+- 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: 418 vs. 209, 972 vs. 240 (/showthread.php?tid=1588)
DFD: 418 vs. 209, 972 vs. 240 - Renegade - 18.07.2010
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
[0000418] Ability to quit the game with a single click vs. [0000209] Make the PrismSupportBeam Logic un-hardcoded and costomizeable
Fight 2
[0000972] Change look of unit depending on side. vs. [0000240] Allow More over-powering units.. that overpower different buildings...
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: ~ 19:00, 20.07.2010.
RE: DFD: 418 vs. 209, 972 vs. 240 - RandomNutjob - 19.07.2010
Ok fight 1 simple I go for Prism logic [209] although wonder how much is covered already in issue 340
Fight 2 fairly easy too as believe is already an add-on to alter unit images for differing sides so I'm for 240
RE: DFD: 418 vs. 209, 972 vs. 240 - mt. - 19.07.2010
Fight 1
418 - Ability to quit the game with a single click
Kill this please.
1. You can click this accidentally.
2. At most this saves a FEW SECONDS, no big deal.
209 - Make the PrismSupportBeam Logic un-hardcoded and customizable
Somewhat support this, although its vague and so not easy to tell.
1. It's a real feature which can enhance gameplay unlike 0000418.
2. Although the request is vague I can imagine basic options such as:
A) making this logic work for multiple objects (not just 1 building)
B) perhaps localizing the settings this onto weapon or the object's code
All of which I find has the potential for useful applications.
Fight 2
972 - Change look of unit depending on side
Kill this please.
1. It's purely graphical unlike 0000240.
2. It can be done by cloning units and changing prerequisites: the only small difference is the "Select unit by type" considering them separate.
240 - Allow More over-powering units, that overpower different buildings
Fully support this.
1. It's a logic feature which can enhance gameplay more than the graphical 0000972.
2. Already we can see usages:
A) tesla tanks and other tesla units (if a mod adds them) can power tesla coils, not just tesla troopers.
B) A mod can add more combinations, for even other sides.
All in all I can't say I care too much for any of these, except perhaps 240, but depending on its implementation.
RE: DFD: 418 vs. 209, 972 vs. 240 - Darkstorm - 19.07.2010
Fight 1
No contest. Your an idiot to want issue 1 over issue 2. Mainly for above reasons. Besides, it'd open up a lot more possiblities with PrismSupportBeam Logic unhardcoded, mainly multiple prism towers.
Support: [0000209] Make the PrismSupportBeam Logic un-hardcoded and costomizeable
Kill: [0000418] Ability to quit the game with a single click
Fight 2
This is more of a fight, but not that much more since one can be worked around.
Issue 1: There is a big annoying work around for this but it is possible. Like Mooman's capture pack (was that ever saved?), you basically make each unit version require the side it is for. Since the unit limit is removed (or raised, but I think it was removed or raised to an inconceivable number), that makes different versions a lot more viable. So all this feature does is save a lot of time, but it is fully work around-able, even though the work around allows even more customization.
Issue 2: Now this puts the icing on the cake for the prism logic. What better other feature to go with it than its soviet equivalent? I'd take this over the side versions in a heart beat. Though it needs to be done how MT said, changing the weapons. The overpowering in game only increases range if my memory serves.
Support: [0000240] Allow More over-powering units.. that overpower different buildings...
Kill: [0000972] Change look of unit depending on side.
RE: DFD: 418 vs. 209, 972 vs. 240 - MRMIdAS - 19.07.2010
[0000209] gets my support, even though it's been worked on to some degree already, purely because one click quit is dumb.
[0000240] gets my support too, I'd like both the issues in the deathmatch to make it, but this is going to be more widely used.
RE: DFD: 418 vs. 209, 972 vs. 240 - WoRmINaToR - 19.07.2010
@Darkstorm Overpowering changes 2 things: 1) If only 1 trooper is overpowering it, change to the secondary weapon (which has increased range and GREATLY increased damage) and 2), if more than 3 are powering it, the tower stays functional even in a low power situation.
You also presented a nice workaround for issue 972, one I hadn't thought of entirely... While it could lead to a nightmare of NCO bugs if a single mistake is made, it IS still a fully functional workaround, thus there is little need for this.
