+- 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: 326 vs. 1042, 444 vs. 612 (/showthread.php?tid=1609)
DFD: 326 vs. 1042, 444 vs. 612 - 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
[0000326] VeteranSoylent / EliteSoylent vs. [0001042] Targeted Abilities and Multiple Weapon Modes
Fight 2
[0000444] OpenTopped Units Not Requiring A Primary vs. [0000612] AI Enhancements
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: 326 vs. 942, 444 vs. 612 - reaperrr - 23.07.2010
Fight 1:
EDIT: So now that #942 was replaced with #1042, I'd rather vote support #1042, kill #326. #326 is just a small extension to the Grinder logic, whereas #1042 could be used for some nice twists.
Fight 2:
I consider AI improvements more necessary and urgent than fixing an annoying-but-minor issue.
So kill #444.
RE: DFD: 326 vs. 942, 444 vs. 612 - Beowulf - 23.07.2010
For Fight 1, I abstain completely. I don't like #326 and #1042, while nice, would be WAY too much for YR to handle.
I can't not support my own issue so I say go for #444. #612 can be worked around most of the time anyway.
[EDIT] Since Ren updated things, I'll update my thoughts.
RE: DFD: 326 vs. 1042, 444 vs. 612 - Renegade - 23.07.2010
Administrative Notice:
I have replaced #942 with its requested replacement #1042.RE: DFD: 326 vs. 1042, 444 vs. 612 - mt. - 23.07.2010
Fight 1
I like these both the same, it doesn't matter to me which gets through.
Fight 2
444
Please Kill This.
So what if they need a primary? Put a dummy weapon with the right range if you want it unarmed. Even if there are some bugs with that I consider this very, very minor.
612
Fully and absolutely Support this.
In comparison I consider this one of the essential Ares features.
Considerably improving AI is a must in YR Imo. The option to allowing entire squads to act as one does just that.
-One of the reasons most AI teamtypes are not very effective is if they get picked off one by one. A few snipers killing an infantry infantry squad, or a bunch of tanks (except for the fraction being attacked) moving right past defences uncaring. Retaliating one by one breaks up the AI force and doesn't really get the threats (defences) eliminated.
Example: AI uses attack conyard trigger with say tanks. You have garrisoned buildings, and even an outpost in the way of the route. With this feature your outpost and garrisoned buildings might have fallen. Without it they just get slightly damaged. No tanks reach your main base even, being all left behind, one by one.
RE: DFD: 326 vs. 1042, 444 vs. 612 - RandomNutjob - 23.07.2010
I go for 1042 [once is translated lol] and 612 - definitely need better AI
RE: DFD: 326 vs. 1042, 444 vs. 612 - eva-251 - 23.07.2010
Fight #1
Kill 326: Way too limited in usefulness.
Support 1042: While I see this being difficult to implement, it offers much more in the long run than 326.
Fight #2
Kill 444: MT echos my sentiments. While the workaround isn't perfect, it should do the job well enough.
Support 612: The reason why RA2/YR simply cannot be challenging without ridiculous cheating (gigantic economic advantage, multi-factories, etc) is the lack of these improvements. The AI hits a defensive position and lets a single Prism Tower or Tesla Coil zap the attackers one by one. A mixed Prism/Mirage force gets demolished by a single Apoc. The list goes on and on.
Bettering YR's AI is a must- we should not have to depend entirely on making it get 65,000 from a single Chrono Miner dump or building 5 Grizzlies at once for it be a challenge.
RE: DFD: 326 vs. 1042, 444 vs. 612 - Blade - 23.07.2010
Out of interest, what isn't perfect about and invisible, nondamaging weapon as the primary? Is there something else the weapon slot needs using for? I guess it means you could target stuff when it can't actually do anything to them?
RE: DFD: 326 vs. 1042, 444 vs. 612 - MRMIdAS - 23.07.2010
[0001042] although multiple weapon states may get confusing, an expanded logic isn't a bad thing.
[0000612] AI needs enhancements, more taksforces/scripts can only go so far.
RE: DFD: 326 vs. 1042, 444 vs. 612 - Nighthawk - 24.07.2010
For fight one:
The first issue is one of those little ones that isn't majorly noticeable in its applications, but it's definitely something that could come in handy, especially if improvements to what units can gain upon promotion are implemented. I wouldn't give this feature a major amount of priority, but it's just one of those simple things that could occasionally be useful. For example, if a mod has a unit that becomes vastly upgraded (in weapons or whatever) upon promotion, why not reflect that in its Soylent? It could also add a new economy dynamic for Yuri or any other side that makes use of a Grinder-logic building - do you save your promoted units for use on the battlefield, or send them to the Grinder for a cash profit to produce more rookie ones.
