Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
DFD: 900 vs. 759, 872 vs. 359
#1
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

[0000900] multiple unit queues without additional tabs vs. [0000759] AI targeting

Fight 2

[0000872] Allow to change color of shadows (R,G,B) way vs. [0000359] Allow FreeUnit to take any unit not just vehicles

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! Dual M16

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.
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.
#2
I support any unit being accepted for the FreeUnit= tag, since it's a pointless limitation.
#3
Fight 1:
Kill #900. I can see why some people might want this, but I just don't think it offers enough to justify the effort that (according to DCoder) is necessary to implement this.
Having more control over what the AI can target and what it can not target would be more useful in my eyes (and possibly easier to implement).

Fight 2:
Out of these, I'd say kill #872. It's purely a cosmetical thing, and I don't see this being used by many modders either.
#359 OTOH has some gameplay value and I also agree with Black Shadow 750.
#4
Kill #900. As much as I like the idea, I don't see it happening. Let's improve the AI a little instead. #759 has my support.

Kill #872. I'm okay with black shadows all over the place. RA2 doesn't make much sense anyway and it's a minor visual effect sure to go mostly unnoticed. I'd rather see FreeUnit take different TechnoTypes, or multiple TechnoTypes if at all possible. #359 gets the vote.
I'm what Willis was talkin' about.
#5
I support 759 and 359

EDIT: Due to the seeming duplicate nature of 359 I'm not sure what's gonna happen - ironicly I back BOTH issues [331 and 359] in their respective fights but unless I'm just tired I can't tell them apart so am left wondering what'll happen to them and their respective "opponents"
#6
There's a big difference between 331 and 359. 359 refers to the FreeUnit= tag, 331 is on about spawning a docked unit to attack with; It has a rocket docked, it spawns a rocket to attack with. Completely different.
#7
(23.07.2010, 13:15:01)Black Shadow 750 Wrote: There's a big difference between 331 and 359. 359 refers to the FreeUnit= tag, 331 is on about spawning a docked unit to attack with; It has a rocket docked, it spawns a rocket to attack with. Completely different.
In light of this I accept tiredness/lack of understanding as my reason for asking - in any event I remain in support of both issues
#8
[0000759] AI targeting would be cool, although god knows how it'd work, especially with the AI not needing to explore to see the entire map.

[0000359] seems good, removes a daft limitation too.
[Image: MRMIdAS2k.jpg]
MRMIdAS: No longer allowed to criticise Westwood on PPM
#9
Okay...

For fight one:
Simply put, I don't see any feasible way of 900 being implemented. How would you even tell the game which factory to use to build things without a complete Generals-esque overhaul of the building system? In light of that, I can't think of any argument to support this, so I'll move on.

The AI bugs mentioned in the second issue are worth a look at. The AI using super weapons on submarines issue was already resolved a while ago, but the fact that cloaked units and structures seem to have target priority among AI players despite the supposed invisibility of said units and structures is something that should probably be addressed.

Since I don't particularly like issue #900, my stance should be somewhat obvious - support #759, kill #900.


For fight two:
I can see why the first issue would probably have some merit with artists, however, do that many SHP makers really change the lighting of their mods that much that it would warrant a different shadow colour? In my opinion, this is definitely a somewhat minor issue. Do people even pay much attention to the shadows on their buildings in game?

As for the second issue, the FreeUnit limitation has been an irritance since day 1. The fact that only VehicleTypes could be created as free units removed the possibilities of something like a free Infantry mechanic with a Service Depot, or a free Harrier with an Air Force Command. While FreeUnit logic isn't a majorly overt feature in most mods, removing this limitation could go further to actually making it appealing to modders again.

As such, my stance is support #359, kill #872.
Ares Project Manager.
[Image: t3wbanner.png]
[Image: cncgsigsb_sml.png]
Open Ares positions: Documentation Maintainer, Active Testers.
PM if interested.
#10

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.
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.
#11
The consensus here seems pretty clear, and I agree with the arguments.

Fight 1


Kill: #900
Support: #759

Fight 2


Kill: #872
Support: #359
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.
#12
Fight 1
The result is pretty clear. Even though the AI is no human and it doesn't think and thus would be unable to counter stealth attacks it is the better issue to implement. The AI targeting still needs to cheat in some cases or playing against the computer would be boring. Removing this would require a completely new AI and a lot of CPU power.

Fight 2
The FreeUnit limitation removal would benefit more modders and thus gets my vote. It is indeed sad that Westwood coded many functions in rather limited ways even if it would have been easy to support all types. These limitations are just stupid.
#13
As such, the consensus is the result.
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.




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)