Reopen CnC Jarmen Kell?

[¥R M0dd€r]

I am not over this yet......

So Renegade says that 0000733 was closed becuse lack of community intrest. I think the reson no body tested it was becuse of the testers was to lazy at that time.
But am I right or is Renegade right? Please speak community....

Its a useful feature imo, not only can it be used on sniper, but it can aslo be used on neutron bombs etc...

(that guest vote was me, ignore it)

[WoRmINaToR]

Lazy testers has absolutely nothing to do with it, first of all, because this is not an issue of how much the feature got tested, it's an issue of nobody cared about the feature. You do not have to test a feature to say "I want this and I think it would be useful." How many people even did that? About three if I recall correctly. But even those few lost interest evidently, or they would have been fighting to keep the feature alive long long ago. This was defeated in the DFDs for the very same reason. Not enough people were really that interested in it, as interesting as this feature can be.

I do have to ask though, how exactly would a hydrogen bomb use this feature? Why the hell would a hydrogen bomb kill the driver inside a tank and not the tank itself? We're talking about a bomb that has up to 25,000 times the yield of the A-Bombs of World War II, and those leveled entire cities, certainly not leaving driver-less tanks and vehicles behind...

[Nighthawk]

I do have to ask though, how exactly would a hydrogen bomb use this feature? Why the hell would a hydrogen bomb kill the driver inside a tank and not the tank itself? We're talking about a bomb that has up to 25,000 times the yield of the A-Bombs of World War II, and those leveled entire cities, certainly not leaving driver-less tanks and vehicles behind...

I get the feeling he meant "neutron bomb".

[Renegade]

Before anybody else answers this, let me point out the timeline here:
On 29.05.10, the latest binary for that request was checked in.
Nobody said anything after that.
On 21.07.10, I asked if there was anything left to do on part one before I started with part two.
Nobody said anything after that.
On 23.08.10, I ultimately said I'd close the issue, triggering a few comments, none of which expressed great grief about the closure.

In the middle of development, no other community member talked on that issue for three months.

Keep that in mind if you're going to argue the community cares for that feature.

@NH: Thought the same.

[¥R M0dd€r]

Lazy testers has absolutely nothing to do with it

Yes it have!
Really, how many issues did DCoder close becuse no body did verify them?

Are you familiar with this?:

Closing these issues - implemented a fair while ago, tested during implementation. If any bugs do crop up, be sure to thank the lazy testers for doing their job so well.

---

Yes I meant neutron bomb, sorry

[Renegade]

You still fail to show a connection between the two.
Features also got closed for losing DFDs.
#733 got closed.
Are you arguing #733 got closed for losing a DFD?

Not every closing reason in existence applies to every closed issue.

The issue got closed for an utter lack of community interest, and nothing else.
Accept it or don't, it doesn't change what happened.

[¥R M0dd€r]

In DFD, people only vote for what feature they like the most, the result is not that the losing feature is bad. You even said yourself that good features died.

Besides, 733 is done! Its just some minor bugs left to fix!!!!

However, be both still disagree about the reson why nobody tested it, you say lack of community intrest, I say lazy testers(at that time, not now). Hopefully, time will tell(the pool).

[Graion Dilach]

No, 733 isn't done, actually. And not just minor bugs left.

A major thing is missing, the CanDrive logic to reacquire driverless vehicles. Getting Hijackers to them is not something I find useful.

If you check the bugtracker carefully, you will meet feature requests which was closed because of no feedback. This is just one of them, the only difference is that code regarding this have been added to Ares.

Besides, I've played with KillDriver and I think using it on an ordinary unit is just nonsense. One shot and the tank have been neutralized. And the current logic is enough for some SW's. It has lesser flaws than YR's Pushy-DirectRocker logic... so I think this is enough for those who wants KillDriver.

I'm not against finishing it. I'd be very happy if the CanDrive logic'd be finished, because CanDrive would allow the Gen's Pilot system, where the pilot's veterancy was added to the unit it drives (My favourite thing in Generals). If this means I strongly support KillDriver than OK, I do. But I don't really care about KillDriver, TBH. I care about CanDrive only.

[Renegade]

@YRM: Which part of no one talked in there for three months do you not grasp?
There is no basis to argue that the community had any interest in that feature back then. There just isn't. The only thing you could possibly do is argue that the community's attitude changed, and interest exists now.

So either focus on that, or just drop it. Because no matter what you say, you will not be able to talk away the fact that, in the middle of development of that feature, people cared so little that they didn't write a single line in three months.

On an unrelated sidenote, I'm getting more and more concerned about your lack of attention to detail.
You might want to consider reading issue descriptions and the comments more closely.