+- 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: 936 vs. 429, 718 vs. 717 (/showthread.php?tid=1610)
DFD: 936 vs. 429, 718 vs. 717 - 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
[0000936] customizable heightlevel for weapons and planes (equivalent to flight level on aircraft) vs. [0000429] SW.RequiredHouses and SW.ForbiddenHouses
Fight 2
[0000718] Extend crate spawning logic vs. [0000717] Buildup tweaks
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: 936 vs. 429, 718 vs. 717 - reaperrr - 23.07.2010
Fight 1:
#936: uh, first of all I don't understand why the requester wants that additional "heightlevel" thing added when FlightLevel should be just fine.
For weapons, isn't this covered by range already? I mean, Range DOES factor in height.
I might have missed something, but to me it seems this whole request is rather pointless.
#429 isn't much better IMO. Unless i misunderstood something, this feature doesn't add anything special, you can achieve the same with clones of the SW building that have the desired different characteristic. It may make things a bit easier, but that's about it.
Uh, really, both should die... but #429 would make something a bit easier, so it has at least some value, so kill #936.
Fight 2:
This is easier. Having more control over what exact kind of crate is left behind by a destroyed building or unit would be nice indeed (weap factory leaves firepower crate, armory leaves veterancy crate, hospital leaves healing crate; stuff like that).
De-globalization of buildup anim speed would be nice, but it doesn't have as much gameplay value, so kill #717.
RE: DFD: 936 vs. 429, 718 vs. 717 - Beowulf - 23.07.2010
Kill #936. I only thing Mig Eater would use this, but I think he's doing fine without it. xD That being said, I support 429 because I LOVE the idea. The uses would just be amazing and I would love to see it implemented.
Sorry #717, but I have to give this to #718. Crates are great but spawning them is cumbersome in practice. It would be nice to see things be able to spawn a crate without TruckCrate=yes being set in the map.
RE: DFD: 936 vs. 429, 718 vs. 717 - MRMIdAS - 23.07.2010
[0000429] is a great idea, saves cloning buildings and other hacky work that requires cloning buildings, scripts and AI triggers.
[0000718] Crate logic needs extending, this issue would help that.
RE: DFD: 936 vs. 429, 718 vs. 717 - 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: 936 vs. 429, 718 vs. 717 - AlexB - 29.07.2010
Fight 1
Wouldn't it be possible to recreate the extremely-high-flying-aircraft that ordinary weapons can't reach with custom Verses? On the other hand, what if units are above the flight level? A flak trying to shoot at infantry on a cliff is hard to imagine. And tanks shooting from a cliff at planes flying through a valley below wouldn't be considered a realistic enhancement either.
Forbidden SWs would not only lead to less code duplication if you don't have to copy the buildings for each country, it would also allow these buildings to be capturable without allowing the captor to gain access to the forbidden SW.
Fight 2
Buildup tweaks would be cool, but this may be a lot of work. One issue is as old as the other and vice versa. Yet one had many supporters in the ranking and had some comments, the other does not. But in the DFD, the other one got all the votes. Strange world.
I don't know how complex it would be to enable buildings only after their buildup anim has finished playing. It may break something I'm not aware of. For today, I'm going with the crate logic extension.
It's not a real game changer and I guess it will be used rarely, but it might come in handy in the event a special building or unit is destroyed. I just chose this because it is easier to implement. If it is not that difficult, I'd chose the build anim issue.
RE: DFD: 936 vs. 429, 718 vs. 717 - Renegade - 06.08.2010
Fight 1
#936 is half-worthless for requesting something that already exists and then actually mentioning the existing functionality in the summary.
Only the weapons part would, potentially, have been interesting, but with High=, there's a kinda-sorta pre-existing logic for that as well, and it simply doesn't seem to be all that interesting to the community, neither in the request nor in this DFD.
Therefore, #936 must die.
Kill: #936
Support: #429
Fight 2
Oh look! The oh-so-exciting suggestion to enable slooooooooow buildups was actually a duplicate! Clearly more people want the nerve-wrecking excitement of slow-ass buildups!
Not just that, but the submitter of the duplicate actually commented on the original, before submitting the duplicate, making it a knowing, willful duplicate.
Oh the things you learn in DFDs...
In case you didn't extrapolate it from my tone, "slower buildups" is boring as shit and I have no interest in it. #718, on the other hand, is a clear, narrow, logical extension of existing functionality, and all posters in this fight want it.
The choice is clear.
Kill: #717
Support: #718
Since Alex voted the same, this is the result.