DFD: 372 vs. 333, 586 vs. 324

[AlexB]

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 and the schedule.

Fight 1

---

[0000372] Have tags controling the ability to use waypoints and attack move vs. [0000333] Barrel=

Fight 2

---

[0000586] EVA Alert (Like CreateSound) On Unit Deploy vs. [0000324] Thought on UpgradeSystem

By the end of the 48 hour period, 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".
A decision will be made either way, so 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!

End: ~ 19:00, 18.07.2010.

[Striker]

1) I support #372, because I think it's a nice addition to the gameplay. While I like graphic additons like the idea of Barrels, waypoints for aircraft is something I've been long waiting for. However, if the waypoints are placed in a way, an aircraft isn't able to fly, the aircraft should fly smooth, and not straight. (This will look strange if you place a chain of waypoints crisscross and it turns 180° all the time.)
2) I support #586, because I think makes good use with, for instance, a M.A.D. tank or something like this.

[Blade]

Hmm, I'd not really support either of the first two, the air craft waypoints thing I'm sure must have 3 similar or duplicate requests in the tracker so I'm sure something like it will be implemented at some point, but the barrel things can probably already be implemented of sorts by using an invisible turret voxel and locking the turret facing as the hammer and sickle does in DeeZires mod. Guess that means I support the waypoint thing overall then.

Second fight I support 586 since 324 pertains to something that isn't even in ares yet and a voice.deploy voice or similar would be nice for a few scenarios.

[MRMIdAS]

Even though the author wants [0000372] euthanised, it gets my vote, purely upon the fact it doesn't involve (what seems to me as) tibsun bug replication fuckery.

[0000586] gets my vote, purely because [0000324] makes little sense, why not just have the unit the previous one morphs into available to that country? (i get a horrible feeling I requested that too, major brainfart on my part if so)

[Lt Albrecht]

Screw it then, 372 would mean another issue proposing a fix for guard mode on aircraft (by waypoint or manually) and so I think it just showed signs of recovery! If it has support then we can put the vial of morphine away...

333 is basically a "BAWW I can't be bothered to make a blank turret voxel and add 'turretrotates=no' woe is me!"

586 is a small thing I can see some use for (deployable superweapon like truck mounted ICBMs anyone?)
324 seems to me to be a way of abusing the already implemented to achieve an upgrade swapping one unit for another with the slight benefit of no cameos moving or build-order cancellation.

[Beowulf]

#372 for sure. Really want to see aircraft improved in YR. As it stands, they're not quite as useful as they should be. While #333 is an okay request, its usefulness is far outclassed by waypoints.

For the second battle, I really don't care who wins. Being that I don't think Ares even uses the "NewUpgradeSystem," the request is entirely useless. I'll go with #586 just for more EVA announcement love, which has been lacking in recent times.

[Darkstorm]

Fight 1

Both issues seem trivial to me, but waypoint mode for aircraft is already included. This means that the extended waypoint control has a much more limited use.

Issue 1: Again, limited in use due to aircraft way points.

Issue 2: This is just allowing the use of barrel pitching without the turret spinning.

Support: [0000333] Barrel=
Kill: [0000372] Have tags controling the ability to use waypoints and attack move

Fight 2

Issue 1: Now I can understand this coming in handy in some cases, but I see EVA events as contrary to the whole RTS thing. While attack and detection I can see as needed, creation and deploying are not really. Battlefield Awareness needs an important factor in RTS, this includes proper scouting of the battlefield and knowing what you enemy is doing. If they build or deploy a strong unit without you knowing, it should be pinned on your head. Creation event can get away since you can't keep an eye on your enemy's base all the time, but if they deploy something powerful, usually next to your base or units, to attack you, you should really know about it. So this, while optional, needs little attention in my opinion. But remember, this is all my way of looking at it.

Issue 2: This is just saying don't make elite units that have their unit type changed into that unit and retain their status. Which I think warrants more attention that the above issue.

Support: [0000324] Thought on UpgradeSystem
Kill: [0000586] EVA Alert (Like CreateSound) On Unit Deploy

[Renegade]

Fight 1

---

The way it is phrased, #372 is mostly a duplicate of #518 (which already survived round 1 last week), in that it wants waypoints for aircraft. However, since the mechanism it proposes is slightly different, I will decide upon it independently.

That being said, I think both issues are stupid - waypoints are a user-management-feature, not an ingame-combat-feature. The ability to use them shouldn't randomly be taken away - that's the same as randomly deciding that the player shouldn't be able to use the stop hotkey to stop tanks and only tanks anymore. It makes no sense. It's a player control function, and should be completely and entirely independent from the game content.
And the Barrel request is just silly...barrels with no turret? The fuck? Hardcoded to not be able to spin, too?
I would love to hear a usage case for that that doesn't involve smoking crack beforehand. Not to mention that Albrecht and others already pointed out that it can easily be done in the game as it is.

Alas, one has to die, one has to survive, and since I sure as hell don't want some n00b to take my controls away from me, the barrel crap will survive for now.
But rest assured, I'll kill it at the first chance I get.

Kill #372
Support #333

Fight 2

---

#324's inclusion in this contest is testament to the fact that, due to the volume of issues, I did the selection and pairing automatically.
It's not a real issue to discuss, and therefore, #586 wins by default.

Sorry about that, but events like this underline why we're having this contest - we have so overwhelmingly many issues that we've lost overview.

Kill #324
Support #586

[AlexB]

Fight 1
I couldn't find "TurretRotates=" and thus couldn't verify the barrel thing is already possible. I don't know how useful a barreled unit without turret would be. It's just an optical gimmick as an artillery firing only in the direction it is looking is already possible, like the Tank Destroyer. So this really is about the barrel, which is not exciting at all.

Tanking control from the player is a bad way to balance units (or what is it good for?). It should never be possible to remove this kind of functionality. How the unit behaves, what weapons it has and how much damage it can take, the modder can control. How the user commands his units is none of the modders business.

The lesser crap. Barrel=.

Fight 2
Decide about an issue with prerequisites not yet met. Great. If there is an upgrade system, i'm sure i'd like to make it customisable. Until then, i'd rather vote for the EVA deploy event.

The event isn't that stupid. Of course every player should be aware of the battlefield but I'd like to see how frantically people would react to see two Kirovs approaching their base unexpectedly. Or how the micro-management would start when EVA wouldn't warn you already lost a handfull of harvesters and you are already low on funds. Or a lightning storm comes out of nowhere. Or whatever bad thing. If something is so strong, it might be good to announce its creation or invocation to give the opponent a chance to stop it.

[Renegade]

Result:
[0000372] Have tags controling the ability to use waypoints and attack move and [0000324] Thought on UpgradeSystem die.