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: 603 vs. 932, 336 vs. 991
Author Message
Commander-in-Chief Renegade Offline
Lazy Modder
*****
Admins

Posts: 1 906
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Reputation: 14
Post: #1
DFD-R4: 603 vs. 932, 336 vs. 991
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. [932] Improving of Alpha Light feature.

Fight 2

[336] Cameo text vs. [991] New tiberium/ore tree types

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 21:40:06
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: 603 vs. 932, 336 vs. 991
Support:
[603] multigunner turrets are just too appealing to be ignored.
[991] new ore trees would help with several TS TC's that have hit this particular wall.

[Image: MRMIdAS2k.jpg]
MRMIdAS: No longer allowed to criticise Westwood on PPM
03.10.2010 22:44:33
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: 603 vs. 932, 336 vs. 991
I back 603 and 336

603 because I really like the idea of a defence system which can adapt however required

336 I picked because I look forward to possibility of being able to redo cameos without anything bar Notepad [ok can call me lazy but that isn't whole side to it], simplicity imo makes for less frustration etc

I do like 991 as well but it just seems a bit deep at this time to be focusing on, could be wrong but just my thoughts when look at each issue side-by-side
04.10.2010 03:04:26
Find all posts by this user
Private reaperrr Offline
Member
***
Members

Posts: 82
Joined: 26 May 2010
Reputation: 0
Post: #4
RE: DFD-R4: 603 vs. 932, 336 vs. 991
Fight 1: I don't really care that much about either feature, but I'm leaning towards support for #932.

Fight 2: #336 would be a convenient feature, but at the end of the day it only saves modders a little time. #991 is more popular and would allow modders to put a bit more creativity into the resource system of their mod.
Support #991.
04.10.2010 03:31:08
Find all posts by this user
Private Beowulf Offline
Senior Member
****
Members

Posts: 322
Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Reputation: 0
Post: #5
RE: DFD-R4: 603 vs. 932, 336 vs. 991
Support #603. Multigunner Turrets would win so hard.

Support #991. New ore types would give some flexibility for extending resource systems.

I'm what Willis was talkin' about.
04.10.2010 19:22:53
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: #6
RE: DFD-R4: 603 vs. 932, 336 vs. 991

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 11:53:35
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: 603 vs. 932, 336 vs. 991
Fight 1

A glance at the ICS box pretty much decides this one, but even if it didn't, as much as I like the shiny that alpha lights would bring and as much as the fixes proposed are needed, IFV-like behavior on buildings just opens up more possibilities.

Kill: #932
Support: #603

Fight 2

Cameo text, as said multiple times during this event, is a very useful feature, and it was amazingly dumb of EA/Westwood to take it out.
Alas, the development and localization use it would get pales in comparison to the possibilities opened up by enabling new resource types and generators.

That, and #991 has thrice as much ICS as #336.

Kill: #336
Support: #991

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 13:51:26
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: #8
RE: DFD-R4: 603 vs. 932, 336 vs. 991
Fight 1
The alpha light digging and cloaking/disguising issues are rather bugs than new features and they should be regarded and fixed as such.

But the animated alpha light, which is a new feature is not wanted, compared to the Turrets and IFB logic.

Fight 2
Indeed, the cameo issue is so far down the list and the "ore tree" one is trailing the Top 16. Cameos had no support in round 4, thus it's new tiberium/ore trees.
10.10.2010 00:51:44
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




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