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: 724 vs. 609, 322 vs. 596
Author Message
Commander-in-Chief Renegade Offline
Lazy Modder
*****
Admins

Posts: 1 905
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Reputation: 14
Post: #1
DFD-R4: 724 vs. 609, 322 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

[724] Additional flag for cameo sort order vs. [609] Researches

Fight 2

[322] Restore NonVehicle= function 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.
03.10.2010 21:37:59
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: 724 vs. 609, 322 vs. 596
Support
[609] research is a vital part of restoring YR to what it was planned to be.
[596] would complement the above rather nicely

[Image: MRMIdAS2k.jpg]
MRMIdAS: No longer allowed to criticise Westwood on PPM
03.10.2010 22:48:30
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: 724 vs. 609, 322 vs. 596
All I have to say is "Baaaaa".....

Seriously though I go for 609 and 596

Looking through each I found myself thinking "Hmmm that sounds interesting" plus as MRMIdAS said they'd go together nicely so all more reason to keep them in together

Only problems I see, which have been mentioned, are upgrading units in field and multiple upgrades on the same unit - hopefully though they can be worked round/sorted
04.10.2010 03:18:24
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-R4: 724 vs. 609, 322 vs. 596
Support 322, NonVehicle needs fixing (or preffereable splitting) to make several already existing features work correctly rather than just the one of upgrades. In addition, Upgrades still have 2 requests which are pretty much equivalent in terms of what will actually get implemented in the contest and the second one is already getting losts of love in another thread.

I also support 609 since its already possible to control the sort order to some extent based on tech levels, cost and such. The few things I'd like to control pale in comparison to 609.
04.10.2010 12:15:02
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Private Speeder Offline
Junior Member
**
Members

Posts: 47
Joined: 23 Jan 2005
Reputation: 0
Post: #5
RE: DFD-R4: 724 vs. 609, 322 vs. 596
Support #322 as it's exactly as Blade said. NonVehicle will make some things effectively possible.

[Image: mainbanner2.jpg]

Mental Omega 3.0 in the web:
[Image: mdbutton.png][Image: fbbutton.png][Image: ytbutton.png]
04.10.2010 15:57:53
Find all posts by this user
Private Beowulf Offline
Senior Member
****
Members

Posts: 322
Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Reputation: 0
Post: #6
RE: DFD-R4: 724 vs. 609, 322 vs. 596
609 and 322. 609 will make 596 possible and then some.

I'm what Willis was talkin' about.
04.10.2010 17:28:34
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Commander-in-Chief Renegade Offline
Lazy Modder
*****
Admins

Posts: 1 905
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Reputation: 14
Post: #7
RE: DFD-R4: 724 vs. 609, 322 vs. 596

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 11:52:42
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Commander-in-Chief Renegade Offline
Lazy Modder
*****
Admins

Posts: 1 905
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Reputation: 14
Post: #8
RE: DFD-R4: 724 vs. 609, 322 vs. 596
Oooh, exciting! First judgement of the last round!

Fight 1

Let me start by saying that I find Beowulf's assertion that "609 will make 596 possible and then some" rather ridiculous. There is absolutely no basis for that claim, especially since it hasn't even been decided yet whether to implement #609, so no implementation details are decided yet, either.

Anyway, none of the posts in the discussion even mention #724, let alone support it, and ICS is 3 for #724 against 13 for #609.

It's rather clear which one the community prefers.

Kill: #724
Support: #609

Fight 2

#322 does have more ICS, and Blade is correct when he says that there are other upgrade requests left - however, this is the last round; there is no guarantee any of the other requests survive, and there will be no other chance. To kill #596 on the vague possibility that a related request in the same area might survive would be unfair.

#596 will be judged on its own merit.

And I must say, looking at both next to each other, #596 looks to be vastly, vastly more important than #322.
Fully-functional upgrades would enable hitherto unseen variation and complexity for BuildingTypes.
A fixed NonVehicle would...prevent specific vehicles to be lifted. And stop hijackers on specific vehicles.

Let's be honest here: CarryAlls work, in general. Hijackers work, in general. It's not like anything is not functional because NonVehicle doesn't work. Yes, it's a little annoying that you can't make an exception for a few VehicleTypes here and there, but overall, it's not like it overly impedes the use of those game logics.

Choosing #322 would mean making an existing logic a tiny, tiny bit better.
Choosing #596 would mean making an existing logic drastically better, allowing a wide range of new usage cases.

As much as I agree it'd be nice if #322 were fixed, #596 is just more important, imo.

Kill: #322
Support: #596

Ultimately, with the post-0.2 release cycle, you can always just go and lobby for #322 to become a developer's minor feature for a release. Wink

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 12:29:15
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: #9
RE: DFD-R4: 724 vs. 609, 322 vs. 596
Fight 1
The winner of this fight is indeed quite clear. Researches got supporters, sort order doesn't. So, I won't say more here than this: Researches.

Fight 2
I don't know. Upgrading would be a good feature, but it has three supporters here and four people support the NonVehicle tag. In the tracker it has no supporters and NonVehicle got some despite it being the older issue. I vote for NonVehicle to be fixed instead of implementing a new system.
10.10.2010 00:51:23
Find all posts by this user
Commander-in-Chief DCoder Offline
Not Ares Anymore
*****
Admins

Posts: 1 755
Joined: 22 Nov 2004
Reputation: 18
Post: #10
RE: DFD-R4: 724 vs. 609, 322 vs. 596
Support 322.

10.10.2010 10:16:42
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




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