So for my actual thoughts on the issues:
Fight One:
This is not a very good fight, because one is complete nonsense, and the other has already been eclipsed by issue 340. However I definitely think if you are a fat lazy ass enough to actually want issue 418, then you clearly shouldn't be doing something that takes as much patience as modding takes sometimes.
Thus, I support issue #209, even if it will be simply covered by issue #340 anyways.
(BTW guys, un-hardcoding the prism support beam wouldn't necessarily be for more types of prism towers, since they would still be firing lasers, however it would be for something like a tesla coil supporting a tesla coil, or you could un-hardcode the IsBigLaser=yes and IsHouseColor=yes that is currently forced on the prism tower's support beam.)
Fight Two:
As dark said above this one isn't much of a fight. There is a highly efficient workaround that he presented for issue 972, and I personally would also like to see expansion done on the overpowering logic, something I'd like to use in my mod.
That said, I support #240.
RE: DFD: 418 vs. 209, 972 vs. 240 - Professor_Tesla - 19.07.2010
Fight #1:
I think that #418 is pointless because, as mentioned above, it could be clicked accidentally, and also because quitting the game can currently be done in about 5 seconds or less. Kill #418.
It seems to me like #209 is already implemented, but I guess I support it in this fight by default, since I don't support #418. Support #209.
_______________________
Fight 2:
While I think that #972 might be a nice little feature, it has been pointed out that this can already be emulated by features the game already has. Therefore, kill #972.
Again, I thought that #240 had already been implemented. However, I looked at the request, and I like the idea of damage additions/multipliers to the weapon of an overpowered building without necessarily having to add a new weapon to the building. I also like some of the other ideas mentioned in subsequent notes on the issue. Whichever way it ends up being implemented (if it is implemented) I will be happy with it. Therefore, support #240.
Summary:
Fight 1: Kill #418. Support #209.
Fight 2: Kill #972. Support #240.
RE: DFD: 418 vs. 209, 972 vs. 240 - Nighthawk - 19.07.2010
On issue 240 in fight 2: if it makes it through, I'd suggest not limiting the logic to only infantry powering up buildings. Units powering up buildings would probably be something many people would use. I could even see a use for buildings powering up buildings - get the right ROF and Range, throw in some AmbientDamage and a new ArmorType (so the structures themselves aren't damaged), and you've got yourself a zapping energy fence.
(let's just overlook the fact that the AI would run right through it, for the sake of argument
)Also, so my post isn't mistaken for my personal opinion on what should get through, I'm personally undecided on both issues, both are good and I wouldn't mind which makes it through, I'm just voicing an idea.
I may as well say something on Fight 1 while I'm here. I'll probably get a bit of backlash for saying this, but issue 418 actually doesn't sound that bad to me. I wouldn't recommend a 1-click exit literally, more a sort of "Exit to Windows" button followed by an "Are you sure? Yes/No" box like a bunch of other games have. It takes me quite a bit longer than 5 seconds to exit the game, especially given the fact that my laptop has to keep changing resolution every time the game starts, when the main menu loads, and then when the game exits.
That said, I wouldn't give it priority over something important like prism logic. It's more like a sort of quick extra thing you'd add in some downtime, not a major gameplay addition equatable to most of what's going through these DFDs.
Bah, I don't have any overarching opinion here, so draw what you wish from this post.
Edit: I've just realised that Issue 240 is entirely different to the normal overpowering logic in the game (which is what I was talking about). You should probably ignore what I've said then.
RE: DFD: 418 vs. 209, 972 vs. 240 - WoRmINaToR - 20.07.2010
@Nighthawk: Tanks (and buildings I think?) can already overpower buildings. It would be kind of nonsensical to regress with the addition of some simple logic expansion (unless there was some really good reason like a un-workaroundable bug) such as this.
RE: DFD: 418 vs. 209, 972 vs. 240 - Darkstorm - 20.07.2010
Buildings have some issue with it I think, but I believe tanks have already been made to where they can, by ARES. Finishing the logic would be nice. While I'm not saying that the PrismSupport logic would do anything great or allow Tesla Coils to power each other, I believe the logic would be worth more than saving a few seconds (other than a chosen few that it could go up to a minute).
