+- 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: 426 vs. 510, 323 vs. 993 (/showthread.php?tid=1596)
DFD: 426 vs. 510, 323 vs. 993 - 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
[0000426] Super Weapon upgrading. vs. [0000510] Multiple Voxel-Turrets (Battleships like in RA2)
Fight 2
[0000323] NoAmmoAlt= (or even NoAmmoClass= !?) vs. [0000993] Realistic nuclear Explosion
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: 426 vs. 510, 323 vs. 993 - reaperrr - 23.07.2010
Fight 1:
#426 is not exactly a must-have, but it still sounds like a nice idea. If you upgrade your SW building your SW gets stronger, I like that idea.
#510: a purely visual enhancement, and could be a small nightmare to implement. Even if we assume the possibility to have two separate turrets is added, how should xxxxFLH be handled, to which of the turrets should it be assigned? and to which turret should which weapon be assigned? also, currently FLHs are calculated not from the center of the turret but from the center of the unit.
To top it all off, only a few units like battleships would use this.
So kill #510, it was nice in RA1, but I don't think it's worth the effort.
Fight 2:
#993: according to the comments, if EligibleForDelayKill= is promoted from BuildingType to general availability this should be doable with existing features, and it doesn't sound all that useful either way.
#323 can be emulated in some cases, but not all, and would be a nice feat so I'd say kill #993.
RE: DFD: 426 vs. 510, 323 vs. 993 - Beowulf - 23.07.2010
This is a tough choice. Both of the requests have their own merit, but I think I'm going to have to lean towards #510. Multiple turrets on a vehicle has been wanted since long before any modder patches and it seems like a slightly better choice than overwriteable superweapons. In any case, nix #426 and keep #510.
The second fight is just as tough to pick. Again, both have their merits, but I really have to go with #993 for the 'shockwave' effect, which is just expanded DelayKill logic, which I like. It doesn't see near enough use and this would provide a better expansion on a neat warhead effect. NoAmmoAlt just doesn't seem quite as usable since it requires new graphics instead of just an INI tag.
RE: DFD: 426 vs. 510, 323 vs. 993 - Blade - 23.07.2010
While I broadly agree with Beowulf on this one, I will just add the comment on fight 1 that multiple turrets, although a nice graphical effect, isn't really needed for a cruiser like unit that will work just as well functionally with one double barreled turret and burst. Is that enough to sway a decision away from a popular feature just for overrideable supers? Maybe not, but might be worth bearing in mind.
RE: DFD: 426 vs. 510, 323 vs. 993 - MRMIdAS - 23.07.2010
[0000426] gets my vote, upgradable supers would be a great idea.
[0000323] is a cool idea, even if it's only a graphical effect. shouldn't be too hard to implement.
RE: DFD: 426 vs. 510, 323 vs. 993 - Lt Albrecht - 25.07.2010
#426 could have some uses, as could #510. However although I'd prefer #510 I remember what it would entail...
#993 can be done with a few little tricks (next= on nuke's anim etc)
Whereas #323 would allow things like aircraft actually appearing to have dropped their weapons, katyushas with a handy visual indication that 'I'm empty' (lack of big green rockets on the rails) and it's all really just an extension of an existing logic with the kind of voxelling work someone like me or fen could handle: delete payload, go to normals mode, paint gap roughly the right normal. You could do things like simulate the TS EMP tank too (with or without different ammo use per-weapon) by giving it an 'empty' art for uncharged and a 'full' art for charged...
#993 though?
Quote:We do have a ripple effect in Ares. I'm sure this will do what you need it to do. If not, give the nuke weapon the physical damage in the form of something like a ring anim, then give the ring anim Next= with the nuclear explosion. I'm sure a clever coder could achieve the nuclear shockwave effect in Ares as it is.
Quote:Well, promoting that [eligiblefordelaykill] to general availability would still be easier than introducing entirely new shock wave logic, wouldn't it?
RE: DFD: 426 vs. 510, 323 vs. 993 - Renegade - 28.07.2010
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: 426 vs. 510, 323 vs. 993 - Renegade - 06.08.2010
Fight 1
Even if #426 weren't yet another super-complicated make-everything-but-coffee request, I want Battleships. It's as simple as that.
Though seriously...even if I didn't want #510 for personal reasons, #426 is a damn mess.
Kill: #426
Support: #510
Fight 2
Oh look...yet another "change the object depending on X" request.
#993 and #555 would best be combined, as both are proposing similar things.
#323 has a further-reaching duplicate in #988.
Both #555 and #988 are also in the DFD and are currently awaiting the other judges' decisions.
So there's really nothing new in this fight, and either side might survive anyway if its companion wins elsewhere.
As such, I'll go with what's easier to implement, especially since I like Albrecht's usage-case.
Kill: #993
Support: #323
RE: DFD: 426 vs. 510, 323 vs. 993 - AlexB - 06.08.2010
Fight 1
Upgradable super weapons are not a bad idea but I think the Battleships would look so much better in-game. There are indeed many SWs that could be upgraded: more paratroopers, faster recharge time, more damage or larger range... There are also some units that could benefit from two or more turrets: Battleships, epic units,... ok, I'm out of ideas.
Nonetheless, that crazy cruisers in RA1 were just cool. They looked as powerful as they were. Multiple-voxel turrets.
Fight 2
More realistic nuclear explosions for a game with a comic bomb. Even for small bombs (and superweapons aren't) the explosion would vaporise everything even a dozen miles away. Projected from infantry sizes, everything on the map would just wither in immense heat and bright light, that, as the name already reveals, travels at the speed of light. More realistic indeed.
Mobile EMPs are cool. I like the visual change when loaded, thus NoAmmoAlt=.
RE: DFD: 426 vs. 510, 323 vs. 993 - Renegade - 06.08.2010
Result:
As outlined in either judgement.