+- 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: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 (/showthread.php?tid=1599)
DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 - 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
[0000931] Limited distance jumpjet usage or C&C 3 style jumpjets vs. [0000298] New survivor system
Fight 2
[0000769] Initial Strength vs. [0000916] Directional armour
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: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 - Beowulf - 23.07.2010
Kill #931. It would be a cool effect for sure, but it is vastly outclassed by #298. Being able to specify survivors per BuildingType would be amazing. It would keep people from getting Engineers belonging to the Allies if playing as the Soviets or Yuri. That would be rather nice...
I wouldn't normally pick #769, but #916 isn't really fit for RA2's engine. Neither is a great idea to be perfectly honest, BUT #769 might lead to interesting application in some mods. I support #769 based solely on the fact that it kinda fits the RA2 engine.
RE: DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 - mt. - 23.07.2010
I'd have to agree with Fen (^) on this for the most part.
Fight 1
[0000931]
Kill it!
-Limited use: Jumpjets aren't even used much in stock. What maybe 2 times? A mod could add more but most don't.
-Ingame Value: Sure it looks nice, but other than that the most I see it doing is making the unit slower on average, and less cliff-water friendly. Not to mention a lot more complicated.
-Implementation. Have fun with the AI.
[0000298]
Save it.
-More customization on crew= more variety, realism, and/or tactical value (depending on how used).
-Building use, a mix of technicians, gi's, or whatever you want.
I've been wanting a system like this (for vehicles at least) ever since the thread on the existing crew implementation, I didn't notice this request though.
Fight 2
One of these is my feature request. Does that mean I shouldn't be involved in this or write my thoughts on the other feature? I skimmed the rules and nothing about it stood out to me.
RE: DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 - MRMIdAS - 23.07.2010
[0000298] is a worthy extension to existing logic. gets my vote.
I doubt I'd use it but [0000916] seems like a good feature, enables sneak attacks etc.
RE: DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 - Darkstorm - 24.07.2010
The new survivor system easily beats its opponent. However the second fight has to go to the initial strength, which I personally have a use for and directional armor will take a HELL of a long time for little gain IMO. I still remember Pd saying something when this was originally brought up about the game not caring where the unit was hit. Though Dcoder did state in a comment that the Rocker logic would help in this fact. Though I still think the feature is trash, initial strength could open up a few possibilities.
RE: DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 - Lt Albrecht - 25.07.2010
Ah... I remember submitting that ages ago, seems like years (might have been too 0.o). If it weren't so difficult to implement I'd back it more, useful for D-Day style mods or for balancing that super-unit. Sure on the front 3 side's it's nigh invulnerable but from the back? Keep watch or die...
RE: DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 - Striker - 26.07.2010
1) I support #298, because of these both, it's the new survivor system that I will use more. Being able to exactly define the survivors and also having the chance to make this either random or static sounds better than playing around with jumpjets.
2) I support #916, because I'd give this a try to make positioning bread and butter in tank wars, which will lead to more micromanagement. Don't look at this feature and think: Front & Sides: 0% damage, Back: 999% damage. I have a 60-80% armor in front, 80-90% in the sides and 100% in the back in mind. Something not that spectacular but simply enough to make the first tank war not only dependent on outnumbering. While (random) initial Health sound good, I clearly support directional armour.
RE: DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 - Renegade - 28.07.2010
Administrative Notice:
Given that there have been no new posts in almost three days, it is assumed this discussion is finished; we will proceed to consider the arguments.RE: DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 - Renegade - 06.08.2010
Fight 1
Oh look, it's yet another jumpjet issue...what is this, Duplicate Hour on DFD?
Anyway, the consensus seems clear.
Kill: #931
Support: #298
Fight 2
I just plain dislike #769. It's pointless, it goes against any convention of how health in games in general and in RTSs in particular works, and, most importantly, the usage examples suck ass.
Why would my paratroopers magically be of ill health, just because they're paras? Last I heard, paratroopers were among the better kinds of soldiers.
Pre-placed buildings can have their health set in the editor, or an Advanced Rubble rubble state can be pre-placed. Why the fuck would I want a buildable damaged building? Seriously, I'd like to hear the ingame explanation for that - "Iraqi Engineers have all been exposed to badly shielded Desolator fuel rods. Therefore, their brains are damaged and they suck at building."?
And if I give a unit a little attention by letting it hunt a few crates first, resulting in higher speed and better armor, it also has a slight edge - no new logics necessary.
There is a very simple question that #769 generates, and it provides no satisfying answer to it: Why the hell would I want my objects to be at less than full health when built?
With #916, on the other hand, I mostly have technical issues. I'm wondering about the complexity of implementation and performance issues. But at least, if implemented, it would be a useful/worthy/non-crappy feature.
Kill: #769
Support: #916
RE: DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 - AlexB - 06.08.2010
Fight 1
A few weeks ago I thought about deglobalising the Engineer and implementing a new survivor system. I still like the idea.
Jumpjets aren't used much, but most mods seem to have buildings in them. Most mods that have buildings spawn survivors if one of these buildings is destroyed. The Survivor issue should reach more modders potentially.
Fight 2
Directional armor looks like a very un-C&C-ish issue and would fit a simulation game more than RA2. But it has it's merits, no doubt. Initial strength could be used to create units that are stronger and that can't be repaired/healed to full health anymore.
I like none of them but vote for the directional armor.
@mt.: You can of course comment on your own issues.
RE: DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 - Renegade - 07.08.2010
Result:
As above.