+- 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: 953 vs. 605, 915 vs. 386 (/showthread.php?tid=1595)
DFD: 953 vs. 605, 915 vs. 386 - Renegade - 22.07.2010
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, the adjustment and the schedule.
Fight 1
[0000953] UnitBuildSpeed change vs. [0000605] New Health Bar Levels
Fight 2
[0000915] Increase the number of facings for SHP units vs. [0000386] make unit use "simple deploy" logic can move after deploy.
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!
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.
RE: DFD: 953 vs. 605, 915 vs. 386 - Blade - 23.07.2010
Fight 1 I don't really care for either contestant, as in the comments, there are already plenty of ways to adjust build speed for units, but the health bar thing is such a minor change it hardly seem worth whatever effort it might take.
Fight 2, for .shp units, there is only really any point doing that for units that are going to turn really slowly in which case, just make a voxel and stop complaining they don't look as detailed. The only other thing would be units when they are targeting something that isn't directly in one of the 8 movement directions, but oh, .shp turrets can already have 32 facings, so just give it a turret if it HAS to be a .shp. Simple deployer I think has a lot of support for those that want to make "transformer" units and would be better made use of by the community.
RE: DFD: 953 vs. 605, 915 vs. 386 - Beowulf - 23.07.2010
Fight 1 is just... not good. Neither is particularly useful and #605 is controlled through the PIPS! I support NEITHER.
Kill #915. Support #386 since it's at least a hell of a lot more useful. I'd love to see #386 in play.
RE: DFD: 953 vs. 605, 915 vs. 386 - MRMIdAS - 23.07.2010
between [0000953] and [0000605], neither is overly attractive, kill them both.
[0000386] is the better of another 2 meh issues, keep that one.
RE: DFD: 953 vs. 605, 915 vs. 386 - Renegade - 27.07.2010
Administrative Notice:
Given that there have been no new posts in the past three days, it is assumed this discussion is finished; we will proceed to consider the arguments.RE: DFD: 953 vs. 605, 915 vs. 386 - AlexB - 29.07.2010
Fight 1
Both issues seem to be... loved. The health bar issue is just optical nick nack while the build time decreasing tags at least alter the game just like an Industrial Plant. If any has to implemented my vote is on the UnitBuildSpeed one, as it has potential to be followed by similar tags for Speed/ROF/Strenght to be used as building upgrades to tech up.
Fight 2
I don't agree with the opinions in here. The moving simple deployer issue just seems like another "change into other type when deploying" issue (or is there anything special about it?), but that would be even more flexible. Eight facings aren't that important for the game to work, but it does help old SHP fanatics to create less jerking units. Eight facings.
RE: DFD: 953 vs. 605, 915 vs. 386 - Renegade - 06.08.2010
Fight 1
#953 is crappy. Blade said it perfectly: there are already plenty of ways to adjust build speed for units.
Unfortunately, Beowulf is correct with something about #605: #605 is controlled through the PIPS!
Therefore, #953 would "only" need an override, while #605 would need support for a new pips SHP layout, damage level overrides, etc.
I actually think #605 is a valid request, and would have worked with requests like revivable infantry and stuff - have the normal three levels, and then a fourth, blue, one for the last point of health, for the revivable state.
But even with that, it would be a mostly pointless and rarely used feature.
So yeah...both features are undesirable, but #953 is easier to implement.
I guess we'll just use the Ultimate Smackdown to kill that one as well.
Kill: #605
Support: #953
Fight 2
My word this one is a crappy DFD. Both these issues suck.
My position on #915 is no secret, but I'm not gonna repeat it, mainly because this DFD basically decides itself:
As much as I may hate #915, at least half the people in the discussion/ICS on the tracker support it, and it was at least "interesting" enough that people actually cared to debate it.
#386, on the other hand, has exactly one comment, no ICS, and even that comment is not supporting the issue, but suggesting other workarounds. Beyond all that, it simply defeats the damn purpose of the system. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not remember a single unit in YR ever moving when deployed. Deployed units don't move. Moving deployed units is nothing more than yet another way to achieve unit → unit conversion, and we have enough better requests for that.
Kill: #386
Support: #915
Since Alex voted the same way, this is the result.