+- 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-R3: 461 vs. 924, 943 vs. 612 (/showthread.php?tid=1643)
DFD-R3: 461 vs. 924, 943 vs. 612 - Renegade - 11.08.2010
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
[461] Hold fire vs. [924] (Ares 0.X) EMP-Like Temporal
Fight 2
[943] Place land on water support. vs. [612] 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-R3: 461 vs. 924, 943 vs. 612 - reaperrr - 11.08.2010
Fight 1:
I want more control over how my stealth units (and units in general) behave.
Support #461
Kill #924
Fight 2:
#612 is a simple, straightforward, reasonable request, and AI improvements are something RA2/YR clearly needs and nearly every mod would benefit from.
#943, well like most requests it may have its uses, but if i have to decide between those two, my choice clearly is
support #612
kill #943
RE: DFD-R3: 461 vs. 924, 943 vs. 612 - mt. - 11.08.2010
Fight 1:
#924
Kill this.
#461
Support this.
Reason: Hold fire can potentially effect EVERY unit or even building.
Not only for stealth, but you can hold fire on mind control or other units for benefit (since for example mind controlling has a delay time which can screw up what you want to do). Also anything with limited ammo, you don't want them wasting their ammo on conscripts do you? In comparison what would Area of effect Chrono-erase do? Not much at all, temporal was used in ONE thing in Yuri's revenge, and I don't see mods which add more than 3-4. Area of effect temporal just doesn't have enough uses, the most I can see it is "one" special superweapon or sush in the occasional mod.
Fight 2:
#943
Kill this.
#612
Support this.
Reason: Building bridges is cool. Is it cooler than an Artificial Intelligence which is actually somewhat of a threat? No. While the Water/Land thing would be useful only on certain water maps, the AI enhancements could help anywhere, mountains, lakes, or even the goddamn moon.
RE: DFD-R3: 461 vs. 924, 943 vs. 612 - eva-251 - 11.08.2010
Fight 1
Kill 924
This was a tough choice. This feature has its uses and far from a "bad" request. However, it's something I think many can live without.
Support 461
In testing sessions for my mod Star Strike, testers were often frustrated by Stealth Tanks and Mirage Transports, both units that can be used for covert infantry operations or ambush operations. For example, Stealth Tanks auto-acquire because they are primarily combat vehicles, with the extra passenger being there to facilitate raiding. However, auto-acquiring makes it tedious to perform stealth missions or ambushes. Making it not auto-acquire fixes this, but also makes it useless in being a passive defense against aircraft and other fast moving targets.
Being able to tell selective units to STFU or go gung-ho has far reaching benefits, moreso than cell-spread temporal weapons, and for a larger group of people.
Fight 2
Kill 943
I don't feel this suggestion merits survival not because it's pitted against one of my own suggestions, but because it's just too gimmicky. Sure, we'd all like to be able to build a crossing from our base to the enemy's on Tsunami or whatever the naval map of choice would happen to be, but is altering the map this extensively necessarily a good thing?
This is different from pavement, which didn't alter the structure of the map or create alternate access routes to enemy bases.
Map designers may not intend for this to happen, and it offers a wealth of nasty game balance (not mod balance) issues, such as land-locking enemy naval-yards, which has no practical and sane remedy other than selling the naval-yard and building elsewhere. (buildable water would cause many, many more problems...)
Support 612
Much of the reasoning for why 612 should survive can be found in the last DFD thread it was in, but reaperrr puts it best: All mods would benefit from this feature- even the unmodified game would.
RE: DFD-R3: 461 vs. 924, 943 vs. 612 - Blade - 11.08.2010
I'd only support 461 if as was suggested in the issue it encompassed adding control for other missions as well. Personally I feel this could again be a special case of the proposed deploys into where you have two identical units, one that passive acquires and one that doesn't and can depoy each into the other as though it was the same unit switching modes. Again all the deploys stuff should be rolled up into as single accepted request and their oponenents go forward IMO. Of course the developers might take a different view
As it stands I'd rather see the Area temporal feature go forward on the basis that ideally some varient of deploys into will be against something I don't care about, will get implemented and will allow the other use cases that were up against stuff I did like.
