditions, but it's primarily a graphical effect to help set the mood of a map. The fact that insane workarounds by the community use similar (cell-based) techniques as storms would use is founded in the fact that they have no other choice, not that that is the best way to go about it, and is absolutely not binding to me.

To make this perfectly clear: Unless I hit an implementational brick wall or something else convinces me to do it differently, #376 will be implemented very simply, drastically different from #957, and will not support the vast, vast, vast majority of what is requested in #957.

#376 will be similar in terms of usage to things like ambient light or day and night cycles.
#957 will be similar to TS's Ion Storms.

And quite frankly, given the extreme difference in what is being requested in both issues, it surprises me that anyone would think they're the same.
I'm guessing it's yet another case of judging the requests by their names.

┬╣At least I assume that was the claim, since Blade's issue number makes no sense.

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.
04.10.2010 13:02:25
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: #8
RE: DFD-R4: 925 vs. 957, 378 vs. 556
Its quite possible I hadn't woken up correctly this morning when I posted that :S
04.10.2010 14:07:47
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: #9
RE: DFD-R4: 925 vs. 957, 378 vs. 556
(04.10.2010 03:13:28)reaperrr Wrote:  Fight 1:
EDIT:
support #957. I just tested remap on walls and walls ARE remapable. Since that seemingly was the prime thought behind the original request #925, I don't see why it should win over customizable storms.
Not entirely. Walls remap, but only to player one's color. Every wall will be the host's color, not player's. However, I still support #957. I'd like to see overlays remap, but it's not more important than custom storms.

Even though I like #378, #556 is a little more effective since it de-stupids some Westwood code. Why you can't have a ranged drain weapon is beyond me.

I'm what Willis was talkin' about.
04.10.2010 17:35:14
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-R4: 925 vs. 957, 378 vs. 556

Administrative Notice:

Since the last post in this thread is almost five days old, we will assume the debate is over and proceed to judging.

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.
09.10.2010 11:53:28
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: #11
RE: DFD-R4: 925 vs. 957, 378 vs. 556
Fight 1

I would like to have remapping walls, and I'm rather sure having the option would lead to some neat custom wall SHPs, but in overall impact of the game and playing experience, custom storms are just vastly superior to remapping overlays.

Kill: #925
Support: #957

Fight 2

Random damage seems to be splitting the comment base. One half seems to be of the opinion that it's pointless or even annoying, the other half seems to consider it a highly desirable feature.
Since I cannot decide for the community which side is "correct", I will base my decision on probable game impact.

If you have high randomization, say, fluctuating between 10 and 100, units become unreliable. This may be desired for some super unit's weapon, but I highly doubt it'll find much use in common battle units - even if the modder adds it, the player base will likely complain.
If you have low randomization, say, fluctuating between 45 and 55, the randomization becomes irrelevant. If you have few shots, the randomization may lead to a skewed outcome, but the numbers won't be so off that it really makes a difference - whether the enemy is shot to -4 or -13 health makes no difference - dead is dead.
If you have many shots, they'll just balance each other out, averaging the middle value.

The argumentation in the past has been that shots miss, not all body parts are equally important, etc., etc., and that is true.
But the question is: How much does that matter in YR?
If I have ten conscripts shooting at a building, rapidly draining its health, does it matter that it takes 0.5 seconds longer to kill it, because the randomizer decided they all suck at aiming?

We have talked about this before - in the dead/revivable request. This is the kind of feature that only matters in select situations.
If the unit is gonna die, it's gonna die anyway.
If you have 10 Conscripts vs. 3 GIs, random damage ain't gonna save them.
If you have 1 Grizzly vs. 3 Tank Destroyers, random damage ain't gonna save it.
If you have a single Conscript vs. a Sniper, random damage ain't gonna save him.

This kind of feature only strikes in fringe situations. If, for example, there is an incoming airstrike on the Sniper's position, he only has time for one shot before dying, and then misses. Then it would matter. But in practice, that rarely happens. In practice, the Sniper usually has time for multiple shots, and ultimately will kill the Conscript.

In general, it simply doesn't matter.

There's a different danger, though: Player frustration. Imagine the same situation - Sniper vs. Conscript. Imagine the randomizer randomly decides the Sniper misses again and again - it's possible. It could decide to deal 10 damage rather than 100 five times in a row - it could still balance out over a thousand shots.
Do you think the player would be happy?
Do you think the player would excitedly marvel over the "realism" of his Sniper being completely worthless?

So yeah. I understand that some of you would find it nice if you couldn't constantly pre-calculate how a fight will end and how many shots X will need to kill Y, but the truth is, in practice, if used moderately, this feature will make little difference, and if used to its extremes, the feature will be used rarely or lead to player frustration.

Yes, a certain element of chance would be nice. But let us be fully honest here: Even if we implemented this feature, and even if you used it moderately, and even if the fringe case happened and the randomization made a difference: Do you really think the player would notice?
Do you really think after any given battle, the player will sit there and ponder "Hey, that unit should be dead?! Lucky me!"?
It's just not gonna happen. We think in hitpoints and strength, because we can see them and we can modify them.
The vast majority of players only thinks in terms of "X is stronger than Y" and "A has more than B".
They calculate outcome in terms of "I have 5 Prisms and he has 5 Rhinos. Numbers are even and my guns have longer range and stronger damage. I should win this one!". They don't sit down and crunch numbers.

The fact of the matter is, even if randomization makes a difference, the player is not gonna notice. They might be happy if they won a fight they didn't expect to win, but they'll chalk it up to luck, not "the skillful modder's use of moderate randomization".

Random damage is simply not going to be relevant in practice.

Ranged drain weapons, on the other hand, at least allow the modders to create new units the players can use in their unrandomized battles - and that is something they will notice.

Kill: #378
Support: #556

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.
09.10.2010 13:37:51
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: #12
RE: DFD-R4: 925 vs. 957, 378 vs. 556
Fight 1
Here we have two issues, both spreading misconceptions about them and confusing posters. If I could, I'd vote to close #925 for good and to create a new issue that gets all its facts straight.

That storm issue is still very complicated as it has to hook into every code retrieving Armor, Sight, whatnot, and Speed. This should get gritty in about three seconds.

If overlay remap is broken somehow, it should be fixed. It doesn't sound too complicated. The storms are a good feature, but it would require some large amounts of work to get that done.

Fight 2
I'd like to quote myself from the round 3 Random Damage DFD:
Quote:There are several arguments pointing out the negatives like the random element and it's fantasy style of the critical hit, as well as the disappearance of the random element in large battles if the number of fighters is big enough (law of large numbers). There are almost no arguments why the multiple campaign list issue is the better issue.

I chose it last time, because the opponent was even weaker. No arguments here (and there are no new ones) changed my previous evaluation of the Random Damage issue. This time I choose its opponent, ranged drain.
10.10.2010 00:51:36
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-R4: 925 vs. 957, 378 vs. 556
What I don't understand is how a storm can modify your armor.

(Oh, and you can already modify a specific unit's armor/speed/sight. Think crate bonus/0x483060.)

Tie breaker edit: kill #925, create a new issue that gets its facts straight. Support #957 to the extent that is possible through existing attribute modifiers.

10.10.2010 08:41:06
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




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