Posts: 1 921
Threads: 273
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Reputation:
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
[0000749] Allow the firing of burst= simultaneously vs. [0000378] Random Damage
Fight 2
[0001009] A new logic: bodyguard logic vs. [0000446] AI Changes
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: ~ 16:30, 03.07.2010.
Forum Rules
(01.06.2011, 05:43:25)kenosis Wrote: Oh damn don't be disgraced again!
(25.06.2011, 20:42:59)Nighthawk Wrote: The proverbial bearded omni-bug may be dead, but the containment campaign is still being waged in the desert.
Posts: 379
Threads: 23
Joined: 29 May 2008
Reputation:
I support [0000749] purely out of selfishness
I Support [0000446] as long as it's a proper AI overhaul, I can see where people might use bodyguard logic too, but from my perspective it's not a huge want for me.
MRMIdAS: No longer allowed to criticise Westwood on PPM
Kill #749:
Its just graphical enhancement.
i consider #378 more useful because:
- it makes sense that weapons dont do the same damage with every shot
- you can simulate graze shots, head shots and such
- can be used on almost every unit in a logical way, unlike #749
Kill #446:
there are more (important) issues concerning the AI ignoring the prerequisites.
I prefer #1009 because:
- its a great enhancement to the drone logic
- i like drones
Posts: 144
Threads: 14
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Reputation:
#378 will be used FAR more, being useable on almost any unit and in multiple ways (esp. if EMP and IRon Curtain weapon durations can use the same code). Whereas with #749 I can think of very few uses. Even IRL dual-weapon mounts don't fire in sync.
#446 can go to hell. #1009 has far more uses and the AI cheating is one of the few things that make it a challenge...
Posts: 14
Threads: 1
Joined: 4 Jun 2007
Reputation:
Let this new member say something
Support:[0000378]and[0000446]
Reason:
random damage is realistic and funny
RA2 AI is weak,need to improve
Posts: 70
Threads: 1
Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Reputation:
01.07.2010, 19:31:24
(This post was last modified: 01.07.2010, 19:35:49 by FS-21.)
Fight 1:
I see [0000378] as an attempt to replicate the damage system of the Warcraft game style.
[0000749] If I'm not wrong about what I readed it could force particle system-equipped weapons to not ignore their Burst.
Both are interesting requests, but because only one can continue this I choose the "[0000749] Allow the firing of burst= simultaneously".
Fight 2:
"[0000446] AI Changes" could be more usefull for more mods than the specific case of [0001009], so I haven't more to say about it: I choose "[0000446] AI Changes" to improve a bit more the AI.
5 different armies: GDI, Nod, Allies, Soviets & Yuri... & converted TS Terrain!!
Posts: 11
Threads: 1
Joined: 30 May 2009
Reputation:
Fight 1:
Both are dumb issues and pretty unlikely to survive. However, I don't like random damage so much, so I support 749
Fight 2:
This is a no-brainer. 1009 is a sub-case to the already-assigned-to-0.2 Slaves (#375). #446 is decent. While it's not the best, it's probably more useful then any duplicate.[/b]
Posts: 89
Threads: 0
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Reputation:
Random Damage and AI Changes are the ones I'd like to see.
Posts: 82
Threads: 0
Joined: 26 May 2010
Reputation:
(01.07.2010, 21:07:28)AlphaBravo Wrote: Fight 1:
Both are dumb issues and pretty unlikely to survive. I agree. However, out of these two I'd rather like #749 to die, it's mostly a cosmetical feature and also could potentially be emulated by #504, should that one survive.
#378 could be somewhat useful, for example to simulate a shotgun-like weapon.
(01.07.2010, 21:07:28)AlphaBravo Wrote: Fight 2:
This is a no-brainer. 1009 is a sub-case to the already-assigned-to-0.2 Slaves (#375). #446 is decent. While it's not the best, it's probably more useful then any duplicate.[/b] I completely agree.
Additionally, #446 is a feature I would VERY likely actually make use of, because my mod will have multiple houses belonging to the same side that differ by much more than just 1 or 2 units, and the way it is now this makes coding the AI a small nightmare. #446 would make things quite a bit easier.
#1009 is something I personally would not use, so I vote to kill it.
Posts: 379
Threads: 23
Joined: 29 May 2008
Reputation:
deeper explaination for 749 added to bugtracker.
MRMIdAS: No longer allowed to criticise Westwood on PPM
Posts: 1 033
Threads: 38
Joined: 23 Jan 2005
Reputation:
Fight 1:
I support #749.
749 has several uses related to the existing game. 378 is about implementing an entirely different gameplay mechanic so may not end up being that good/useful.
Fight 2:
I support #446.