RE: DFD-R3: 461 vs. 924, 943 vs. 612 - Speeder - 11.08.2010
Support #461. There are reasons for 'hold fire' mode to exist in modern RTS games, YR would benefit from it as well. Ambushes? Yes! Control over stealth unit's behaviour? Yes!
I also support #612 because it's something that would really improve AI behaviour and land-on-water sounds a bit silly. Place-buildings-on-water was a way better suggestion.
RE: DFD-R3: 461 vs. 924, 943 vs. 612 - MRMIdAS - 11.08.2010
[461] is good for controlling stealthed units, so they don't give themselves away too soon.
[612] AI needs improvement more than random mods need land bridges.
RE: DFD-R3: 461 vs. 924, 943 vs. 612 - Beowulf - 11.08.2010
Support #461. Rather see a hold fire command over another Temporal/EMP-like superweapon. Hold fire gives better support for stealth units and allows better ambush tactics and strategies.
Support #612. The AI will benefit everyone, not a minor subset of people. #943 is a bit too gimmicky for my taste, but #612 is something the AI really, really, REALLY needs. Let's benefit the AI before a gimmick rolls in.
RE: DFD-R3: 461 vs. 924, 943 vs. 612 - Renegade - 16.08.2010
Administrative Notice:
Since the last post in this discussion was five days ago, it is assumed to be over. We will proceed to judgement.RE: DFD-R3: 461 vs. 924, 943 vs. 612 - Renegade - 18.08.2010
Fight 1
My primary interest in #924 was CellSpread Temporal-ness, for the awesome "oh shit" effect when something drops or deploys in the middle of your base and erases a big hole into it.
Nothing quite like seeing half your base vanish into thin air.
Given the demand of working CellSpread for Temporal, I have no doubt that particular part will inevitably be coded one day, so my personal interest in the feature ends there.
What does it offer beyond that?
- Temporal eradication without an active shooter
- Timed temporal eradication
- Some random thing with a cap that I don't understand because the submitter moronically submitted his request in some badly formatted, illegible pseudo-code without comments or sense.
The main issue I have with this is: What is the goddamn point?
If I don't need a unit to continue the temporal eradication, then the target is basically fucked the second I hit.
The only difference is when the target stops occupying the space.
It's a one-shot-kills weapon, and the only difference to a Chrono Monkey with Nuke Bananas is that the building keeps occupying space for Temporal.Duration frames, rather than just exploding and going away.
Unless, of course, one were to actually code it like EMP, meaning the temporal phaseness would stop after the duration, returning the building to life.
That would be kinda neat, but would also not be too different from EMP, and actually lack any kind of advantage over it - I mean, seriously: If I temporarily chrono the enemy's units, what's the situation? His units are invulnerable, I can't destroy them, but in this scenario, they also won't vanish. All I'm doing is delaying his usage of them, maybe giving me time to summon reinforcements. A slight tactical advantage, but EMP would be more helpful.
All in all, CellSpread temporal effects were the best part of that request, and the rest is just a simple way to turn temporal into super weapons and a neat graphical effect.
None of it equals the vast tactical improvements gained from being able to tell your units to hold fire.
That request certainly isn't without problems, much like the other "switching modes" request, but even a simple and GUI-lacking implementation would already open up a whole lot of new options for players.
Kill: #924
Support: #461
Fight 2
I have already explained, in detail, that there is nothing "gimmicky" about land on water, and eva's concern could be addressed by making the buildable land destroyable.
Overall, I think you either didn't read my previous judgement, or you're still lacking creativity.
Given that Speeder still supports buildings on water, despite me having explained, in detail, how worthless buildings on water are without something for factory production to stand on, I'm guessing the former.
Either way, I'm voting for AI Enhancements, but not because any of you was particularly convincing in arguing against land on water, but because the AI in YR is dramatically lacking in the "I" part, and that's a more pressing issue.
Kill: #943
Support: #612
RE: DFD-R3: 461 vs. 924, 943 vs. 612 - DCoder - 18.08.2010
Support 461.
Support 612.
RE: DFD-R3: 461 vs. 924, 943 vs. 612 - Renegade - 18.08.2010
Result:
As seen above.