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: 461 vs. 715, 612 vs. 607
Author Message
Commander-in-Chief Renegade Offline
Lazy Modder
*****
Admins

Posts: 1 906
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Reputation: 14
Post: #1
DFD-R4: 461 vs. 715, 612 vs. 607
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

[461] Hold fire vs. [715] Extending Upgrades to include documented limits

Fight 2

[612] AI Enhancements vs. [607] Enable Storage= on buildings.

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 21:36:08
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: 461 vs. 715, 612 vs. 607
support
[715] upgrades need to be extended.
[612] AI upgrades are more important than silos.

[Image: MRMIdAS2k.jpg]
MRMIdAS: No longer allowed to criticise Westwood on PPM
03.10.2010 22:52:26
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Private RandomNutjob Offline
Junior Member
**
Members

Posts: 28
Joined: 19 Jul 2010
Reputation: 0
Post: #3
RE: DFD-R4: 461 vs. 715, 612 vs. 607
Looking at each it's a case of "this issue is good but the other is just more appealing"

I like idea of holding fire but just really like making use of upgrades, particularly for spysat and income [to name two], so in 1st contest I go for 715

In 2nd one it is much easier [though I do ponder the "lesser" issue] because bar "Silos" I haven't seen any other use case and off top of head I can't think of one - not to say there isn't and so forth but it all gets swept away by two words, AI Enhancements

For that reason I go with 612 hands down
04.10.2010 03:33:01
Find all posts by this user
Private reaperrr Offline
Member
***
Members

Posts: 82
Joined: 26 May 2010
Reputation: 0
Post: #4
RE: DFD-R4: 461 vs. 715, 612 vs. 607
Fight 1:
#461 would give the player more control over the behavior of his (dumb) units. I'd like to see both issues survive, but since that won't happen, I support #461.

Fight 2:
EDIT: Thinking about it, I don't really want either to die, but by now I tend to agree with Blade and Nighthawk that silos would bring a bit more to the table and 612 should rather be "sneaked in" when the other AI enhancements are implemented.
So I support #607.
(This post was last modified: 08.10.2010 16:35:38 by reaperrr.)
04.10.2010 03:40:26
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-R4: 461 vs. 715, 612 vs. 607
Support 751, it provides far more scope for improving an existing feature than 461 does. Upgrades are almost unused due to the very small number of things that it can do, while mirage and cloak are still very useful even without hold fire.

Support 607, restore a feature that will be noticable and will be used by those making a more traditional C&C style mod. The AI request is just one of many that have been put on the tracker. They should all be rolled into one big meta request and then voted on for implementation as a big feature bloc for an upcoming revision. Like many of the features that have beeen in the DFD in multiple guises, we could have shaved rounds off this thing if they were bundled up in the first place.
04.10.2010 12:31:06
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Sergeant Nighthawk Offline
Automatic Greeting System
****
Moderators

Posts: 572
Joined: 14 Oct 2005
Reputation: 4
Post: #6
RE: DFD-R4: 461 vs. 715, 612 vs. 607
This is the only round 4 fight I really have anything to say on (since most other issues I would argue for were killed in Round 3), so here goes.

For fight one:
Simple enough really, I'm not going to repeat arguments I've said at least three times already - basically, upgrades need improvements. That should be worth more than a hold fire function (though such a thing shouldn't be overlooked for future implementation).

Support #715, kill #461.

For fight two:
I agree with Blade's argumentation. The AI Enhancements request, even though it's good, is something that really should be combined with all the other various AI requests floating about. The return of silo functionality is something I'd rather see implemented (and would probably be more used) in the short-term than the Aggressive tag.

Therefore, my stance is support #607, kill #612.

Ares Project Manager.
[Image: t3wbanner.png]
[Image: cncgsigsb_sml.png]
Open Ares positions: Documentation Maintainer, Active Testers.
PM if interested.
04.10.2010 15:16:54
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: #7
RE: DFD-R4: 461 vs. 715, 612 vs. 607
Support #715. Proper upgrade systems are a huge boon to everyone.

Support #612. Kinda need some AI goodness going on.

I'm what Willis was talkin' about.
04.10.2010 17:31:44
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: #8
RE: DFD-R4: 461 vs. 715, 612 vs. 607

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 11:53:18
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-R4: 461 vs. 715, 612 vs. 607
Fight 1

I am of the opinion that #461 (hold fire) would make stealth and disguised units much more useful and interesting to play with, and I hope it'll get implemented someday.
But upgrades have been a topic of curiosity, hope and frustration in this community for almost a decade, and it's time they get extended to show their full potential.

This is not just a question of scope, though. I'm also wondering about the AI's handling of these features. While I'm sure the AI will be a little confused by upgrades, I'm confident we can bend that into shape, if necessary. My implementation idea for #461 would allow the holding of fire to be added to AI scripts - but would that really work?
To know when to hold fire and when not to requires situational awareness - both of the current tactical situation, as well as the strategic one.
And the AI simply doesn't have that. The AI will most probably be using hold fire poorly at best, if at all. It's a human player feature, essentially.

And while there's nothing bad per se about that, I do think the overall impact extended upgrades would make is a little bigger than human players' ability to control cloaked units a bit better.

As said, I'd like to see #461 one day, but against #715, #715 wins, imo.

Kill: #461
Support: #715

Fight 2

The problem with the argumentations for #607 is very simple: They assume silos are universally liked and wanted.
Truth is, that's not the case. I, personally, was rather annoyed by needing silos all the time, losing hard-earned money because no silos were there or because someone stole them, etc., etc.
And while I can't speak for everyone, I'm rather sure I'm not alone with that.
The crux of this feature is nicely highlighted by this line from Blade:
(04.10.2010 12:31:06)Blade Wrote:  a feature that will be noticable and will be used by those making a more traditional C&C style mod.
Yes. 100% correct.
It will be used by those making a more traditional C&C style mod.
But that's by far not all mods. Quite the opposite.
AI improvements, on the other hand, benefit all mods, "traditional style" or not.

The suggested AI change is small in scope, reasonable, and essentially also a resurrection of TS behavior.

I'm sorry, but I can't, in good conscience, choose a minor resource management feature that only impacts a handful of mods over a drastic AI improvement for the entire player base (most likely not even requiring a mod).

Kill: #607
Support: #612

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 12:53:48
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-R4: 461 vs. 715, 612 vs. 607
Fight 1
Upgrades are a nice addition, if they are done right. Alas they can't be used to provide some kind of tech upgrade, because they don't qualify as prerequisite. Once build, they wouldn't disappear from the sidebar because they don't support BuildLimit.

Holding fire until ordered to attack is useful for sneaky attacks. And for some edge cases like threatening the enemy and for a cease-fire. I vote for the upgrade limits.

Fight 2
As I said earlier, I'm not a friend of storage and silos and the micromanagement they require. In this case there's a remis. The arguments are good for both sides: Silos are needed to create a more complete TC and they indeed enable new tactical possibilities. Yes, the AI definitely needs some work and teams of units should retaliate as a whole. Silos are bitches. They just suck. The proposed AI behavior would affect more players than the addition of storage. But more people on the tracker want them.

I chose the AI Enhancements, because its effect is more universal.
10.10.2010 00:51:31
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




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