1009 is complicated and would be better served via an enhancement to slave logic.
That said, I don't necessarily agree with the changes discussed in 446, but I do trust DCoder's judgement on how to choose and implement any AI changes.
Ever wondered what the hell is going on?
Believe me friend you're not the only one.
--Lysdexia
Check out Launch Base for RA2/YR - http://marshall.strategy-x.com
Also home to the Purple Alert mod, 1.002 UMP, and the YR Playlist Manager.
Posts: 82
Threads: 0
Joined: 26 May 2010
Reputation:
01.07.2010, 23:48:32
(This post was last modified: 01.07.2010, 23:49:34 by reaperrr.)
Added a comment containing an alternative suggestion on how #446's taskforce randomization could be implemented in a more useful way:
#446
Posts: 144
Threads: 14
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Reputation:
So instead of random damage (which could be really useful, especially for stuff like D-Day - Tank shells failing to penetrate -, balancing snipers - a chance to 'miss' their targets, reduction of the mathematical nature of combat - grizzly kills rhino in X shots, rhino kills grizzly in y shots, I need blah ratio to win) you gys would prefer simultaneous firing of burst= shots? Something that will have a few cosmetic uses and possibly slightly maybe kinda help railguns?
Posts: 379
Threads: 23
Joined: 29 May 2008
Reputation:
anytime "luck" gets thrown into a game of skill, people revolt, it happened in halo 3 with the (now fixed) melee system, for me, it's just not needed.
yes crates can be considered "luck", but it's highly unlikely a crate would win you the game, a grizzly missing 5 shots in a row on a 1 red bar tank is bad luck yes, but isn't remotely fair.
MRMIdAS: No longer allowed to criticise Westwood on PPM
Posts: 1 921
Threads: 273
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Reputation:
Ooooh first DFD end...exciting!
My votes are:
Fight 1
Kill [0000749] Allow the firing of burst= simultaneously
Support [0000378] Random Damage
Reason:
While I do know (from own experience) how annoying the burst handling of the game is, ultimately, I share the sentiment that this is purely a graphical enhancement, and, as pointed out by reaperr, one that can potentially be emulated by #504, should it survive.
Random damage, while certainly not something everyone would use, has the potential to change the game in far greater ways, through a comparatively "simple" enhancement.
While I acknowledge MRMIdAS's point that introducing "luck" into a game of skill can lead to frustration and potentially damage gameplay, I do think, on the other hand, that true skill is marked by the ability to lead and look ahead, succeeding through true strategy and tactics no matter the exact damage count of the weapon, rather than applying the "skill" of "he has X tanks with Y damage, so I need A tanks with B damage to win".
Being able to calculate when exactly your force has more hitpoints and more damage per second and then rushing the enemy base is not a sign of skill, imo.
Fight 2
Kill [0000446] AI Changes
Support [0001009] A new logic: bodyguard logic
Reason:
This one was a bit tougher, because, while the AI changes would have greater overall effect on the game, they are far less noticeable to the player, and the desired factory behavior can largely be emulated through exactly the technique the request would like to make unnecessary.
Ultimately, the request raises a valid point and desirable changes to the AI system, but those changes would largely go unnoticed by the majority of players, and not really enable anything new to the modder. Whether the AI builds 2 WarFacs normally, or because there's a clone, the outcome is the same - 2 WarFacs. It's a little more tricky with the task forces, but, again, how much of that would the player notice? If the AI builds 2 Grizzlies and 2 IFVs, how would the player know that it tried to build a Prism and failed? It's just unnoticeable.
Bodyguards, on the other hand, are a completely new dynamic that can significantly change the way the game is played - starting from VIP units with true bodyguards, over simulated squads, to emulating Generals-like drones, the system could be used in a variety of ways.
Contrary to AlphaBravo's claim, this is not necessarily a sub-case of #357, since the slaves already in the game are offensive by default - they're just coded to attack ore.
Fulfilling #357 could be done simply by allowing different weapons and freeing the targeting, whereas #1009 requires additional logic to prefer protection over aggression.
What might seem like a petty distinction is the question between a simple case of more liberties, and a more complex case of continuous mission management and threat evaluation.
Which is not to say it wouldn't make sense to do it all in one go, resolving #357 just doesn't magically add the functionality of #1009 - extra effort is required, making this a distinct issue, and the one worth pursuing, imo.
Especially with #357 being scheduled as well, to make the already free-er slaves even more versatile. Why stop half-way?
Forum Rules
(01.06.2011, 05:43:25)kenosis Wrote: Oh damn don't be disgraced again!
(25.06.2011, 20:42:59)Nighthawk Wrote: The proverbial bearded omni-bug may be dead, but the containment campaign is still being waged in the desert.
|