While still not everyone has come around, I'm glad to see the number of actual argumentations has increased since yesterday.
Fight 1
Among the actual argumentations, reaperrr's is very strong. He lists a number of very good reasons to implement #504, especially in terms of replacing and enhancing other issues.
Since there is no actual argumentation for #284 or against #504, and since it seems like #504 has more support anyway, my vote shall be thus:
Kill #284
Support #504
Fight 2
While I agree that cameo text can easily be added, personally, I don't see this as a reason for why #336 should be "redundant" or otherwise irrelevant - only as a reason for it to not be as pressing.
Just as an opponent can argue "you can easily add text with the SHP editor", a supporter can argue "I wouldn't even have to add text if this issue were implemented, and I'd have to edit and save a new file
every time I want to use that image".
To say that an issue is completely invalid because a superficially similar effect with different properties can be achieved through entirely different means is invalid, imo.
The same goes for the other issue - yes, surely you could script side changes on each individual map. But to pretend that forcing the modders to edit
every YR multiplayer map in existence is the exact same thing as making the effects a native part of the game is just ridiculous.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that reasonably available emulation isn't an argument to postpone a particular issue. But if that's the
sole argumentation, with no further reason to implement the other issue instead, and no additional reason against the issue, then it's simply not convincing to me.
Yes, stuff can be emulated. But if the mere existence of known emulations would automatically disqualify issues from implementation, then everything from BuiltAt= over real mine layers to parabombs and several other new super weapons would be closed immediately.
Possible emulation methods are a supporting factor for killing - not a reason.
The main argumentations for fight 2 seem to be:
(04.07.2010, 21:42:38)reaperrr Wrote: #1029 is more interesting but most likely requires massively more work, #336 has very little value but is most likely easier to implement.
(04.07.2010, 23:19:21)Speeder Wrote: It isn't that much of work to do a cameo with text you want it to have. Also, 1029 has some interesting things proposed and short game logic/customizable winning conditions for skirmish is something worthy to take a look at.
(05.07.2010, 11:20:48)Blade Wrote: Kill 336 since it's of little practical value except to a TC or where all icons get replaced and isn't needed strictly, its just a conveniance. That said I don't really support 1029 either, I'd much rather see Player@X work on events as well as actions in maps to emulate 1029 and many other game modes in the maps themselves.
(05.07.2010, 02:34:14)Drogan Wrote: And 1029 could bring some flexibility into skirmish gameplay.
336 is only good if your translating something into another language. otherwise, the SHP builder covers that. So 1029>336.
(06.07.2010, 05:30:23)Beowulf Wrote: Can care less about #336; #1029 could make for some interesting game modes so I vote for that.
I must say, I find it rather hilarious that Drogan, in trying to argue
against #336, actually provided the biggest argument
for it to me - as someone who tried to provide multiple language versions of a mod in the past, I most certainly would have appreciated if the textual translations of the .csf propagated over to the cameos.
I also distinctly remember wishing for TS-like cameo texts dozens of times during development, because, as much as people may argue "you can change text with the cameo editor", the truth is, editing an image file, particularly if you have to remove previous cameo text, is multiple times the work than simply adding/changing a string is.
So while yes, it
can be done with the SHP editor, that's also vastly less convenient.
However, at this point, I was convinced. I was ready to wave off #336 as a minor convenience compared to the greater flexibility #1029 would offer, and vote for the latter.
Then I actually thought about #1029 ingame.
And the more I thought about it, the more a simple thing bothered me about #1029:
It defeats the purpose.
The very idea of Short Game is that only the buildings matter, and the units can go to hell.
Your base can be swarming with enemy units, if you kill that last major base building, poof, you win. Fuck the units.
Having the giant army in your base then turn into an army of neutral maniacs does exactly the opposite of what short game is supposed to do - instead of allowing you to dispose of the enemy quickly, it prolongs the fight.
Not to mention that it's also inherently unfair: If there are three players in the game, and Player A defeats Player B, Player B shouldn't be able to defeat Player A from the grave for Player C's victory.
Let's have a look at the proposed values:
- Suicide - this does what the game already does, so it's no argument for implementing it.
- Turn.Neutral - this is pointless at best, makes no sense at all (why would the units just stop fighting and stand around for the rest of the war?), and, in a case like the one I described, where the enemy units flooded the victor's base, provides an unfair advantage to the uninvolved player, because the victor cannot fucking build until he cleaned up all the passive bums in his base.
- Turn.FreedomFighters - this is the case I pointed out above. That player is defeated. His units shouldn't form a giant allied army helping the remaining players against the victor.
- Turn.OpposingSides - this is the one that makes most sense to me in terms of achievement and fairness - Player A defeated Player B, so he should reap the benefits. But even in this case, it's not entirely consistent with the rest of the game - in the case of slaves, they switch sides when they're freed from their oppressor. Same for mind-controlled units. Are we implying that all armies in the game oppress their soldiers, and that they'd switch their allegiance asap, if only they were freed of the control of the evil commander?
As said, in general, I do think this part makes the most sense, I just think it looks silly next to the other side-switching scenarios.
So yeah. As said, I was basically convinced by the arguments of greater "flexibility [in] skirmish gameplay" and more "interesting game modes", but the more I think about it in reality, the more I think #1029 would defeat the purpose of Short Game and create unfair scenarios in the game.
Therefore, my vote shall be:
Kill #1029
Support #336
Lt Albrecht
Renegade
AlexB