As for the second issue... I'm finding it rather difficult to understand what is actually being requested. It seems to me like a massively wordy version of saying "I want a keyboard button that can switch WeaponTypes on a unit." While such a thing could, I guess, be handy in some mods, this isn't Generals - there's no contextual command bar to tell you what mode your unit is currently in. This could easily lead to confusion among players who don't know what their units are meant to be shooting, or even accidentally switch their modes through an accidental keypress. Also, the requested implementation sounds rather complicated. A simpler method would surely just be more Primary/Secondary/Tertiary/Foobary tags and the button that swaps them about?
As such, my stance is support #326, kill #1042.
For fight two:
For the first issue, I really think this is a low priority thing. A workaround is very easily doable just through using a dummy Primary weapon that does no damage, but has an average enough range that the OpenTopped unit would move close enough to its target for the occupants to attack. The only issue is that the empty unit would get a targeting cursor, and could be told to "attack" without any occupants. However, I don't think this is of major consequence at the minute.
The second issue, however, while also being somewhat minor, seems much more useful in my opinion. Restoring the functionality of the Aggressive tag would go a long way to improving YR's somewhat castrated AI. It would mean the AI might actually bother to shoot back if you start firing weapons at it, and properly defend its bases and teams.
As such, my stance is support #612, kill #444.
RE: DFD: 326 vs. 1042, 444 vs. 612 - AlphaBravo - 25.07.2010
(24.07.2010, 02:01:37)Nighthawk200 Wrote: As for the second issue... I'm finding it rather difficult to understand what is actually being requested. It seems to me like a massively wordy version of saying "I want a keyboard button that can switch WeaponTypes on a unit." While such a thing could, I guess, be handy in some mods, this isn't Generals - there's no contextual command bar to tell you what mode your unit is currently in. This could easily lead to confusion among players who don't know what their units are meant to be shooting, or even accidentally switch their modes through an accidental keypress. Also, the requested implementation sounds rather complicated. A simpler method would surely just be more Primary/Secondary/Tertiary/Foobary tags and the button that swaps them about?
The problem with "Swap them About" is that you would never be sure on your unit's mode (had this problem). Also, the reason it's so wordy it's because I SPECED IT OUT, and (at least parts 1, 2, and 3) would be easy to implement. Part #4 is harder, but it can wait a version or so.
Yes, #1042 is my issue, but I think it's a major gameplay boost and (after #983 is implemented) will be a quick add-in - just ask DCoder. Because it's 2 mode keys, if you're not sure about a unit's mode, just touch the wanted mode key.
- AlphaBravo
RE: DFD: 326 vs. 1042, 444 vs. 612 - 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: 326 vs. 1042, 444 vs. 612 - Renegade - 06.08.2010
Fight 1
I dislike #1042. imo it's a giant-ass, bloated, unwanted, unneeded "would be nice" feature without a usage case.
Even on the new issue, the only supporter is the requester himself, and on the old issue, the support-opposition ratio is whooping 2 to 7.
It's overly complicated, serves no particular community need, and...and...that's it. There's nothing else. It's just complicated and unwanted by the community.
I do consider #326 to be utterly useless and illogical (why the fuck would 80 kilos of old and weathered human meat be worth more than 80 kilos young and fresh human meat?), but at least it'd be a small, narrow and effective extension of an existing logic, easy to implement.
Better an illogical, easy extension than a complicated behemoth of DO NOT WANT.
Kill: #1042
Support: #326
Fight 2
Here, I agree with the general discussion sentiment - #444 can be solved with a dummy, while #612 is the kind of "little" change that could significantly improve the AI's game.
Kill: #444
Support: #612
RE: DFD: 326 vs. 1042, 444 vs. 612 - AlexB - 07.08.2010
Fight 1
The targeted abilities are indeed a monster and there's no indication what unit does what currently. I still like the deployer stats change issue and it could be used here, also. If you got a tank, you deploy it into an anti-infantry version. Deploying can also change turrets and other optical stuff. It is visible to the user, has an interface the user is familiar with and is much more powerful because it can't just change weapons. 1042 is just not intuitive.
I vote for the soylent expansion, as it is easier to do.
Fight 2
Everyone who plays YR once in a while knows how predictable the game is. Who didn't build a bunch of dolphins to catch the attention of a weather storm or nuke flying by? Who hasn't taken out enemy units one by one? Who hasn't used a long range weapon on a ridge to attack the enemy's base and ambushed the enemy units trying to get to it? Barrel aimed at the attacker, they are driving blindly even through base defenses. YR needs heavy AI enhancements.
RE: DFD: 326 vs. 1042, 444 vs. 612 - Renegade - 07.08.2010
Result:
As posted above.