+- Renegade Projects Network Forums (https://forums.renegadeprojects.com)
+-- Forum: Inject the Battlefield (https://forums.renegadeprojects.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=60)
+--- Forum: DFD: Daily Feature Deathmatch (https://forums.renegadeprojects.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=71)
+--- Thread: DFD: 284 vs. 504, 336 vs. 1029 (/showthread.php?tid=1561)
Pages:
1
2
DFD: 284 vs. 504, 336 vs. 1029 - Renegade - 04.07.2010
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 and the schedule.
Fight 1
[0000284] Ability to modify the luminosity/brightness of the laser if "IsHouseColor" is set to true vs. [0000504] Make the units fire two weapons at same time
Fight 2
[0000336] Cameo text vs. [0001029] Short Game changes
By the end of the 48 hour period, 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".
A decision will be made either way, so 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!
End: ~ 17:00, 06.07.2010.
RE: DFD: 284 vs. 504, 336 vs. 1029 - Lt Albrecht - 04.07.2010
Between 284 or 504 I think I'd have to go for 504, although I can see uses for 284 too...
Between 336 and 1029 I don't care and will be voting against them in the next round unless they come up against something even less useful... 336 is kinda redundat seeings as OS SHP builder can cameo-ize any correctly sized picture and add whatever text you like. Whereas it's been pointed out 1029 can be done via editing the maps and adding some script stuff.
RE: DFD: 284 vs. 504, 336 vs. 1029 - jimmy3421 - 04.07.2010
Support #284 #1029
"fire weapon by range" is better than #504
#336 just is useful for lazy guys
RE: DFD: 284 vs. 504, 336 vs. 1029 - ¥R M0dd€r - 04.07.2010
I support [0000284]
On Fight 2, I dont support any of those, becuse those two are both pointless IMO, they should both be closed
RE: DFD: 284 vs. 504, 336 vs. 1029 - Augusto - 04.07.2010
I support 504, its a useful issue...
RE: DFD: 284 vs. 504, 336 vs. 1029 - AlphaBravo - 04.07.2010
Naturally 504 > 284. I'll post a INI Spec that works for the Ares 0.3 New Weapon System (#985, #982, #983, #984, #981). I also think that 336 > 1026, if only slightly so.
RE: DFD: 284 vs. 504, 336 vs. 1029 - reaperrr - 04.07.2010
Fight 1: OK, this is THE do or die battle for me. For me personally, out of all features in the DFD tournament, #504 is the one and only MUST HAVE feature. Heck, if it gets implemented my mod will literally be CENTERED around this feature.
Some more reasons that speak for this feature:
Reason 1:
(04.07.2010, 17:38:47)jimmy3421 Wrote: Support #284 #1029Nope, it's not
"fire weapon by range" is better than #504
#504 can emulate "fire by range" just as well, simply by giving each weapon the desired minimum and maximum range, let's say
[Weapon1]
Range=4
[Weapon2]
Range=10
MinimumRange=4.1
At the same time #504 can be used for so much more. Also, #192 is not part of DFD.
Reason 2:
It can also be used to emulate #726 (firing two weapons at the same time, even particle weapons), which already got killed.
Reason 3:
This is the only way to make units work exactly like, for example, 'Mechs in MechCommander. Which is what I intend to do in my mod, which is why I so desperately need it.
Reason 4:
It can also be used to make better "boss" units/buildings in singleplayer. I find boss units with just 1 uber-weapon unrealistic and boring, having multiple "normal" weapons would be more fun (especially if that unit has DistributedFire and OmniFire set to =yes)
Reason 5:
You could make units that get "upgraded" when they reach elite status. Example: A unit like the mammoth has a useless, dummy "Weapon3", but a real machinegun as EliteWeapon3. So once it reaches elite, it basically receives a new, additional weapon, that can be used against vehicles and infantry, which I personally prefer over just a stronger Primary weapon.
Reason 6:
Out of the features that take part in the DFD, I believe this is the one with the 2nd most support votes, so the number of modders that would use it is most likely far above average.
Reason 7:
Now that #981 More than 2 weapons on a unit is going to be implemented, this feature makes even more sense. Without #504, more than 2 weapons will only be really useful in some special cases, with #504, #981 can live up to its full glory.
Also, since #981 requires a rewrite of the SelectWeapon function I think it makes sense to keep #504 in mind while doing that, to make sure that #504 doesn't make another rewrite necessary later on.
I could probably come up with more, but I think this is sufficient for now.
And #284? It's a PURELY cosmetical feature, of almost zero gameplay value, that most people probably wouldn't use anyway.
Strongest imaginable support you can think of for #504, by all means kill #284.
EDIT: I didn't explicitly mention it, but I hope that IF it is implemented, it will be extended to "Make the units [and hopefully buildings as well] fire two or more weapons at the same time".
Fight 2:
I don't care much, I wouldn't mind if they both die. #1029 is more interesting but most likely requires massively more work, #336 has very little value but is most likely easier to implement.
I support #336 for that reason, #1029 sounds too difficult to implement for the value it adds, so kill #1029.
RE: DFD: 284 vs. 504, 336 vs. 1029 - FS-21 - 04.07.2010
Fight 1:
kill #284
I want #504 to survive.
Looks insteresting the #504 request in some type of units.
Fight 2:
kill #1029
I want #336 to survive.
I don't like much any of the 2 but for testing & lazy modders #336 could help them.
RE: DFD: 284 vs. 504, 336 vs. 1029 - Orac - 04.07.2010
Damn.. This is a hard one.
504, 1029: survive.
RE: DFD: 284 vs. 504, 336 vs. 1029 - Speeder - 04.07.2010
Fight 1: I definitely vote for #504 because I dream of choppers which fire machine guns and rockets at the same time. Also, I'm pretty sure that it can help achieve interesting results with weapon combinations, supported with new Ares logics.
Fight 2: As a big fan of RA2 cameo style, I say kill 336. It isn't that much of work to do a cameo with text you want it to have. Also, 1029 has some interesting things proposed and short game logic/customizable winning conditions for skirmish is something worthy to take a look at. Supporting #1029.
RE: DFD: 284 vs. 504, 336 vs. 1029 - MRMIdAS - 05.07.2010
[0000504] since the other one got deaded
[0001029] because it'd add incentive to play agressively, could also be funny to "unit steal" by blowing the last building of a base that someone else has steamrollered.
RE: DFD: 284 vs. 504, 336 vs. 1029 - Drogan - 05.07.2010
It'll be nice to see some twin barreled weapons or twin weapons firing at the same time (or in a one-two fashion) for 504.
And 1029 could bring some flexibility into skirmish gameplay.
336 is only good if your translating something into another language. otherwise, the SHP builder covers that. So 1029>336.
RE: DFD: 284 vs. 504, 336 vs. 1029 - Blade - 05.07.2010
Kill 284 since while useful, doesn't have the same fun potential as 504. Kill 336 since it's of little practical value except to a TC or where all icons get replaced and isn't needed strictly, its just a conveniance. That said I don't really support 1029 either, I'd much rather see Player@X work on events as well as actions in maps to emulate 1029 and many other game modes in the maps themselves.
RE: DFD: 284 vs. 504, 336 vs. 1029 - gordon-creAtive - 05.07.2010
I want #336 to survive because I'm sure it does improve the general modding workflow.
I want #504 to survive because could also be a base for new workarounds.
RE: DFD: 284 vs. 504, 336 vs. 1029 - ¥R M0dd€r - 05.07.2010
wooord guys, I also vote 504!