Renegade
03.07.2010, 18:48:29
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?
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.