RE: DFD: 418 vs. 209, 972 vs. 240 - AlexB - 22.07.2010
Fight 1
To make it short: Prism Support. Longer version: I confess, I'm very impatient when it comes to stuff that doesn't work right or too slow. In this case it does not have to be slow, but it is, by design. While using a one-click exit method might be a little harsh and is prone to user error, there are other ways to achieve a better user experience. One could think about removing the button animations so they won't slide out/in. This doesn't remove any steps, but makes the exit procedure faster. Or one could check for the Shift or Control key whenever an exit button is clicked and quit the game instead of going to the parent menu. This isn't that error prone for you have to press a key to get that feature, and even if you press it by accident, you get a prompt to verify. If this isn't fast enough, use your computer's reset button.
Fight 2
Tanks can already overpower the Tesla Coils. This is about altering the overpowering logic. I'm not fond of the idea to over-do this logic as it might be very hard to get it right. Currently, Tesla Coils get a larger range if overpowered. Should this be customizable with tags or should the game just switch to Secondary as it does now. Fixed weapon damage addition, multiplication with a factor, or both? Having OverPowerType=Prism to prevent Tesla Troopers from overpowering Prism Towers? Should Prims Towers also stay online if it has two overpowerers or should this be customizable? This logic can quickly become a monster. Changing the building type when overpowered? What if the overpowered building has another overpowered building type set? Then, should the building change type every frame? A nightmare, and I have just started thinking about it. More from the top of my head: What if EMP'd? Changing types would remove that or it will have to copy every important property like Iron Curtain/Force Shield timers. Should there be more than two overpower weapons? There are only two slots and Prisms use one to shoot and one to support, no room for another. Support PrimaryOverpowered=AssaultBolt? Then, PrimaryOverpowered2=FuckingBigBolt? And if there are more weapon slots added? And all that to expand this logic to Prism Towers. A nightmare, indeed. I better stop.
Changing the look depending on site is a very nice little feature. Turrets, WaterVoxels and Barrels will potentially make it more complicated, but there is no point to have lots and lots of duplicate code to create a brownish Grizzly for Yuri and a shiny Magnetron for the Allies. If all other properties stay the same, this would be a beautiful way to have less AI and TeamTypes code. The initial owner's look is used. One ID, one tank, type select for free.
RE: DFD: 418 vs. 209, 972 vs. 240 - DCoder - 22.07.2010
Re: overpowering. I already floated the idea of making overpowering a new state for purposes of WeaponStates instead of complicating this.
Quote:If all other properties stay the same...They won't... even in CannisRules capture pack versions have properties different from their base versions. Other, less conservative, mods are even more likely to want that.
RE: DFD: 418 vs. 209, 972 vs. 240 - Renegade - 23.07.2010
To all those who needlessly leveled insults against those wanting single-click-quit: Go fuck yourselves.
I recently tested something and had to quit the game a good dozen times in close succession - I would've been very happy about single-click-quit.
But hey, if you think you convince us of the factual merit of your argumentation by randomly insulting potential opponents...alright then. Do as you must. We'll see what effects it has.
Fight 1
One-click-quit is too quick, due to misclicks; three-click-quit (menu-exit-are you sure?), however, is perfectly acceptable and has been in a number of RTSs for a while. I could go on, but this is simple: I think that quick quit would be nice, but I don't think the effort invested would be worth the effect.
Since Marsh already commented on #209 saying its changes should be part of #340, and he's working on #340, that means less work for the rest of us. ^^
Kill: #418
Support: #209
Fight 2
I liked the capture pack, the only problem with it was the 100-units-bug. And Alex's argumentation is very convincing (and terror-inducing). Alas, I can't help it - the overpowering suggestions sound cool.
Kill: #972
Support: #240
RE: DFD: 418 vs. 209, 972 vs. 240 - DCoder - 06.08.2010
Support #209 as it's part of #340
Support #972 as I still think #240 is better done as part of #983 without all that excessive customization and type switching.
RE: DFD: 418 vs. 209, 972 vs. 240 - Renegade - 06.08.2010
Result:
Survivors #209 and #972.