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: 1009 vs. 349, 510 vs. 765
Author Message
Commander-in-Chief Renegade Offline
Lazy Modder
*****
Admins

Posts: 1 906
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Reputation: 14
Post: #1
DFD-R4: 1009 vs. 349, 510 vs. 765
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

[1009] A new logic: bodyguard logic vs. [349] Add a "Guard area" or "Combat Air Patrol" feature

Fight 2

[510] Multiple Voxel-Turrets (Battleships like in RA2) vs. [765] Allow buildings to have weapons & garrison logic

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 21:37:07
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: 1009 vs. 349, 510 vs. 765
Support
[349] is wanted by everyone, and for good reason.
[765] opentopped/garrisonable buildings are a nifty feature which could make for some interesting base defences, ala the firebase from Generals.

[Image: MRMIdAS2k.jpg]
MRMIdAS: No longer allowed to criticise Westwood on PPM
03.10.2010 22:51:12
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: 1009 vs. 349, 510 vs. 765
Damn. Fight one is difficult.
I'm going to go for [349] though, because it extends the use of aircraft. Aircraft, I've always thought, have never really been a core part of C&C - they're only useful for attacks, and need to constantly be managed to make them efficient, in contrast to the rest of your army which can be trusted to shoot at things whenever they see them. Aircraft have seemed like more trouble than their pricetag is worth.
Being usable as defence would make aircraft a much more attractive use of money, being able to defend a sizeable area without threat of retribution from non AA units.

Bodyguards is nice, but aircraft are nicer.
Support [349]

Fight two is easier for me, because multiple turrets would be fun. Consider the possibilities - The titular battleship, a MG turret and a Tank gun on the same vehicle, or Gigafortress styled defence, a pair of independent guns on the same vehicle is such a shiny idea to my eyes.

Support [510]
04.10.2010 00:26:57
Find all posts by this user
Private reaperrr Offline
Member
***
Members

Posts: 82
Joined: 26 May 2010
Reputation: 0
Post: #4
RE: DFD-R4: 1009 vs. 349, 510 vs. 765
Fight 1: Personally I don't really care for #1009, and the usefulness and popularity of #349 are known, so I
support #349.

Fight 2: This is a more difficult decision for me.
I'd really like to see #765, but #510 could be nice as well, especially if it's extended to turrets in general (for shp units and buildings also), not just voxel unit turrets. You could have something like a huge base building with multiple turrets and stuff like that. Hm...

If #510 is for voxels and units only, I support #765.

If #510 is extended the way i mentioned, I support #510 instead.
04.10.2010 03:00:38
Find all posts by this user
Private secondwtq Offline
Junior Member
**
Members

Posts: 9
Joined: 28 Feb 2010
Reputation: 0
Post: #5
RE: DFD-R4: 1009 vs. 349, 510 vs. 765
Support [349]
I think #1009 is not useful.and #349 is a feature that be expected by many beginners and masters.

Support [510]
Multiple turrets can be used in battleships and many units.Like reaperrr said I hope it can be used in buildings too.
04.10.2010 03:20:40
Find all posts by this user
Private RandomNutjob Offline
Junior Member
**
Members

Posts: 28
Joined: 19 Jul 2010
Reputation: 0
Post: #6
RE: DFD-R4: 1009 vs. 349, 510 vs. 765
I back 349 purely as not fussed about bodyguards and back 510 as I'd really like to see an RA1 Cruiser again and any other variants that could be drawn up

As mentioned though it would be great [providing 510 makes it] if it could be expanded upon, for time being though I'd be very happy with it purely on units
04.10.2010 03:24:58
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: 1009 vs. 349, 510 vs. 765
#349 for sure. I've wanted combat patrol aircraft a la Generals for so long. Aircraft would turn into a viable attack force instead of acting as secondary attack craft. This would make them much more useful for attacking clusters of units and even bases.

And I support #765 on the basis that it would actually be used. Multiple turrets on one vehicle would be neat and all, but really. How often would it actually be used?

I'm what Willis was talkin' about.
04.10.2010 19:26:36
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: 1009 vs. 349, 510 vs. 765

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 11:53:40
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: 1009 vs. 349, 510 vs. 765
This is gonna be a quick one. Big Grin 2

Fight 1

Yes. #1009 will probably be fulfilled in the Slaves request anyway.

Kill: #1009
Support: #349

Fight 2

I want my battleships. So there. Tongue

Even if I didn't, though, I was never really excited about #765. It's a reasonable request, it's just...meh. Fine, it's a limitation that you can only really have one or the other, but it's worked out alright so far. It not like the fact that you can't have guns on bunkers is preventing some breathtaking new breakthrough in YR modding. It's kinda sucky, but not all that important.

RA's battleship, on the other hand, is legendary, and I'm very sure the community would find enough uses for a second turret. Hell, if (if) we implement TurretSpins for both turrets individually, you could even abuse this feature to have a one-turret-unit with a spinning radar dish in the back or something.

Kill: #765
Support: #510

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 14:00:31
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: 1009 vs. 349, 510 vs. 765
Fight 1
Hmm, this is the last round. One should think the fights are harder to judge. But no, they are not. Add a "Guard area" or "Combat Air Patrol" feature.

Fight 2
I don't know what exactly the garrisonable buildings issue would do. If it's indeed just used to put weapons on garrisonable buildings and it has no other usage cases (can't think of any, but I'm unimaginative) that would definitely lose out to battleships or multiple turrets. Renegade gave good examples how a turret can be abused (if) to just provide optical gimmicks. Ok, he wants battleships.

Yeah, I'm leaving the path of "don't add features if there are bugs and limitations in the current implementation". Let me explain why. There are several limitations in the engine, some making sense, some don't. I don't understand, why EA didn't implement the Force Shield on tanks. They just added it to buildings. The logic is there, but the color is wrong and units only get the Iron Curtain one. Buildings cannot be loaded into transports. Makes sense. And the Lightning Storm Warhead will always display the explosion anim defined as LS explosion and ignore the AnimList on the warhead. This is the latter. It is a limitation, but it would not affect that many people, because it is no essential feature.

And, having said that, I vote for the multiple turret battleships.
10.10.2010 00:51:50
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




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